Why Single-Ended?


I’ve long wondered why some manufacturers design their components to be SE only. I work in the industry and know that "balanced" audio lines have been the pro standard (for grounding and noise reduction reasons) and home stereo units started out as single-ended designs.

One reason components are not balanced is due to cost, and it’s good to be able to get high quality sound at an affordable price.
But, with so many balanced HiFi components available these days, why have some companies not offered a fully-balanced amp or preamp in their product line?
I’m referring to fine companies such as Conrad Johnson, Consonance, Coincident, and Bob Carver’s tube amps. CJ builds amps that sell for $20-$39K, so their design is not driven by cost.

The reason I’m asking is because in a system you might have a couple of balanced sources, balanced preamp, and then the final stage might be a tube amp or monoblocks which have SE input. How much of the total signal is lost in this type of setup? IOW, are we missing out on sonic bliss by mixing balanced and unbalanced?

lowrider57

Showing 1 response by keithr

Honestly you need to audition all kinds of amplifiers (I have). They work best with different speakers as well. I personally don't like SET amps at all (and I've owned 101db and now 91db speakers and tried at least a half dozen of them). I tend to prefer 3rd harmonic over 2nd I guess. But the people who are adamant that only one way is technically correct or sounds right are to be ignored. 

Ironically, the best I've ever heard Avantgarde was Trios w/ basshorns on BAT tubes years ago. The audience gave standing ovations - but darn those complicated balanced amps :)