[moonboy403]

I didn't get any response in the Dedicated Source Components subforum, so I'll try my luck here!

I understand that the two most common claims of benefit from a fully differential dac:

1) 6db headroom
2) noise rejection

However, given that pretty much all the dacs I've heard don't suffer from interference and all amps that I've tried have more than enough headroom already, what's the benefit of a fully differential dac at the expense of running the signal through twice the circuitry?

Often times, I hear that it's not worth it if you get a balanced amp without a fully differential dac, but what is the reason behind it if the balanced amp offers a phase splitter which ultimately still give you balanced drive capability?

I own a fully differential dac myself, but I really didn't hear much improvement, if any at all, when I moved from RCA outs to XLR outs to the Phoenix. Admittedly though, I never did a careful comparison at the time.

 

[Icarium]

Considering that all my sources are fully differential (Except for maybe the EMU 0404 usb.. not sure on that one).. I can tell you there isn't much of a benefit. That being said.. I don't mind owning a bunch of fully differential sources

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarium /img/forum/go_quote.gif Considering that all my sources are fully differential (Except for maybe the EMU 0404 usb.. not sure on that one).. I can tell you there isn't much of a benefit. That being said.. I don't mind owning a bunch of fully differential sources

That was my impression based on my very limited experience. However, I keep seeing posts which suggests it isn't worth getting a balanced amp(even if it has a phase splitter which allows for balanced drive) unless your source fully differential which confuses me.

 

[atothex]

Well, if you have a fully differential amp, you'd want to have a balanced DAC so you don't have to convert it, right? Then you have another thing in your signal path.

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by atothex /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, if you have a fully differential amp, you'd want to have a balanced DAC, so you don't have to convert it, right? Then you have another thing in your signal path.

I guess your argument holds theoretically. I also mentioned the theoretical benefits of a fully differential dac, but I wanna know the audible benefits. I'm asking because my experience(Electrocompaniet ECD1) is limited so I'm inviting others with more experience to chime in.

 

[atothex]

Well, I'm no expert. Hopefully the following assertion is correct:

I think it depends how the conversion is done. I mean if you have an unbalanced source and an amp using cheap transformers to do it, you'll hear the cheap transformers. If you have good transformers, then it should be all good. But what if the amp is ONLY balanced, with no method of conversion? You would have to still convert it somehow before the amp, and again, the implementation affects the sound.

 

[wower]

Is it dual differential? Where there's basically 2 dacs per channel creating the -/+ L/R? Because that definitely lowers the noise floor and extracts more detail. In fact some of the really top tier players are taking this idea ne plus ultra and putting like 4 dacs per chan. The modded $30,000 NWO Esoteric being one. Balanced headphones are totally the way to go and it's taking over the hobby because the improvement is so obvious. As for having to have one's entire audio chain balanced is a bit more of a muddied issue. People having all these eargasms with vinyl are doing it with single ended equipment and there's still lots of little boutique makers of low wattage gear that swear by single ended. In the recording/PA system industry, balanced is strictly seen as a way to overcome distance. Short runs are done in single ended config without worry. Tho on paper balanced is clearly better because it negates all sorts of interference by having the inverse channel there. If this post has left you wondering about my ultimate conclusion, it's because I haven't made up my mind myself. Trust your ears.

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wower /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is it dual differential? Where there's basically 2 dacs per channel creating the -/+ L/R? Because that definitely lowers the noise floor and extracts more detail. In fact some of the really top tier players are taking this idea ne plus ultra and putting like 4 dacs per chan. The modded $30,000 NWO Esoteric being one. Balanced headphones are totally the way to go and it's taking over the hobby because the improvement is so obvious. As for having to have one's entire audio chain balanced is a bit more of a muddied issue. People having all these eargasms with vinyl are doing it with single ended equipment and there's still lots of little boutique makers of low wattage gear that swear by single ended. In the recording/PA system industry, balanced is strictly seen as a way to overcome distance. Short runs are done in single ended config without worry. Tho on paper balanced is clearly better because it negates all sorts of interference by having the inverse channel there. If this post has left you wondering about my ultimate conclusion, it's because I haven't made up my mind myself. Trust your ears.

Yes, a balanced setup would allow for interference that might've been picked up over long distances to be negated, but most of our setup's interconnects are less than 2 feet long.

As for having a lower noise floor and being more detailed, were this your personal experience assuming that the dac is fully differential and you were comparing the RCA out and XLR out?

My ears told me that the XLR out and RCA out of my DAC doesn't differ much if at all. I suspected that maybe it's just my dac and I'm curious to hear from more input.

 

[Icarium]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wower /img/forum/go_quote.gif Is it dual differential? Where there's basically 2 dacs per channel creating the -/+ L/R? Because that definitely lowers the noise floor and extracts more detail. In fact some of the really top tier players are taking this idea ne plus ultra and putting like 4 dacs per chan. The modded $30,000 NWO Esoteric being one. Balanced headphones are totally the way to go and it's taking over the hobby because the improvement is so obvious. As for having to have one's entire audio chain balanced is a bit more of a muddied issue. People having all these eargasms with vinyl are doing it with single ended equipment and there's still lots of little boutique makers of low wattage gear that swear by single ended. In the recording/PA system industry, balanced is strictly seen as a way to overcome distance. Short runs are done in single ended config without worry. Tho on paper balanced is clearly better because it negates all sorts of interference by having the inverse channel there. If this post has left you wondering about my ultimate conclusion, it's because I haven't made up my mind myself. Trust your ears.

Yup yup all my dacs have between 4-8 DACs and are at least differential with one of them being dual differential. You can get differential with only 2 and in some cases 1 DAC chip (ESS Sabre etc) so it's not really a number thing but more the architecture of the chip. Also you can have dacs with 16 dacs that are paralleled and not in any sort of differential set up. In that case the benefits are only if the DACs are carefully matched (Pain in the butt to do for any integrated circuit) as anything else will sum the errors.

