[Febs]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif How do you square that circle? Seems to me to be consistent you have to deny differences between balanced and unbalanced cables, too. Do you?

Speaking only for myself, though I have listened to balanced set-ups, I have not personally had the opportunity to conduct any comparisons between balanced and unbalanced cables under controlled conditions (i.e., matching volume, etc.), nor have I ever read any reports of others who have done so. Thus, I have not formed any conclusion one way or the other.

 

[voxr3m]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif How do you square that circle? Seems to me to be consistent you have to deny differences between balanced and unbalanced cables, too. Do you?

Balanced cables work on a different principal. In general, they're used for longer runs in audio work to reduce interference when it's a bigger problem.

http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/ba...-balanced.html

3 wires with 2 carrying signals that are inverted from each other. Noise induced on the line is induced the same on both wires. Once you reach the end, one of the signals is inverted and hence the noise is as well. This results in the noise from one wire cancelling out the noise in the other.

The make up of the cable is not what's fundamental to the difference in sound. It's what's done with the signals transferred that is.

 

[unclejr]

I suppose we're doomed to have a more or less fragmented discussion on such a broad topic. Regarding below, I have not read the Krell review, but I would be wary of any claims being made on any connectors of any type on sound quality when other variables are changed. Importantly, it does not mean that the differences do not exist. I just don't see how anyone's ears or experience could listen to two totally different systems and somehow conclude that deciding factor was the connectors when so many other (and more important, arguably) things were different.

Scientifically, the idea is bad. One would have to have two nearly identical systems and be able to change just the connectors, in a perfect world. Then perhaps one could make any kind of (albeit still subjective) claims on how SQ differs as a result. Rinse, repeat for really good science.

Marketing-wise, seems to be working, however.

Huge disclaimer, I still have not read the Krell review, but I feel like this happens often enough to be generalizable. People make all kinds of silly claims all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tin ears /img/forum/go_quote.gif Good discussion on cables, but what about the RCA/xlr connectors? Isn't the connection the weakest link, regardless of what type of cable being used? Wouldn't a hardwired/soldered connection be the best solution either by hardwiring components together or by building one component that has both the source and the amp and then hardwiring that directly to the speaker's crossover? Do you cable nonbelievers feel the above might, at least, be true? Sovkiller has a good point, but what if we were already dealing with the world's best audio components and had no other place to turn in the quest for better sound? Or, let's say you were the world's best builder and designer of audio equipment and you were going to design and build the best system in the world and didn't care if you sold it or not. Would you build it in one box with all connections between source and amp hardwired with as short a connection as possible, or would you build seperate boxes and use cables with connectors? The recent Stereophile review of the $16,000 Krell integrated amp got me started with all this. Apparently, krell has come up with an entirely new way to connect Krell components called the CAST system. The reviewer felt it sounded better than both the balanced and single ended outputs. I wondered after reading this, why Krell didn't just build their cd player into the integrated amp and eliminate the connection all together. The most obvious answer to me at least, is that people probably wouldn't buy it, because it brings back the old idea of the low fi, one box solutions. I guess I am taking the long way around saying that I think companies like Krell, Bel Canto, Cary, VTL, Sim, Classe, Audio research, Macintosh,Ayre etc, etc all ready make great sources and amps. Why not start putting them together in one box and eliminate the cable fuss and cable expense? The second tier players are starting to do it. The only reason I can see to run seperate boxes is if you believe in the potential for monoblocks, up close to the speakers.

 

[tin ears]

According to the reviewer, the Krell's new CAST system keeps the signal in the current domain rather than the standard current to voltage and then back to current set up. It eliminates that extra conversion step. The other supposed advantage is that signals in the voltage domain go from low to high impedance, signals in the current domain go from high to low impedance. As a result, factors that corrupt the audio signal in the voltage domain would be sharply reduced.

Pertinent to this discussion-Corrupting factors are said to include stray capacitance and inductance which build up on circuit boards. Also, strange interactive effects caused by the impedance of cables connecting components. Stereophile July 2007 pg107-108.

 

[bigshot]

For the lengths used in a typical home stereo situation, there is no difference between balanced or unbalanced.

See ya
Steve

 

[dvw]

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxr3m /img/forum/go_quote.gif Balanced cables work on a different principal. In general, they're used for longer runs in audio work to reduce interference when it's a bigger problem. http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/ba...-balanced.html 3 wires with 2 carrying signals that are inverted from each other. Noise induced on the line is induced the same on both wires. Once you reach the end, one of the signals is inverted and hence the noise is as well. This results in the noise from one wire cancelling out the noise in the other. The make up of the cable is not what's fundamental to the difference in sound. It's what's done with the signals transferred that is.

Good point. I just want to add a balanced cable used as a single ended transport is not going to do anything for you. For the balanced cable to work you will also need a balanced amplifier.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxr3m /img/forum/go_quote.gif Balanced cables work on a different principal. In general, they're used for longer runs in audio work to reduce interference when it's a bigger problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif For the lengths used in a typical home stereo situation, there is no difference between balanced or unbalanced.

