[luvdunhill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod /img/forum/go_quote.gif Do you have data for that? when you look into common mode rejection ratios, single ended does start to look inferior. As applied to shorter cable runs with high level signals (2v nominal) and low output impedances, noise pickup becomes trivially low in either case, but one is better than the other still.

yes, for short runs above 2v it's trivial in either case. Ironically, the one place where balanced connection would really help is a phono input, but there there is the problem of inducing extra capacitance.

My data was the fact that I lived in an area with really bad RF. I had problems with phono stages that manufacturers wouldn't believe...

 

[nikongod]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmashta /img/forum/go_quote.gif so far the only benefit i have seen anywhere regarding a fully balanced chain is interference.

there are benefits to reducing even order harmonic distortions.

the 4 benefits to the AMP compared to "single ended/unbalanced" are:
increased voltage swing
increased output current
because of these 2 things: increased power
and reduction/cancelation of even order harmonics created in the balanced chain.

now the first 3 things dont much apply to headphones: you can get adequate voltage, current or otherwise power to run any headphone to ABSURD levels from a "single ended/unbalanced' amp. The ability to shape distortions can be a strong benefit.

I think that the improved noise rejection in the cables is a nice afterthought in headphone systems. In the case of studio wiring where noise pickup is a major concern, that is all they talk about.
Quote:

Originally Posted by luvdunhill /img/forum/go_quote.gif yes, for short runs above 2v it's trivial in either case. Ironically, the one place where balanced connection would really help is a phono input, but there there is the problem of inducing extra capacitance.

The input capacatance of a balanced stage is effectively half of what a SE stage is. Very nice stuff for phono amps, and other places you need wide bandwidth.
I agree, balanced inputs on a phono-stage are the only way, and so few people use them. I ahve been running my SUT's floating for a while. I once ran them without the tonearm grounded (and even made short un-shielded wires as a temporary test a different time) with only the most nominal of effects. I guess its worth note that I dont have an RF problem.

I tried running the SUT "single ended" with 1 side grounded when I first built it, it was bad and nothing kept it from humming.

 

[m1abrams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmashta /img/forum/go_quote.gif so far the only benefit i have seen anywhere regarding a fully balanced chain is interference.

No you are forgetting what I said. By going fully balanced the entire chain you eliminate the need for a transformer or opamp circuit in the signal path. This should be enough to make someone who invested in the money for a balanced amp and modded headphone to want to go the full route.

 

[dmashta]

so a balanced chain helps to minimize even order harmonics. not sure where i read this so i may very well be wrong but i was under the impression that even order harmonics was okay (or even desired) as it lends 'richness' to the sound...at least for tube amps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod /img/forum/go_quote.gif there are benefits to reducing even order harmonic distortions. the 4 benefits to the AMP compared to "single ended/unbalanced" are: increased voltage swing increased output current because of these 2 things: increased power and reduction/cancelation of even order harmonics created in the balanced chain. now the first 3 things dont much apply to headphones: you can get adequate voltage, current or otherwise power to run any headphone to ABSURD levels from a "single ended/unbalanced' amp. The ability to shape distortions can be a strong benefit. I think that the improved noise rejection in the cables is a nice afterthought in headphone systems. In the case of studio wiring where noise pickup is a major concern, that is all they talk about. The input capacatance of a balanced stage is effectively half of what a SE stage is. Very nice stuff for phono amps, and other places you need wide bandwidth. I agree, balanced inputs on a phono-stage are the only way, and so few people use them. I ahve been running my SUT's floating for a while. I once ran them without the tonearm grounded (and even made short un-shielded wires as a temporary test a different time) with only the most nominal of effects. I guess its worth note that I dont have an RF problem. I tried running the SUT "single ended" with 1 side grounded when I first built it, it was bad and nothing kept it from humming.

