|
Post by tchaik on Feb 7, 2019 12:01:48 GMT -5
Why do we keep going over this argument about balanced vs unbalanced interconnects again and again. Balanced interconnects are a superior engineering design, period. Sometimes the improvement of balanced over unbalanced is undiscernible to human hearing and sometimes it is. You take your chances, but if you have the option, why not use the superior noise rejecting ability of balanced connectors? Unfortunately, because Emotiva has caused confusion, yet again. I'm done talking about for now. For that I am eternally grateful...............
|
|
|
Post by alexreusch on Feb 7, 2019 12:35:23 GMT -5
Guys, it does not matter if I can hear the difference or not. It's just because of the beauty of superior design. Why then even have the L/R channels balanced, if you can't hear the difference (which I think most of us will not)? If better design does not matter, why to go for a balanced system at all? So no Emotiva then? My question to you is if you can't hear a difference, how is it a "superior design". It's a "different" design, but superior is subjective. I said, most of us will not hear a difference (this does not necessary include me). At the end, I think we don't have to discuss, if balanced is superior design to unbalanced. It is very clear. If it is not in your opinion, why then all the fuss about the RMC-1 that all channels are fully balanced? If better design does not matter at all, why to buy carefully engineered high quality equipment? So why to buy an Emotiva system at all? Shouldn't we then all buy the cheapest products available on the market? The answer is: No. Because some people care about quality and well designed systems. I do. And it is not my problem, if you can't hear the difference.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 7, 2019 13:35:04 GMT -5
My question to you is if you can't hear a difference, how is it a "superior design". It's a "different" design, but superior is subjective. I said, most of us will not hear a difference (this does not necessary include me). At the end, I think we don't have to discuss, if balanced is superior design to unbalanced. It is very clear. If it is not in your opinion, why then all the fuss about the RMC-1 that all channels are fully balanced? If better design does not matter at all, why to buy carefully engineered high quality equipment? So why to buy an Emotiva system at all? Shouldn't we then all buy the cheapest products available on the market? The answer is: No. Because some people care about quality and well designed systems. I do. And it is not my problem, if you can't hear the difference. Usually when people talk about audible difference they are talking about level matched double blind tests. The interesting thing about double blind tests is that when listening between the vast majority of components that meet a widely available standard, people end up scoring no better than random guessing for which component is which. I.e. it seems to look like everything sounds the same. Things have to be quite out of whack for things to sound different in a DBT test I have noticed. So by those standards one could listen to much much cheaper equipment that also doesn’t have to perform all that great to get the same results on a DBT test. So anybody referrring to that ends up thinking that pretty much everything in the high end is kind of a waste in terms of electronics as they all “sound the same”. There is a thread on the audio science review that found an inbuilt laptop soundcard (not a special one either) ended up measuring better than a Schiit Yggdrasil. They even found smartphones that measured way better than some desktop dacs. So a lot of the users don’t know why somebody would waste money buying a $2300 Multibit Dac. The whole “it sounds good” doesn’t jive with them because a DBT test shows no difference. Your brain has somehow deluded you every time because it is so fickle it can’t be trusted. Anyway as to balance. I love balanced gear and I also think that balanced connections without balanced drive is a cop out. You want balanced, go all the way. You don’t need balanced gear to sound great. But the top gear I’ve heard have mostly been balanced. Though there is a 5 watt tube amp of B’zilla’s that I heard single ended that was quite fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 7, 2019 13:44:33 GMT -5
