Balanced cables

Given the choice of a balanced or (normal) RCA connection between amp and CD which should give the best "bang for my buck". I understand that balanced come into their own on long runs , but cost more , in a 0.5m cable length can I assume that a better quality RCA would outperform a similarly priced but lower spec balanced cable.

For information my cabling at present is Kimber/Russ Andrew silver streak and 8TC

Regards

Alby

 

it is not only a case that balanced cables sound better. the real issue is that so many devices sound better through their balanced outs/ins.
you need to try them both. the length doesn't matter unless it is 2-3m and (much) more.

 

Alby - might not be what you want to hear but it's my firm view that..

1) the balanced inputs aren't necessarily better sounding.
2) that it's inexpensive to get a balanced or RCA interconnect which works just as well as more expensive offerings.

the myth of the expensive interconnect is just a marketing ploy in my view.

in my view - something like this ....

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NVA-30cm-1ft-...yZ116850QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

at £20 is as good as anything more expensive.. and why spend more?

 

from my rather limited experience with a couple of devices i tried, it is almost a rule that balanced outs sound better. i can name at least 2 pretty serious preamps - electocompaniet 4.7 and pass labs 2.5 - as well as 2 digital sources (thule CD150B player and electrocompaniet ECD-1 DAC). actually everything i tried with active ATCs sound better balanced.

also, with balanced connections you hear less difference between cables or - maybe better to put it like this - some cheap cables can perform more satisfactory through balanced connections rather than single ended. i've recently dumped kimber PBJ balanced for a no name microphone (balanced) cable i borrowed from a local studio, with a price for 2x3m terminated with neutriks of no more than 10 quid.

however only a test will tell you the truth in your system.

 

Two ways to balance, both have problems. The old way is using balancing transformers. Transformers are coils so they are subject to all the vagaries of the breed. The second way is using differential op amps. Just more bits and bobs in the circuit path to get in the way of the signal.

Balancing is for specific situations, needing long line level cable runs that can be lossy and subject to RF and AF interference. In the old days you tossed up between 100v line and balancing transformers in pro installations. Now a'days the only logical need / application for balancing is when using active loudspeakers with a remote pre-amp, the rest is just bull**** to think up something to write about and be different.

Richard

 

I'm with richard on this one ......

My gear with both balanced and single ended ...though sound different neither is better than the other.

 

I agree with Richard too. As an aside, I think there's a language thing going on, too. Every ageing hippy wants to be "balanced", right (present company excepted)? So the name somehow implies betterness. If they were called "long-run" and "short-run" interconnects I think the language would be a better reflection of what they are for.

(All IMHO and no offence to those who find a balanced advantage with specific products.)

 

i just can't believe what i'm reading

or could it be that i've picked up the only 4 units that really sound better through balanced out of millions products there...

with the exception of pass labs preamp, the differences were dramatic. EC4.7 a class bellow when used via RCA's, the same goes for their DAC. thule CDP is also a different device XLR vs RCA.

 

You create a compromise within the unit as soon as you fit the balancing circuit, even if it is not in the direct signal path when you listen. The only real comparison is to remove the balancing circuit completely and then listen. Also manufacturers play games with you, it is very easy to do and is done by certain "famous" uk companies as well. What is it I wish to promote to you, well I make that sound better The other possibility is the matching characteristics of the output stage are designed for a balanced application and the unbalanced is put in as an after thought.

It is just another flavour of the month to give them an *intellectual and emotional* advantage over their competitors. The power of a persons belief structure is considerable. Remember the US marketing ethos, "never mind the flavour, sell the sizzle".

Richard

 

Balanced connections will show a distinct advantage if they're fed into a bridged output amplifier that maintains the differential mode all the way through.

You could do this by taking a stereo single-ended power amplifier (eg a bridgeable rotel model) and take the output from a single balanced connection and feed the two halves into the two channels, bridging the amp that way.

For most components, there's very little benefit. In fact, with my NAD S300 I found that using the RCA from the DAC sounded better than using the balanced connections, simply because the superDAC's studio-level balanced output is so hot that the usable range on the volume control was very small (7-9 o'clock).