[SoundGame]

In a conversation I was just having with a friend who recently acquired a Bryston BP25  to go with his BDA-1 running through a W4S power amp.  He tried moving from RCA to XLR and was instantly sold on XLR.

I've seen a number of posts on this and it seems that the general opinion is that the difference is: 1) gain increase of 6db and; 2) reduction in noise for long runs.  Other than that no real difference in sonic performance (assuming the cables are of the same quality). 

Since I have a BP6 there's no possibility to go XLR to my amp but I thought it would be interesting to know what XLR migh bring to the table. 

This really became a question because my friend described the improvement as being one of better imaging i.e. more centre focus with focals, when switching to XLR from RCA.

[ec]

I like XLR's for the functionality namely
1. the connections lock
2. the pro "microphone" cables are extremely flexible which makes it easy to route cables especially for long runs.

[SoundGame]

I like XLR's for the functionality namely
1. the connections lock
2. the pro "microphone" cables are extremely flexible which makes it easy to route cables especially for long runs.

Thanks for that - appreciated; however, I'm focused on whether there are any clear sonic improvements to be had e.g. better imaging; lower noise floor in short runs (1 to 1.5 metres); increased dynamics (given the higher voltage output).  As well, the trade-offs, such as perhaps less volume control given the doubling of potential max. gain.

[headshrinker2]

I'd be interested in educated/experienced replies to this post as well.  Most dealers I have spoken with, pretty quickly recommend using XLR (even in short runs) for the reasons you have already listed.  I've never had the chance to compare RCA and XLR with comparable IC quality.

[Levi]

It all depends on many things.  If the circuit is fully balanced, the use of XLR cables will be most beneficial.

Clear Perception of Air, detail, 3-Dimentionality and more clearly defined soundstage, etc., depends on the whole system and your sensitivity to those things.  If you can hear sonic qualities between different power cables, then it is likely that you may have a clear perception between SE and XLR cables. 

Having said that, if the interface is available...I would use it.

Thanks for that - appreciated; however, I'm focused on whether there are any clear sonic improvements to be had e.g. better imaging; lower noise floor in short runs (1 to 1.5 metres); increased dynamics (given the higher voltage output).  As well, the trade-offs, such as perhaps less volume control given the doubling of potential max. gain.

[larevoj]

Thanks for that - appreciated; however, I'm focused on whether there are any clear sonic improvements to be had e.g. better imaging; lower noise floor in short runs (1 to 1.5 metres); increased dynamics (given the higher voltage output).  As well, the trade-offs, such as perhaps less volume control given the doubling of potential max. gain.

Hi SoundGame, the difference is quite apparent. I am not expert on the difference in connection but balance connection does give a darker background meaning if there is a silent passage in the music it will be silent and you can hear into the music like the ambiance or air of instruments.

[redbook]

Since I went to xlr balanced connects between my BCD1 and the BP25. I too have enjoyed better focus and dynamics. It's worth a try if you can do it. I won't go back the rca's. I still haven't done the xlr thing between the amps. (What more to come ! )

[vegasdave]

I go from RCA to XLR between the BP6 and the 4BSST. I'm probably not getting the advantages of balanced, but it's just how my cables were configured. I might go to Bryston RCA to RCA cables.

[SoundGame]

I go from RCA to XLR between the BP6 and the 4BSST. I'm probably not getting the advantages of balanced, but it's just how my cables were configured. I might go to Bryston RCA to RCA cables.

Yes - from the research I've done so far - there is no advantage of using a RCA to XLR conversion IC, other than the positive lock feature with the XLR plug that some seem to like.  If you are happy with your current cable, it's probably a waste to look for an RCA to RCA replacement.  You're in the same boat as me with your BP6 i.e. true balanced connection is not a possibility.  However, I would still like to get as much experience from those who do have the option, as perhaps, down the line, going with a fully balanced preamp might be a consideration.

[rofo]

lets keep it simple, there is no magic happening here.

A typical balanced cable contains two identical wires, which are twisted together and then wrapped with a third conductor (foil or braid) that acts as a shield.

 
The term "balanced" comes from the method of connecting each wire to identical impedances at source and load. This means that much of the electromagnetic interference will induce an equal noise voltage in each wire. Since the amplifier at the far end measures the difference in voltage between the two signal lines, noise that is identical on both wires is rejected. The noise received in the second, inverted line is applied against the first, upright signal, and cancels it out when the two signals are subtracted.

