If your IC connections are 1m or less is there a difference between using XLR over RCA Interconnects?
As one moves up the ICs cable lines with a manufacturer (ex. Audioquest) which connections would you upgrade first and in what order.
My system is McIntosh (C12000 two part preamp, Men220 room equalizer, MC611 mono-amps), Audioquest (AQ) Niagara 5000 line conditioner, and Hi-Fi Rose 150b streamer.
I am currently using AQ Black Beauty XLR ICs. I have a pair of 1m Firebird RCA ICs and would like to replace one of the Black Beauty ICs in system configuration. Future upgrades looking for recommendations.
Presently using a AQ 2m Thunder 20A power cord from wall socket to Niagara.
Using 4ft AQ William Tell (Silver) bi-wire combo speaker cable (mono-amps to 800d3 speakers.
@williewonkaIf single-ended all bets are off. There is no way you can prevent single-ended cables from having an artifact unless you introduced a standard and had all the cables made to meet that standard, which would probably include a low impedance termination. That in turn would likely prevent most single-ended preamps made today from supporting the standard. So yes, I can imagine all the things you listed making a difference.
My point here is simply that's a bad thing- not a good thing because no matter how good your cable is now, next year, sooner or later, there will be a better example of that cable and so the cable you have now will be so much junk.
In my example of ARC, it’s listed in the specs, it can be measured and - most important - it can be heard. It is very, very real.
@cleedsTo accomplish that theoretical 6dB lower noise per gain stage, the constant current source has to be excellent performance so it can force the actual differential amplifier to be as differential as possible. And as you say, it is not only measurable but also audible; we're on the same page- its very, very real.
I first submitted a review on the Eichman Silver Bullet RCA;s that I had installed on my turntable
Keith Louie Eichman of KLE Innovations read the review and asked me to review his latest RCA connectors
After those reviews, he then asked me to review his RCA cables, which are very good cables
after learning some things about cables from him and the role they play in a system, I went on to design a build my first HELIX DIY cables using wire from old LAN Cables with the KLE Innovations RCA plugs. The results were so good I then started to think about better wire
During this time, several people from europe tried the HELIX DIY cables and suggested changes to the wire used, which I tried for myself and if warranted, I published the changes on the web site
One Audiogon member read about the Helix cables and decided to try them - his findings can be found here
fast torward to around 2020 - I was introduced to OCC Copper and adapted all f my cables to OCC Copper
I then introduce the AIR concept to the cables, which takes the dielectric constant to very low values, because the teflon tube insulation is not molded to the actual wire, so there is an air gap between the most of the wire and a the teflon tube. This improved clarity and details significantly
lastly, I decided to use two wires for the signal conductor, where each wire is in its own teflon tube AND I started using OCC silver
the results were very detailed, with oustanding clairty and dynamics.
The Helix DIY AIR cables are amazingly articulate and neutral, with clear and detailed performance across the entire frequency range, with an extremely dynamic performance. They propvide a truly immersive image in three dimensions
@atmasphereI have Pass Labs XP22 preamplifier and X260.8 mono amps and I can hear the difference between XLR interconnects. I’ve tried a few at various price points. The difference was enough to choose one set over another
@williewonkaI'd be curious to see if there is a difference in the sound of the cables when the supporting equipment also supports the balanced standard.
Just like single-ended, if the balanced line standard isn't supported you hear big differences between balanced cables.
But the goal of the standard is to eliminate that problem- because it is a problem! Plug and play is the goal, regardless of the cable and over the last 70 years or so, its worked really well (all hifi recordings from the 50s and 60s used balanced lines).
So it would be really interesting to see if OCC wire actually made a difference.
I see the really big advantage of balanced lines in that you don’t have to have an expensive cable with exotic materials for it to sound just as good as a cable that does have the exotic construction and materials.
if by exotic materials you are referring to OCC copper, OCC silver and low Dialectric contant insulation, then I have found that
OCC copper and OCC silver are vastly superior to ofther variants (e.g. copper alloys like Copper/gold and copper/tungston) in terms of dynamic performance
this allows them to recreate a signal that is more accurate i.e. compared to the original signal
which in turn recreates the image of the venue in which the track was recorded more accurately.
Insulations that have a low dialectric constant result in less noise being generated within the cable, hence improved clarity, which once again improved on the recreation of the recording venue in the resulting image
This applies to single ended cables and ballanced cables alike
This has been verified by many members of the audiophile community across the globe that have tried many variations of both wire types and insulatons, with whom I have conversed while developing my own DIY cables. Many of them were building XLR versions of the Helix AIR DIY RCA Cables that used the same OCC metals, and insulations.
