Is running an all balanced system an advantage?

mca · « **on:** 20 Jul 2010, 06:27 am »

Just curious is anyone has noticed a significant difference in running a system with all fully balanced components?

navi · « **Reply #1 on:** 20 Jul 2010, 07:10 am »

I find there is greater dynamics running balanced- when compared to unbalanced. But i'm sure if you had a good unbalanced system it wouldn't matter. if you are running long cables 3+ metres go balanced.

Ivan

Zero · « **Reply #2 on:** 20 Jul 2010, 09:51 am »

It depends on the system. That said, I found that going 'balanced' can sound notably better than single ended provided that all of the components in the system feature natively balanced circuits.

JimJ · « **Reply #3 on:** 20 Jul 2010, 01:36 pm »

Depends if you live in a house where the EM pollution is strong enough that it makes sense, or have cable runs that would make it a better option.

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #4 on:** 20 Jul 2010, 01:46 pm »

It depends on too many variables to answer a simple yes or no.

http://www.rane.com/note151.html

CSI · « **Reply #5 on:** 20 Jul 2010, 03:56 pm »

If you are shopping for new gear and the stuff you like happens to be balanced (preamp to amp) then it could be a good but arbitrary choice for home use. As has been pointed out, it really depends on how well designed the balanced circuits are. Not all are equal. In any case, using the balanced option vs. single ended in the same piece of gear will add extra circuitry - something to be avoided in many cases (KIS). Balanced circuits were created by the pro audio folks to keep noise from contaminating low level signals in long runs (long cables act like antennas for picking up RFI and other nasties). Next time you are in a venue where the mixing board is behind the audience, imagine running the feed from the mics all the way to the back of the auditorium on standard (single ended) RCA interconnects. It really can't be done without picking up an unacceptable amount of noise. For home use, even many meters of single ended interconnects will rarely be noisy - unless you have EM pollution or a bad RFI problem - in which case a balanced solution will help. My own gear has well designed balanced circuits on amp and preamp. I run a 1 meter IC so I don't use the balanced option. It just adds complexity for no advantage.

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #6 on:** 20 Jul 2010, 04:57 pm »

It really is not hard to use balanced in the design of equipment. It is a better interface there is no question about it. The only downside is cost and real estate. It takes more space on the back panel and it cost more to implement than a single ended version.

Since most noise in a well-designed system is the result of external influences it seems like a rational design choice to me. At least for high-end audio where cost is not the primary consideration.

avahifi · « **Reply #7 on:** 20 Jul 2010, 05:38 pm »

An all balanced system (from source to the speakers) would be useful inasmuch as all common mode distortion would be cancelled.

To execute this you need a complete four channel system from one end to the other; left plus, left minus, right plus, and right minus electronic chains.

If there is enough residual distortion in the basic circuit to be audible, then this method will cancel most of it and result in improved sound quality, whether you know the source of the distortion or not.

The down side is that this approach essentially doubles the cost of the system. You need four separate signal paths from the source to the speakers, summing the plus and minus channels at the speakers.

We have actually tired this. However, our judgement is that if the basic electronics are good enough, the cost benefit ratio is not good. However it was a very useful tool to try to learn what sonic mis-effects still resided in the equipment that we should try harder to eliminate at their sources. This did allow us to make major improvements in the basic equipment.

Note that just balanced line in and out connections are not of much value in a home audio system unless the internal circuits of the device maintain four separate balanced signal paths too. Usually this is not the case.

Regards,

Frank Van Alstine

Berto · « **Reply #8 on:** 20 Jul 2010, 05:53 pm »

While lookin to possibly upgrade into a higher end balanced IC, I read a quote from the inventor of my amps. Goes something like this > if your system is truly balanced (based on the 600 ohm standard) this technology was built to eliminate all audible artifacts in the IC. In S/E or not truly bal. he said all bets are off.

Eventually I would like to try a high end/regarded bal IC to A/B but for now focusing on putting my $ into more noticeable improvements.

Kevin Haskins · « **Reply #9 on:** 20 Jul 2010, 06:11 pm »

To my mind it is as simple as this.

We own equipment. It has to be connected to other equipment and in the process.... you don't want to add noise.

A balanced interface is only to prevent the pickup of external noise. It also has the benefit of allowing a better equipment-equipment grounding scheme so it can also have the added benefit of improving the quality of signal ground reference.