This differential signal recombination can be implemented with a differential amplifier. A balun may also be used instead of an active differential amplifier device.

The wires are also twisted together, to reduce interference from electromagnetic induction. A twisted pair makes the loop area between the conductors as small as possible, and ensures that a magnetic field that passes equally through adjacent loops will induce equal levels of noise on both lines, which is canceled out by the differential amplifier. If the noise source is extremely close to the cable, then it is possible it will be induced on one of the lines more than the other, and it won't be canceled as well, but canceling will still occur to the extent of the amount of noise that is equal on both lines.

The separate shield of a balanced audio connection also yields a noise rejection advantage over an unbalanced two-conductor arrangement (such as used in typical home stereos) where the shield must also act as the signal return wire. Any noise currents induced into a balanced audio shield will not therefore be directly modulated onto the signal, whereas in a two-conductor system they will be. This also prevents ground loop problems, by separating the shield/chassis from signal ground.

[Levi]

Rofor:  you sounded like a robot. 

lets keep it simple, there is no magic happening here.

A typical balanced cable contains two identical wires, which are twisted together and then wrapped with a third conductor (foil or braid) that acts as a shield.

 
The term "balanced" comes from the method of connecting each wire to identical impedances at source and load. This means that much of the electromagnetic interference will induce an equal noise voltage in each wire. Since the amplifier at the far end measures the difference in voltage between the two signal lines, noise that is identical on both wires is rejected. The noise received in the second, inverted line is applied against the first, upright signal, and cancels it out when the two signals are subtracted.

This differential signal recombination can be implemented with a differential amplifier. A balun may also be used instead of an active differential amplifier device.

The wires are also twisted together, to reduce interference from electromagnetic induction. A twisted pair makes the loop area between the conductors as small as possible, and ensures that a magnetic field that passes equally through adjacent loops will induce equal levels of noise on both lines, which is canceled out by the differential amplifier. If the noise source is extremely close to the cable, then it is possible it will be induced on one of the lines more than the other, and it won't be canceled as well, but canceling will still occur to the extent of the amount of noise that is equal on both lines.

The separate shield of a balanced audio connection also yields a noise rejection advantage over an unbalanced two-conductor arrangement (such as used in typical home stereos) where the shield must also act as the signal return wire. Any noise currents induced into a balanced audio shield will not therefore be directly modulated onto the signal, whereas in a two-conductor system they will be. This also prevents ground loop problems, by separating the shield/chassis from signal ground.

[SoundGame]

lets keep it simple, there is no magic happening here.

A typical balanced cable contains two identical wires, which are twisted together and then wrapped with a third conductor (foil or braid) that acts as a shield.

 
The term "balanced" comes from the method of connecting each wire to identical impedances at source and load. This means that much of the electromagnetic interference will induce an equal noise voltage in each wire. Since the amplifier at the far end measures the difference in voltage between the two signal lines, noise that is identical on both wires is rejected. The noise received in the second, inverted line is applied against the first, upright signal, and cancels it out when the two signals are subtracted.

This differential signal recombination can be implemented with a differential amplifier. A balun may also be used instead of an active differential amplifier device.

The wires are also twisted together, to reduce interference from electromagnetic induction. A twisted pair makes the loop area between the conductors as small as possible, and ensures that a magnetic field that passes equally through adjacent loops will induce equal levels of noise on both lines, which is canceled out by the differential amplifier. If the noise source is extremely close to the cable, then it is possible it will be induced on one of the lines more than the other, and it won't be canceled as well, but canceling will still occur to the extent of the amount of noise that is equal on both lines.

The separate shield of a balanced audio connection also yields a noise rejection advantage over an unbalanced two-conductor arrangement (such as used in typical home stereos) where the shield must also act as the signal return wire. Any noise currents induced into a balanced audio shield will not therefore be directly modulated onto the signal, whereas in a two-conductor system they will be. This also prevents ground loop problems, by separating the shield/chassis from signal ground.