So basically the same geometry, wire types and insulations, the only real difference being the connectors, but even they both used silver plated copper pins.
FYI, the development of these cables has taken approximately 10 years so far, with constant assessment of sound quality improvements (or changes, sometimes not for the better), by many individuals from around the globe, so there were many ears listening to many systems of varying abilities and performance levels.
But as I said earlier, in the end it boils down to individual preferences.
In my view, an extra 6db gain does not result in improved dynamics, clarity and details - it’s just louder
Since personal preferemces tend to play a large role in cable selection e.g...
I’ve known people that prefered using Duelund tinned copper over pure OCC copper, just because it sounds better to their ears
technically, OCC is faster and less prone to the timing distortions that occur when you mix two types of metal
But debating the differences between XLR and RCA for a high performance cable really is a moot point, however...
people should be aware that the differences really are miniscule in high quality cables today, so opting for RCA is not really settling for second best any more
No, it's not just "louder." For the same output level, the differentially balanced connection (such as with ARC) will yield a 6 dB better s/n
Why would I forsake that 6 dB gain (or s/n advantage) in a connection such as between pickup arm and phono preamp?
@williewonka@cleeds The 6dB increase in volume only occurs if the balanced line standard is ignored.
For example in the case of a phono cartridge, the output level does not change if the cartridge is operated either way. IOW the cartridge when operated balanced, conforms to AES48 (the balanced standard).
But if operated balanced, you have up to a 6dB improvement in the signal to noise ratio of the gain stage itself. You also have the rejection of noise that is common to the non-inverted and inverted parts of the signal. So a power transformer by the cable is far less able to induce hum into it.
The 6dB improvement in signal to noise of the gain stage is theoretical. The greater the differential effect that is winnowed out of the gain stage the more you approach that possibility. To that end, and this is directed at cleeds, the constant current source feeding the differential amplifier is the key to the differential amplifier's performance. So if you wanted to improve your ARC preamp's performance this would be the thing to investigate.
I see the really big advantage of balanced lines in that you don't have to have an expensive cable with exotic materials for it to sound just as good as a cable that does have the exotic construction and materials. IOW you get cable immunity. I've demonstrated this many times over the last 40 years.
Where this really plays out well is the tonearm cable! If there is any place to really get it right, this is it, because no matter how good your preamp, amps and speakers are, they can't make up for any losses to the signal upstream.
... an extra 6db gain does not result in improved dynamics, clarity and details - it's just louder ...
No, it's not just "louder." For the same output level, the differentially balanced connection (such as with ARC) will yield a 6 dB better s/n.
... the signle ended RCA interconnect for a 1-2 meter cable will always be just a little superior to an XLR ables of a similar design/geometry/build.
Why would I forsake that 6 dB gain (or s/n advantage) in a connection such as between pickup arm and phono preamp? That makes no sense. And there's no way your unbalanced connection can equal the noise rejection of a balanced circuit. That's why we have balanced circuits.
The best low mass RCA connector is significantly better at transferring an audio signal than the very best XLR connector is able to achieve ...
Hmmm, that’s quite a claim.
The KLE Innovations RCA have always been outstanding RCA connectors and according to others that have compared them to some very good XLR connectors on cables of similar contruction methods and maerials, the KLEI RCA’s performed better.
This goes back abut 7 years and the KLE Innovations RCA have continued to get better in that time
RE:
Not when used between differentially balanced components that yield 6 dB better gain (or s/n) when operated in balanced mode, such as ARC.
In my view, an extra 6db gain does not result in improved dynamics, clarity and details - it’s just louder
Since personal preferemces tend to play a large role in cable selection e.g...
I’ve known people that prefered using Duelund tinned copper over pure OCC copper, just because it sounds better to their ears
technically, OCC is faster and less prone to the timing distortions that occur when you mix two types of metal
But debating the differences between XLR and RCA for a high performance cable really is a moot point, however...
people should be aware that the differences really are miniscule in high quality cables today, so opting for RCA is not really settling for second best any more
If a person really wants to improve their sound by replacing cables then I would really recommend they follow the link included in my first post above which covers the improvements that can be achieved by ensuring their cables use modern geometry, improved metals and insulations and state of the art and connectors.
The best low mass RCA connector is significantly better at transferring an audio signal than the very best XLR connector is able to achieve ...