How does that shake out in the final sound? It obviously depends on how bad the single-ended situation is and what kind of external noise sources you have and the design of the attached equipment. In other words..... who knows. There are too many variables to say with any certainty. In some situations you won't have any audible improvement. At the end of the day it is a more reliable method of designing a noise resistant signal interface for a negligible cost increase (in the high-end audio scheme of things).

Just my .02

Steve · « **Reply #10 on:** 20 Jul 2010, 07:30 pm »

Quote from: CSI on 20 Jul 2010, 03:56 pm

In any case, using the balanced option vs. single ended in the same piece of gear will add extra circuitry - something to be avoided in many cases (KIS).

You took the words right out of my mouth CSI.

Simplified answer; unless one has RFI, 60hz problems etc, balanced designs add a large number of parts/circuitry (distortion producers) which will degrade the music vs optimum. Balancing is a high wire act, must be very good. And it depends upon the balanced and unbalanced component's quality. With poor quality the balanced will surely win.

Cheers.

NewBuyer · « **Reply #11 on:** 24 Jul 2010, 07:55 am »

Quote from: mca on 20 Jul 2010, 06:27 am

Just curious is anyone has noticed a significant difference in running a system with all fully balanced components?

In my case, yes. Sounded good before, but sounds even better now.

poseidonsvoice · « **Reply #12 on:** 24 Jul 2010, 09:13 am »

My system is fully balanced from dac to amp. It's definitely an improvement. You might want to ask Allen Wright of Vacuum State Electronics. He's going to say yes, balanced is better, but he'll tell you why, especially from a tube enthusiast.

But most of what Kevin H and AVAhifi have said here is correct. Cost isn't really a consideration, honestly.

Anand.

silver_strings · « **Reply #13 on:** 25 Jul 2010, 08:58 am »

I believe balanced adds 6db so its also louder

Steve · « **Reply #14 on:** 26 Jul 2010, 05:13 pm »

Quote from: silver_strings on 25 Jul 2010, 08:58 am

I believe balanced adds 6db so its also louder

Hi Silver,

If I may, that is the overall gain is higher, which most systems have plenty of anyway; even too much. More gain just means one can turn down the volume control for the same volume, not that there is actually any more power available.

Cheers.

DanTheMan · « **Reply #15 on:** 26 Jul 2010, 05:24 pm »

I thought balanced just reduced your noise floor. So in a sense it could be considered quieter if I've got that right.

Dan

Occam · « **Reply #16 on:** 26 Jul 2010, 07:40 pm »

We appear to be co-mingling technical issues here, which is quite understandable.
A balanced interface does indeed lower the incursion of noise via cabling. This does not requires a differential signal, but simply a balanced impedance of the 2 signal wires, + & -. That is easily accomplished with single ended signal outputs, like so -

from -
http://www.jensen-transformers.com/an/an003.pdf
at
http://www.jensen-transformers.com/apps_wp.html

and with the proper balanced interface load end circuitry, one has the noise rejection benefits of a balanced interface. While shielding is effective, to varying degrees against RFI incursion, unless your cable shielding is 1/4" permeable steel, nothing other than a balanced interface is effective against strong EM fields.
When that load side interface is a transformer that provides galvanic isolation, we also address signal ground loop noise.

There are components that also expect balanced signals to also be differential for proper operation. The new Mac275 comes to mind.

As Frank Van Alstine discussed, fully differential systems (or portions thereof) have many potential benefits. While these components might best be served by balanced/differential interfaces, a balanced interface's benefits do not necessarily require differential signals, just balanced impedances fed by a single ended signal.

FWIW,
Paul

ctviggen · « **Reply #17 on:** 26 Jul 2010, 07:55 pm »

Hmmm...learned a new term; I've never heard of "galvanic isolation". I've always liked balanced everything, but the interconnects become expensive, and a lot of good components do not support balanced interconnects. Because of this, I've given up on balanced systems.

Speedskater · « **Reply #18 on:** 26 Jul 2010, 08:31 pm »

It's not a new term. "galvanic isolation" is a very, very old term. Borrowed from "galvanic action or corrosion", that's what happens when you bolt different metals together and drop them in salt-water.

macrojack · « **Reply #19 on:** 26 Jul 2010, 08:33 pm »

I see fully balanced as being like 4 wheel drive. Not everybody needs it. Many people who have it don't need it. Those who really need it can't do without. It adds extra complication and expense which under most circumstances is gratuitous overkill.