I said, most of us will not hear a difference (this does not necessary include me). At the end, I think we don't have to discuss, if balanced is superior design to unbalanced. It is very clear. If it is not in your opinion, why then all the fuss about the RMC-1 that all channels are fully balanced? If better design does not matter at all, why to buy carefully engineered high quality equipment? So why to buy an Emotiva system at all? Shouldn't we then all buy the cheapest products available on the market? The answer is: No. Because some people care about quality and well designed systems. I do. And it is not my problem, if you can't hear the difference. Hilarious. Balanced = carefully engineered high quality; Unbalanced = not carefully engineered low quality. That's beautiful. Someone let Conrad Johnson know that they're stuff is low quality; I'm sure they'd be grateful to be informed. You need to put down the crack-pipe son if you believe you can hear a difference on balanced surrounds. Mains - maybe; and better people than either of us still aren't even sure about that.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 7, 2019 14:02:26 GMT -5
I said, most of us will not hear a difference (this does not necessary include me). At the end, I think we don't have to discuss, if balanced is superior design to unbalanced. It is very clear. If it is not in your opinion, why then all the fuss about the RMC-1 that all channels are fully balanced? If better design does not matter at all, why to buy carefully engineered high quality equipment? So why to buy an Emotiva system at all? Shouldn't we then all buy the cheapest products available on the market? The answer is: No. Because some people care about quality and well designed systems. I do. And it is not my problem, if you can't hear the difference. Hilarious. Balanced = carefully engineered high quality; Unbalanced = not carefully engineered low quality. That's beautiful. Someone let Conrad Johnson know that they're stuff is low quality; I'm sure they'd be grateful to be informed. You need to put down the crack-pipe son if you believe you can hear a difference on balanced surrounds. Mains - maybe; and better people than either of us still aren't even sure about that. But Emotiva offers non balanced gear at lower prices for those that want it. I just don't see the problem.
|
|
|
Post by alexreusch on Feb 7, 2019 14:32:20 GMT -5
Anyway as to balance. I love balanced gear and I also think that balanced connections without balanced drive is a cop out. You want balanced, go all the way. You don’t need balanced gear to sound great. But the top gear I’ve heard have mostly been balanced. Though there is a 5 watt tube amp of B’zilla’s that I heard single ended that was quite fantastic. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely agree: You don't need balanced gear to sound great. I had plenty of unbalanced systems, that sounded really nice. The same is true for amps. There is great gear out there (multichannel, stereo, mono), that sounds simply fantastic. But right now I am using monoblocks and it was a clear upgrade quality wise compared to my multichannel amp. I also tested different cable connections and as my current systems do have RCA and XLR ports, I can say that there is a difference. I normally don't do the tests alone, I always invite a bunch of friends for listening sessions. I don't say that RCA sounds bad. I am just getting a more satisfiying sound image using XLR. Now, I do agree that for movie surround effects, XLR or RCA does not matter and probably nobody will hear a difference. But there are multichannel DSD recordings, where the surround channels are not just used for effects... it's about properly mixed multichannel music. Have a look here: bluecoastrecords.downloadsnow.net/blue-coast-collection-surroundI just like to have a balanced system.
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 7, 2019 15:16:02 GMT -5
You're talking about two different things...(If you haven't already... go back and read my post on the difference between balanced gear and balanced connections.) If you compare the output of a channel with a fully balanced fully differential DAC, to one with a "regular" DAC, you will find slightly lower levels of certain types of distortion, and possibly a slightly better S/N. Whether you find this audible or not, or prefer it "simply because it's technically better", or don't care one way or the other, is up to you.