Hmmm, that's quite a claim. It's not too difficult to buy XLR connectors that are essentially electrically perfect, so I don't see how it's possible to get "significantly better" than that.
... the signle ended RCA interconnect for a 1-2 meter cable will always be just a little superior to an XLR ables of a similar design/geometry/build.
Not when used between differentially balanced components that yield 6 dB better gain (or s/n) when operated in balanced mode, such as ARC.
If all else is equal and the cables are being used between truly balanced components, I can’t imagine a scenario where unbalanced RCA connections could be better than balanced connections.
Unfortunately all things are not equal because of the following...
The best low mass RCA connector is significantly better at transferring an audio signal than the very best XLR connector is able to achieve - i.e. at present
Then there are the insulations and cable geometries, which can only really be "equaled" with a very custom cable build
even then the number of conductors in an XLR cables can cause noise issues within the cable itself. This noise is not canccelled out by the balanced processing of the +ve and -ve signals in the component because it resides on the neutral conductor, which impacts circuit performance
OK, so even with the very best cables we are talking miniscule differences here, but the signle ended RCA interconnect for a 1-2 meter cable will always be just a little superior to an XLR ables of a similar design/geometry/build.
Due to the complexities of cable design there are very few people that will step upto the task of designing/building cables having their own geometry.
So, for the most part the XLR cable will "generally" prove to be superior.
But if you are into custom built cables having their own noise supressing geometry you can spare some expense by building a single ended cable that will better the performance of a similalrly designed XLR cable.
Unfrotunately, since the internal design approaches between the XLR circuit and the single ended circuit within a component can vary, actually proving which is better is incredibly hard, especially if the component’s design is based on a balanced approach and the RCA is there just to accomodate a customer perceived preference.
@ketchupEither will work fine. I use the 2449 in my system. The quad core is a bit better if you have a noisy environment as the quad construction helps with noise rejection.
@ketchupMogami Neglex is the gold standard of high quality balanced cables in the studio. They employ oxygen free copper and polyethylene dielectrics (the only thing better perforamance is Teflon, but it does not prevent oxidation of the conductor inside, so polyethylene might be the best thing out there), so in that regard are on par with cables from the high end audio world- I've seen Mogami products rebranded on that account.
@atmasphereThat would be something like the quad core W2534? Or will the W2549 also work? They say the W2549 is a "Neglex type," but it's a two conductor cable with a shield. Not sure if it would work as well as the W2534.
... a very well designed single ended interconnect cable is every bit as good, if not better than an XLR cable due to several factors ...
If all else is equal and the cables are being used between truly balanced components, I can’t imagine a scenario where unbalanced RCA connections could be better than balanced connections.
Can you recommend some good bulk cable? I'd like to make a few balanced cables to try in my system.
@ketchupMogami Neglex is the gold standard of high quality balanced cables in the studio. They employ oxygen free copper and polyethylene dielectrics (the only thing better perforamance is Teflon, but it does not prevent oxidation of the conductor inside, so polyethylene might be the best thing out there), so in that regard are on par with cables from the high end audio world- I've seen Mogami products rebranded on that account.
I’e given a good deal of thought about this particular question and from my perspective a very well designed single ended interconnect cable is every bit as good, if not better than an XLR cable due to several factors pertaining to geometry, insulation and connectors.
please note - I’m referring to the more conventional interconnect that is generally 1-2 meters in length and not the 35+ feet
However, for those that have both XLR connections and do not want to get into the design aspects of cables, but simply purchase an interconnect - then I would recommend going with an XLR cable for the following reasons...
the noise cancelling design
the cable(wire) used is generally a better quality than those used on an RCA cables
the pins of the XLR connectors are low mass, which is now the trend on the newer styls RCA plugs, but you still see those large high mass RCA connectors glittering in Gold and Rhodium made from a large lump of metal on some very expensive interconnects.
the insulation is often much better on an XLR cables.
Higher end cables like those from Audio Envy, Zavfino and Hijiri are a different matter altogether - either style of cable will perform well.
For more details on cable design plase read this link
XLR cables and interfaces are used in audio applications because they are designed to cancel out radio interference. One side has reverse polarity to the other. When interference crosses the cables their signal moves the same direction across both sides. The two sides are reversed again at the interface so the stray signals sum to zero and get cancelled out.
As I understand it the primary reason for using XLR cables over RCA cables is to prevent a ground loop from occurring. This is especially true when using long runs of audio cable (25 feet or more), which is why XLR cables are standard in professional recording studios.