I have had balanced rigs off and on for the last two years. Any of my sources (Except for EMU 0404 usb maybe though I don't really know all it does now is serve as a usb dac for my media PC these days) -> Balanced Gilmore Reference (4 board dynalo aka a dynamid) -> Qualias/LCD-1/K1000s are true balanced. And I have to say topology >>>> balanced. There are benefits and in some cases like the Sennheiser HD6X0 and I heard some say the K701 but I'm not familiar enough with the headphone myself to say for sure.. I've noticed the benefits are fairly major.. but in other things it is far more subtle maybe a teensy bit of a wider soundstage, tighter bass... but really it all could be wishful thinking.

Things that I've solidly noticed that make more of a difference are a better design/topology and maybe even more key a better power supply. Having gone up the dynalo ladder from a Gilmore Lite to a Gilmore V2 to a Balanced Gilmore Reference I am next to positive the thing that mattered most to the improvements in sound I heard was the better power supply. Wall Wart -> Headamp power supply -> Maxed out Gilmore power supply that is about on par with a sigma22. From the Gilmore Lite to the Gilmore V2 (Which is somewhere in between a lite and a gs-1) the amp went from a bit bass shy to a bass monster.

From the v2 to the balanced reference single ended the soundstage opened up much wider, the bass was on par with the v2 and now the mids are vastly improved as well. Before with the Gilmore Lite and Gilmore V2 the soundstage was nice but there was definitely a bit of a wall on either side where it felt like that was where the furthest sound would come from and nothing would come further. With the balanced gilmore reference there are no walls and distant sounds could come from where ever need to come from.

Don't take this to mean the v2/lite had small soundstages.. heh no it wasn't that at all compared to some soundstage killing pieces of gear I've heard (Grados/Monarchy M24 DAC/And I hear Melos amps though I haven't heard them myself).. but the Balanced Gilmore Reference has what almost seems to be an infinite sound stage. Not that all sounds are placed very wide, but just that there are seemingly no limits.

I swapped in balanced versions of the same cans.. and single ended interconnects for my sources and guess what? The difference is farrr subtler if any.. in fact I'm trying to recall any that I noticed and I can't besides thinking "wooooo balanced rawr!"

Moreover consider the Dynahi which I have.. which I find to be nearly on par with the balanced gilmore reference. Now.. it is a single ended amp and really the topology isn't any superior to that of the dynalo despite the nomenclature. There are some differences in output transistors which of course have a very critical effect on how a solid state apm sounds, etc etc. I find this amp to have as good bass, slightly more lush/fuller mids/the same infinite sound stage/possibly more speed and most importantly of all a very punchy presentation. The balanced reference (Single Ended) is a little bit more laid back and refined comparatively... Is it the output transistors? Is it the power supply? I don't know.. schematically there is like at least 50 or more percent overlap (I'm not actually a technical guy so I don't know exactly but I believe they share the same front end at the very least). I did comparisons with the GBR chain fully balanced and the dynahi fully single ended (As it had to be since it's completely single ended)... and shrug the findings stayed the same.

Anyway this isn't exactly conclusively evidence by any means. This is one person's anecdotal experience... but I certainly would not take a balanced mini^3 over a gilmore lite... or any sort of balanced ghetto amp over a better designed single ended amp. Balanced isn't the silver bullet for me. Topology/powersupply/source/headphones these all are going to matter a lot more. Hell.. better mastering/recording of an album will matter more too.

 

[wower]

Quote:

Originally Posted by moonboy403 /img/forum/go_quote.gif My ears told me that the XLR out and RCA out of my DAC doesn't differ much if at all. I suspected that maybe it's just my dac and I'm curious to hear from more input.

I was strictly speaking (in the first section) about dual differential dacs, I'm sorry if it got muddled with broader points about balanced topology. dual-differential dacs produce a nice quiet grain free signal. I'm not surprised you found there is little difference between the rca and xlr outs of a dual-differential dac. It follows from what I'm saying more broadly about balanced topology.

This is a quote from ashmedai from another thread I quite like (tho it isn't a perfect analogy of course):

Quote:

Originally Posted by ashmedai Think of it as if you had two spheres that have to be 120 miles apart after one hour. You could send one away from you at 120 miles per hour, or you could send them in opposite directions at 60 miles per hour. You could wrangle the first option with good enough equipment - but it is much, much easier to do the second. Balanced operation allows us to achieve much better results without using parts that are obscenely more expensive and difficult to produce. (Of course, balanced is still really expensive...)

 

[Icarium]

I'm not sure how that analogy is related.. maybe its a clean but not cost effective way to get an additional 6 db of volume, but sounds moves at the speed of sound and electrons move at the speed of light and the speed of how things move in audio is unrelated to balanced and unbalanced.

Can you further elaborate? I'm not sure it follows from what you said about balanced topology. Don't forget that I have spent time with the NWO 3.0 that you reference (Albeit not the SE version and 4.0 SE version) in Alex (The designer/creator)'s personal demo rig and with Neilvg's and Blubliss's. Also consider that the NWO comes default with single ended only RCA outputs. The balanced output, if you want the optional working XLR outputs instead of the RCA outputs, is done by a high quality transformer which is where all the output is from. So if you are basing any of your theories on balanced or differential/dual differential on the NWO... well I wouldn't basically I don't think its differential or dual differential.

 

[wower]

Sorry I can't really go further than that. My point about speaking broadly about balanced topology--and I guess I should have finished my point--is that I don't know where the ultimate answer lies. Sorry I can't go further.