Doesn't sound simple to me but it also gets more complicated when you bring in how the power supply is impacted in a balanced vs. single ended approach.  My understanding is that the balanced approach puts less strain on the power supply and therefore, yields a better result, as anything that strains the power supply less will result in improvements in dynamics etc.  There are other factors to consider in the specific application.  Given the torroidal power supply that Bryston uses in it's preamps difference related to current demand may be mut.

Hopefully, James perhaps has some experience in using both RCA and XLR and / or could tap into their engineering area to share the differences in ultimate sonic performance.

[Levi]

+1

Agreed!  I do believed that the power supply is less strained in a fully balanced topology which equates to better sound.  Not only in amplifiers but also in Preamps, and sources as well. 

That is if you are sensitive enough to hear it.  I do.   

Doesn't sound simple to me but it also gets more complicated when you bring in how the power supply is impacted in a balanced vs. single ended approach.  My understanding is that the balanced approach puts less strain on the power supply and therefore, yields a better result, as anything that strains the power supply less will result in improvements in dynamics etc.  There are other factors to consider in the specific application.  Given the torroidal power supply that Bryston uses in it's preamps difference related to current demand may be mut.

Hopefully, James perhaps has some experience in using both RCA and XLR and / or could tap into their engineering area to share the differences in ultimate sonic performance.

[SoundGame]

+1

Agreed!  I do believed that the power supply is less strained in a fully balanced topology which equates to better sound.  Not only in amplifiers but also in Preamps, and sources as well. 

That is if you are sensitive enough to hear it.  I do.   

Not that I understand this fully but is balanced vs. single-ended analagous to 8ohm vs. 4ohm speakers, with respect to how they appear to the power supply.  We know in an optimal design a 4ohm speaker will yeild twice the output power from an amplifier.  It appears that balanced yields twice the output voltage (30 vrms) vs. single-ended (15vrms) from a pre-amp.  Hence, as is the case with amplifiers that face a 4ohm load vs. 8ohm load, it would seem to imply that a balanced system would actually require a more robust power supply and tax that supply to a greater degree - much like the case with 4 ohm speakers.  This is me just trying to make sense of this - I don't understand the engineering behind it but hope to become more informed by way of this thread. 

Please share your thoughts / knowledge / experience.

[rofo]

Here is a pretty good explanation http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/balanced/
Balanced vs unbalanced signals do not cause power supply stress (unless the power supply is not designed properly in the first place which would affect all signal types).

[Levi]

Even if the power supply was designed properly, why put the added load to begin with?

Here is a pretty good explanation http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/balanced/
Balanced vs unbalanced signals do not cause power supply stress (unless the power supply is not designed properly in the first place which would affect all signal types).

[vegasdave]

Yes - from the research I've done so far - there is no advantage of using a RCA to XLR conversion IC, other than the positive lock feature with the XLR plug that some seem to like.  If you are happy with your current cable, it's probably a waste to look for an RCA to RCA replacement.  You're in the same boat as me with your BP6 i.e. true balanced connection is not a possibility.  However, I would still like to get as much experience from those who do have the option, as perhaps, down the line, going with a fully balanced preamp might be a consideration.

Well, I am not drooling over a fully balanced preamp. I run 10m (approx. 33ft.) of cable between the BP6 and 4BSST; the sound is transparent and there's absolutely no noise that I can detect. 

[SoundGame]

Well, I am not drooling over a fully balanced preamp. I run 10m (approx. 33ft.) of cable between the BP6 and 4BSST; the sound is transparent and there's absolutely no noise that I can detect. 

Noise is very dependent upon quality of power, ground, environmental factors and even more detectable when your speakers are highly resolving and or higher in efficiency.  That said, some speak of a subjective blackness and added three dimensional quality that is perceived when noise levels are extremely low. 

[vegasdave]

Yes, I know that.

[SoundGame]

I found this thread where James seems to address some of the questions i.e.:

Is Bryston gear "fully" balanced - answer "no" but in fact, may be better than that
Are there advantages to "fully" balanced - yes, as it eliminates noise that your cables can pick up

How noticeable is this difference when the volume difference is set aside - doesn't appear to be a clear answer, as there are too many variables.  However, it appears that if a balanced connection is available then you should use it.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=22319.0

I've also heard that the difference from XLR cable to cable is minimal and therefore, tailoring sound characteristics with cables becomes much less of an option when running balanced.  Can anyone confirm this?