Thanks for the information re: jury rigging XLR/balanced connection. I may do so.
I became interested in the topic because I have (and love) a VPI Avenger Titan turntable with a Fat Boy tone arm. The Avenger has a separate unit where you can precisely adjust the speed of the two AC motors (that, in turn, rotate a magnetic plate). The power cord that ran from the control unit, unfortunately, was a bit stingy and ran parallel to my Cardis phono cables for a good bit and I got a fair amount of noise.
I resolved the issue with an nice, shielded, after market power cord (nothing exotic). Not sure if it was from the shielding or simply because I bought a longer cord that allowed me to drop it behind the console, so it did not run so close to the phono cables. Anyway, problem resolved.
But the process did get me thinking about balanced/XLR turntables and phono preamps.
Turns out Pro-Ject has a line of balanced turn tables, using what looks like "microphone style" XLRs, such as this:
I thought about it a bit -- and my phono preamp (which I also love) is a Parasound JC3+ (I think that's the model) and it -- despite having XLR "outs" and essentially being completely separate left and right pre-amps in one box does not anticipate XLR "in", so, given I resolved the issue (to my ears, at least) did not pursue the matter further.
I have a fair amount of Mogami wire laying about, so I may see if I can improve over the Cardis interconnects.
The value of a balanced system using balanced lines is not confined to those two goals. This is where you drift into circular reasoning. (As you well know, balanced systems also enjoy the benefit of CMNR, whether AES48 compliant or not.) Nor is it true that being non-compliant with AES48 inherently subjects a product to being sensitive to ground loops.
@cleedsYes, we covered other aspects already. I do not see how there is circular reasoning, but I do feel I've been having to repeat myself on this a bit 😁 That's circular, isn't it?
It is true that if the component does not support AES48 that it will be open to ground loops. This isn't to say that will always happen, just as with single-ended gear it doesn't always happen. But if you don't take steps to deal with the ground loop issue, it'll be a problem sooner or later. This is fact, simply because ground is being referenced by the equipment, and when ground is referenced, then noise in the ground can get amplified. That is why in balanced systems going back 70 years ground is ignored.
I don't care to debate this either since I've repeated myself so much (not all on this thread). I have been amazed at how much misinformation exists around this topic. But if you have the interest, you might take a look at this book on transformers by Bill Whitlock, of Jensen Transformers fame.
If you look at the schematics, you'll see there are no center taps- that in fact the balanced inputs and balanced outputs are always floating.
@atmaspherewe are mostly in agreement and this debate is getting tiresome.
The two benefits lost are cable immunity and susceptibility to ground loops, since ground is referenced by the output of the device. This isn’t a matter of opinion or debate. Those two things are literally the goals of the balanced line system.
The value of a balanced system using balanced lines is not confined to those two goals. This is where you drift into circular reasoning. (As you well know, balanced systems also enjoy the benefit of CMNR, whether AES48 compliant or not.) Nor is it true that being non-compliant with AES48 inherently subjects a product to being sensitive to ground loops. Again, it is implementation, implementation, implementation.
We mostly agree, Ralph, so I’m inclined to leave the last word to you. Or, feel free to PM me.
You do not inherently lose "most of the benefit" of balanced components by not supporting AES48, imo. Sometimes it’s better, sometimes it’s not.
@cleeds The two benefits lost are cable immunity and susceptibility to ground loops, since ground is referenced by the output of the device. This isn’t a matter of opinion or debate. Those two things are literally the goals of the balanced line system. The cable immunity aspect is what made long distance phone calls possible- so it was the phone company that embraced balanced lines first. Record labels saw very quickly what that benefit was for placing mics properly and being able to run long cables without noise or bandwidth problems. This was one of the most important technologies to usher in the age of HiFi in the early 50s.
But imagine a room full of equipment, and I mean full. You literally can’t afford to have a ground loop shut you down, it might take days to find the errant component while an orchestra is on the clock.
I’ve seen and heard AES48 compliant balanced components that sounded w-a-y better on the SE inputs and you probably have, too. When cheap tiny xformers are used for the conversion it can suck the HF right out of the sound. Same thing if cheap opamp ICs are used.
Yeah, once you’ve heard it done right there’s no going back.
Most of the equipment I’ve seen that supports AES48 is studio gear. I’ve yet to see a cheap line transformer in it, but that’s different from sucking the life out of the sound. Some of that gear I have are compressors and I only use them in emergency, since sucking the life out of the sound is basically what they do. But they have nice transformers....