 

[dmashta]

Quote:

Originally Posted by m1abrams /img/forum/go_quote.gif No you are forgetting what I said. By going fully balanced the entire chain you eliminate the need for a transformer or opamp circuit in the signal path. This should be enough to make someone who invested in the money for a balanced amp and modded headphone to want to go the full route.

got it. thanks.

 

[luvdunhill]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod /img/forum/go_quote.gif now the first 3 things dont much apply to headphones: you can get adequate voltage, current or otherwise power to run any headphone to ABSURD levels from a "single ended/unbalanced' amp.

everything in your post is well-said. I'm not really concerned about the harmonics, as there as issues with this. For example, distortion added by dual differential DACs for the sake of an all balanced chain. Balanced is DIY FOTM to some degree

 

[TimmyMac]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmashta /img/forum/go_quote.gif so a balanced chain helps to minimize even order harmonics. not sure where i read this so i may very well be wrong but i was under the impression that even order harmonics was okay (or even desired) as it lends 'richness' to the sound...at least for tube amps.

Distortion is still distortion... even order sounds far less offensive than odd order but I wouldn't say it's desired...

 

[m1abrams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvdunhill /img/forum/go_quote.gif everything in your post is well-said. I'm not really concerned about the harmonics, as there as issues with this. For example, distortion added by dual differential DACs for the sake of an all balanced chain. Balanced is DIY FOTM to some degree

I am not attacking you but I am not familiar with distortion added by dual differential DACs? You have a point of reference for me to read?

Balanced signals is far from a DIY FOTM, this is something that has been done in audio for decades. Albeit its application with headphones is relatively new but it follows the same purposes.

 

[shamu144]

OMG

I was worried that posting in this section would result in too technical discussions ! Well, here we are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikongod I personally would go for the transformer based phase splitters if you can. The only bad thing I have ever heard about lundahl transformers is that they are expensive

I understand good transformer are expensive, but it is needed if you want them to be as transparent as possible. The Lundahl transformers I am looking at are worth 250 euros for a pair, or $300 +

They better show some improvement in SQ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by m1abrams No you are forgetting what I said. By going fully balanced the entire chain you eliminate the need for a transformer or opamp circuit in the signal path. This should be enough to make someone who invested in the money for a balanced amp and modded headphone to want to go the full route.

No, it is not enough ! I have no plan to upgrade my current source to a fully/real balanced one, because simply the cost would be much much higher than buying those transformers. There are a lot more variables that affect the SQ of a source than only looking at the bal vs unbal topolgy (quality of the transport, components used, etc....).

Hence my question, trying to find out if it is worth the investment.

Thank you all for your inputs so far !

 

[m1abrams]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shamu144 /img/forum/go_quote.gif OMG I was worried that posting in this section would result in too technical discussions ! Well, here we are. I understand good transformer are expensive, but it is needed if you want them to be as transparent as possible. The Lundahl transformers I am looking at are worth 250 euros for a pair, or $300 + They better show some improvement in SQ. No, it is not enough ! I have no plan to upgrade my current source to a fully/real balanced one, because simply the cost would be much much higher than buying those transformers. There are a lot more variables that affect the SQ of a source than only looking at the bal vs unbal topolgy (quality of the transport, components used, etc....). Hence my question, trying to find out if it is worth the investment. Thank you all for your inputs so far !

For a CD player the quality of the source pretty much comes down to its DAC. So I would not recommend replacing the CD transport, maybe going with a balanced external DAC. Course cost is always an issue so your budget in the end decides how far you go. IMHO I would not go balanced unless I was prepared to go balanced the full chain at some point.

 

[m1abrams]

To add, if I were in your shoes I would keep the system the same as you have it. Save the money on the transformer to put towards a DAC fund.

 

[grawk]

If you're happy with the sound of the cd player, good transformers are a good option, IMHO.

 

[shamu144]

Thanks for all your comments,

I think I will give it a go. What kind of improvement in sound should I expect when using good transformers vs opamp (less grain maybe, added smoothness more analogic like, I don't know).

 

[grawk]

You probably won't notice much of a difference, honestly. But listen for yourself and report back