Does that mean that if you have a source and an amp that can run balanced and single ended, that the system will sound the same in both configurations if the length of cable is "typical" for a home stereo situation?

 

[markl]

Quote:

For the lengths used in a typical home stereo situation, there is no difference between balanced or unbalanced.

Brave man. So there you have it. In the end I have to respect (and can only respect) the position that if you deny the differences between all cables, you have to also deny the differences between balanced and unbalanced. Anything else is hedging, and if so, you belong on the other side of the argument--- with US.

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl /img/forum/go_quote.gif Brave man. So there you have it. In the end I have to respect (and can only respect) the position that if you deny the differences between all cables, you have to also deny the differences between balanced and unbalanced. Anything else is hedging, and if so, you belong on the other side of the argument--- with US.

Actually, it's an instance of reductio ad absurdum -- which is why I asked the question in post # 67 above. In other words, we often get to the point in these threads where we are now, which is that everything supposedly sounds the same, i.e., cables (balanced or unbalanced), amps, sources. The only thing that supposedly sounds different is speakers. And IMO, this is the "absurd" end to which the "true" skeptic's position often seems to often lead. Of course, I admit I'm overstating the argument somewhat to make the point, but it is interesting that on this forum currently are threads saying balanced and balanced are the same for short runs, and a Sony discman sounds the same as high end SACD player. Interesting.

 

[voxr3m]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilS /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, it's an instance of reductio ad absurdum -- which is why I asked the question in post # 67 above. In other words, we often get to the point in these threads where we are now, which is that everything supposedly sounds the same, i.e., cables (balanced or unbalanced), amps, sources. The only thing that supposedly sounds different is speakers. And IMO, this is the "absurd" end to which the "true" skeptic's position often seems to often lead. Of course, I admit I'm overstating the argument somewhat to make the point, but it is interesting that on this forum currently are threads saying balanced and balanced are the same for short runs, and a Sony discman sounds the same as high end SACD player. Interesting.

You guys are moving further and further away from the point of this thread.

Nobody is here to say they all sound the same. If you want to to make a point, provide some physical explanation as to why it sounds the way it does.

Save the absurdities for the silver cable thread.

 

[dvw]

Actually, I do want to know why would balanced cable sounds different than unbalanced and what is that difference? Is there a difference between balanced source vs an unbalanced one using different combination of balanced and unbalanced cable?

Also what is the typical interconnect length you guys are using. Why is it absurd that someone claimed that balanced sounds the same as unbalanced? What is short to you? At what length so you think it will make a difference?

I have been working on data transmission 20 years so I have a little knowledge on cable and signal integrity. I am not an expert as I do not work at audio frequency. But I am willing to learn the scientific fact at the audio frequency.

 

[cotdt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dvw /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, I do want to know why would balanced cable sounds different than unbalanced and what is that difference? Is there a difference between balanced source vs an unbalanced one using different combination of balanced and unbalanced cable? Also what is the typical interconnect length you guys are using. Why is it absurd that someone claimed that balanced sounds the same as unbalanced? What is short to you? At what length so you think it will make a difference? I have been working on data transmission 20 years so I have a little knowledge on cable and signal integrity. I am not an expert as I do not work at audio frequency. But I am willing to learn the scientific fact at the audio frequency.

balanced interconnects have hum cancellation, useful against things like ground loops. a noise signal that is common to both the + signal and - signal will be cancelled. the useful audio signal is inverted so they add up rather than cancel. it won't do much for RF frequencies, though. you have shielding for that.

but the headphone (or speaker) output of a balanced amp is no longer a balanced signal, since you no longer have 2 signals (+, G, -) but a single combined signal to each driver (+ and -). thus there will be no difference in the headphone cable itself but the amp outputting the signal has been "enhanced".

 

[tin ears]

Voxr3m

You have avoided my post. Answer the questions posed please.

You are focusing on the cable when the cable is not the problem at all.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif For the lengths used in a typical home stereo situation, there is no difference between balanced or unbalanced. See ya Steve

Steve we all ahve read that statement, and that argument was stated long time ago in the pro audio world, but related to the lines, the cables only, and that is the main reason the balanced topology was implemented in the studios, the long lengths of cable involved...but it is not so valid IMO for the drivers while you use balanced amps, the extra control these topolgy offer is indeed benefitial for some drivers...

 

[PhilS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by voxr3m /img/forum/go_quote.gif You guys are moving further and further away from the point of this thread. Nobody is here to say they all sound the same. If you want to to make a point, provide some physical explanation as to why it sounds the way it does. Save the absurdities for the silver cable thread.

Yes, I understand that my comments were not completely on point in terms of the initial topic of the thread, but I was making a point that was related to some of the comments in the last page or so of this thread. And I would also point out that these types of threads routinely suffer from diversions and thread krapping to a much greater extent than what has been exhibited here, and typically those of us who are in the "believer" camp are the victims of the thread diversion.

In any event, as I indicated early on, I think your initial inquiry was a reasonable one, so I will join with you in asking for a return to the topic with which you started the thread.