Generally you can’t use opamps to support AES48. This is due to the fact that the output has to be floating and not referenced to ground. Opamps have single-ended (but likely push pull, so single-ended as opposed to balanced...) outputs. Those output circuits don’t take kindly to another opamp sinking current in them- they will blow up. So instead you need a line driver IC like this. Otherwise you might have an opamp driving some transistors which in turn drive an output transformer.
Most implementations of AES48 compliant outputs are going to be pretty decent simply because its aimed at the recording studio. But that says nothing about how the equipment sounds- that’s a whole ’nuther issue!
I’m mostly harping about the plug and play issue, which is wrapped around the fact that the cables can always be inexpensive; no need for audition.
What is debatable is the use of balanced lines actually being an advantage when the standard isn’t supported ... Sometimes its better, sometimes its not ...
I agree completely, and made that point because I disagreed with your prior claim:
the Sony doesn’t support the balanced standard ... When this sort of thing goes on, you lose most of the benefit of going balanced.
You do not inherently lose "most of the benefit" of balanced components by not supporting AES48, imo. Sometimes it’s better, sometimes it’s not. As for this:
... I don’t know of a way that has a ’negative sonic effect’ that is specific to AES48 ...
I’ve seen and heard AES48 compliant balanced components that sounded w-a-y better on the SE inputs and you probably have, too. When cheap tiny xformers are used for the conversion it can suck the HF right out of the sound. Same thing if cheap opamp ICs are used. Of course, poor implementations such as those don’t render the standard any more invalid than the standard renders all non-compliant components invalid. It all depends on the implementation.
What is the greatest advantage of using balanced components? There are multiple advantages, so the answer is subjective and debatable. In my view, the answer is lower noise. That would explain why we see so many differntially balanced components that do not comply with the AES48 standard that you tout.
There are several ways of designing an AES48 compliant component, and some have negative sonic effects. So the AES48 standard is not itself a guarantee of performance.
Of course! But it is a guarantee of plug and play insofar as the cables are concerned.
I don't know of a way that has a 'negative sonic effect' that is specific to AES48. Perhaps you could point one out to me.
I know of a good number of reasons that can cause a 'negative sonic effect' when the standard isn't supported, for example a ground loop. Nasty, and easily detected, so not really subjective.
The advantages of balanced components is different from balanced cables, since you can have single-ended equipment that uses balanced connections, like my RCA and Westerex microphone preamps.
But if we stick to your question above, the advantages are several. Its more than just lower noise; item 6 would seem to be the one in which most audiophiles would be interested, although IME that isn't always the case:
1) lower noise in each gain stage (if the circuit is differential; a 6dB theoretical noise reduction per stage of gain), You can see an advantage for high gain circuits like a phono section where you might have 12 or 18 dB less noise than an equivalent single-ended circuit.
2) greater power supply noise immunity
3) Greater rejection of magnetic fields (like from a power transformer) that might be close to the equipment
4) rejection of noise imposed on the interconnect cable by a power cord, transformer or the like (Common Mode Rejection Ratio is the term used for this)
5) immunity to ground loops
6) (if AES48 is supported) interconnect cable immunity; IOW no sonic effects caused by the cable itself.
Only item 6 might be considered subjective although its easily demonstrated so its the only item of debate.
The advantage of the cable itself is it does not have to be expensive to work perfectly. This is also easily proven so really isn't debatable.
What is debatable is the use of balanced lines actually being an advantage when the standard isn't supported. That is why this thread exists. Sometimes its better, sometimes its not, because in this circumstance, the benefit of balanced lines isn't fully realized.
... it means the Sony doesn't support the balanced standard ... When this sort of thing goes on, you lose most of the benefit of going balanced.
What is the greatest advantage of using balanced components? There are multiple advantages, so the answer is subjective and debatable. In my view, the answer is lower noise. That would explain why we see so many differntially balanced components that do not comply with the AES48 standard that you tout.
There are several ways of designing an AES48 compliant component, and some have negative sonic effects. So the AES48 standard is not itself a guarantee of performance.
2. Slight Volume Increase. No ’better’ or ’preferred’ or ’different' sound, but a discernable volume increase, IF that makes a difference. btw, other equipment, no volume difference, so it’s the Sony xa5400’s output that is slightly stronger, not the cable.
@elliottbnewcombjrIf this is the case, it means the Sony doesn't support the balanced standard. Instead, what it has is two single-ended outputs, one out of phase with the other. So when you run balanced you get 6dB more output.
If it supported the balanced standard, the output level would not change.
When this sort of thing goes on, you lose most of the benefit of going balanced. You retain the noise aspect, but the choice of cable will become important to get the best sound and you might have to deal with a ground loop (since ground is being referenced by the output of the player). Neither is an issue if AES48 is supported.
I do use balanced cabels only in the critical connections. Between the preamp and the amp between my digital streamer and the preamp and from my turn table to my phono preamp and from the phono preamp to the preamp. The rest of my connections are rca. I do hear a difference. Now my tape deck my tuner and my TV to my preamp I use rca thoses pieces ate not going to sound any better
Also when you get cabels xlr I. Peticuler get pure silver stranded wire cables they make a huge difference in the sound
I use silver wires for all my cables even the rca and ho with the silver rca ends .I bought all my inter connect cabels at morrow audio except my phono cabel. They don't make them with xlr ends . So I searched the web and found it at Westbury audio in the uk. Hope this helps Michael
My attempts with XLR: if you don’t have an interference problem, don’t waste your time or money. I ran 25 ft RCA’s and 25 ft XLR, zero difference, because I didn’t have any interference to start with, and the RCA’s didn’t get noisy either.
A stage, multitude of wires, sensitive mic cables, XLR for sure!
I did find two slight advantages using XLR from my Sony xa5400 SACD/CD player
1. XLR is a secure connection, so mess with other cables, they will not be disturbed like RCA connectors occasionally are.
2. Slight Volume Increase. No ’better’ or ’preferred’ or ’different' sound, but a discernable volume increase, IF that makes a difference. btw, other equipment, no volume difference, so it’s the Sony xa5400’s output that is slightly stronger, not the cable.
This statement is incorrect. Balanced operation can be beneficial even if the connection is only 6", since rejection of noise impinged in the cable is not a function of length. If operating balanced, that noise is rejected at the receiving end.
Max Townshend told me that RCA's are the way to go over XLR's because RCA's give "pure sound". That the additional circuitry in XLR's detract from the pure sound..
This is a common myth. If it were so, then recordings would all use single-ended connections, which they don't. The Golden Age of Stereo, which began in 1958 with the introduction of the first stereo LPs, was also ushered in by balanced lines, which allowed microphones to be placed correctly without the recording equipment being only a few feet from the performers. So this meant you could record in concert halls and the like without signal degradation before it hit the mic preamps in the tape machines of the time.
What is important to understand is the signal in a balanced line connection isn't push pull any more than it is in a single-ended cable- as long as the setup is compliant with AES48, the balanced line standard. You'll note there really isn't a standard for single-ended cables...
Literally everything in my system except the turntable have balanced connections, and I’d do that, too if I could find a turntable Inlike that was balanced.
Usually all that is required is to change out the tonearm cable. Sometimes, on cheaper stuff, this might require some soldering. But on tonearms that have the 5-pin DIN connection or RCAs with a ground post, its a simple matter of changing the cable so you can run balanced. In the case of the RCA connections, the shield of the cable goes to the ground post and the two RCA connections (center pin and the barrel) are the twisted pair within the shield. At the XLR input of the preamp, the twisted pair are pins 2 and 3 of the XLRs and the shield is pin 1. On no account should the shield of the cable contact the barrel connection of the RCA. This works a treat- you can use Mogami console wire which is low capacitance and this will work as well as any single-ended cable regardless of cost.
I've always seen the need to audition expensive cables as a hidden cost of single-ended preamps. When you run balanced, the cable cost is inconsequential if the equipment (such as the phono cartridge) supports AES48.
I appreciate everyone's response to my question and enjoyed the very detailed article provided by "ditusa". I will let you know if one pair of more expensive ICs unbalanced vs less expensive similar ICs change anything.
As always I can count on this forum to help a new-bee like me get the most out of his music.
... everything in my system except the turntable have balanced connections, and I’d do that, too if I could find a turntable Inlike that was balanced ...
Phono cartridges are inherently balanced or, if you want to be strictly accurate, they are floating. That is, there's a separate positive and negative for each channel. All that's needed to maintain that is a balanced phono preamp. It may be the best place in an audio system to use balanced lines and truly balanced components, such as ARC.
Literally everything in my system except the turntable have balanced connections, and I’d do that, too if I could find a turntable Inlike that was balanced. (Pro-ject has some new ones, but I’ve never seen them in person.)
Nothing fancy. Made with top line Mogami wire and top Furutech connections.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