Nope, just talking about 1 thing, I'd suggest going back and rereading my post. Everyone is aware of the benefit for long interconnect runs of a balanced connection. That's it. That's the lone benefit. People fail consistently at being able to hear a difference in 2 channel setups between good unbalanced and good balanced implementations. There is no way people will hear a difference in the surrounds That's my point - singular. A complete waste of money to have anything but the front 3 balanced and pure marketing to try and pry more money out of your pocket by manufacturers. Having 5, 10, 13 balanced surrounds is laughable. What if my surrounds are powered and there is a 16+ metre run to the rears? What if I choose to run a monoblock power amp for each channel and locate them close by the speaker? What if I have no choice but to have power cords close by even short interconnects? Some equipment has power on the LHS and some has it in the RHS, the power cords have to cross the the interconnects and/or speaker cables in many cases? In summary, everyone’s system can be different and generalising about what is OK for one doesn’t mean it’s OK for all. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Feb 7, 2019 15:51:59 GMT -5
It sounds like the only reason they will stay with full balanced for the RMC-1L is if sticking with 1 type of pcb board makes more cost/profit sense but I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more to it. They have to differentiate it from the upcoming competitors which probably isn’t fully balanced but is roon ready. Makes a little more sense that way. I’d rather pay for the RMC-1L and get an external streamer for $500. $500 for fully balanced isn’t a crazy choice. If the RMC-1 lost its channel expansion ability due to it being fully balanced then I’d say that’s a crazy trade off for surrounds but I would imagine it’s the opposite. This rare channel expandability I would assume is tied to their fully balanced approach. As for their smaller systems if you want to see me budge for a non dedicated room system they better come up with a partially balanced NAD 758v3 contender. I’m not paying twice the price for a couple balanced channels. For a dedicated room there is more to think about.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 7, 2019 16:39:05 GMT -5
What if my surrounds are powered and there is a 16+ metre run to the rears? What if I choose to run a monoblock power amp for each channel and locate them close by the speaker? What if I have no choice but to have power cords close by even short interconnects? Some equipment has power on the LHS and some has it in the RHS, the power cords have to cross the the interconnects and/or speaker cables in many cases? In summary, everyone’s system can be different and generalising about what is OK for one doesn’t mean it’s OK for all. As mentioned already, both today and in the past, balanced benefit is for long runs. Last I checked, 16+ meter runs are a long run. The reality is 99% of HT setups are in a rack and don't have their amps located near the speakers. The other reality is no one has ever mentioned having their 5, 10, or 13 surrounds powered with amps next to them. So in summary, I'm pretty comfortable generalizing for numbers like that.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 7, 2019 16:44:24 GMT -5
But Emotiva offers non balanced gear at lower prices for those that want it. I just don't see the problem. Not yet they don't, but they will. But when they do, people will still buy the 18+ balanced channels - some for bragging rights, others because they read countless people saying you have to have that for the best. And they'll pay more and get no benefit for it.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 7, 2019 16:49:16 GMT -5
They have to differentiate it from the upcoming competitors which probably isn’t fully balanced but is roon ready. Makes a little more sense that way. I Exactly - it's marketing. Except for the .01% out there who position an amp or 2 near their speakers, or have powered speakers as surrounds. Both very rare niche cases. And, once again, I want to state this is for the surrounds. Not the front 3. There are more than few people who might benefit from balanced on the front 3. No one would be able to tell the difference for any speaker outside of those.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 7, 2019 17:22:53 GMT -5
But Emotiva offers non balanced gear at lower prices for those that want it. I just don't see the problem. Not yet they don't, but they will. But when they do, people will still buy the 18+ balanced channels - some for bragging rights, others because they read countless people saying you have to have that for the best. And they'll pay more and get no benefit for it. I doubt Emotiva is getting many returns because of this supposed no benefit. I know I didn't return my XPA-1 gen 2 and couldn't be happier with my purchase. Granted they aren't driving any surround speakers. But if I had the funds, they would be!
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,940
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 7, 2019 17:25:38 GMT -5
There is such a thing as "design aesthetics" (to use one term for it). For example, an amplifier with a THD of 0.001% is technologically better than one with a THD of 0.01% - whether you can hear that difference or not. A "theoretically perfect" design would have 0% THD.... so the design that more closely approaches that goal is more perfect than the one that is further from that goal... And, as a matter of principle, that remains true whether you can hear the difference or not.
Likewise, just as the layout of the various subjects in a painting can be more or less pleasing, the design of an electronic circuit can be more or less aesthetically pleasing. (A balanced circuit is more symmetrical than an unbalanced circuit... and, if you read schematics, you can actually see this symmetry when you read it.)
And, for that matter, the latest $1 million mechanical Rolex doesn't keep time as well as a $35 quartz digital Casio... (No mechanical watch can ever match the accuracy of a mid-priced digital watch.)
But many people still find the Rolex to be much more pleasing - for other reasons.
Some people find pretty little metal gears to be aesthetically pleasing... even though they don't keep time as well as an ugly little slice of quartz.
And some find aesthetically elegant circuit designs to be similarly appealing...
And, all aesthetic considerations aside...... I have absolutely seen situations where switching from unbalanced to balanced connections has solved a hum or other noise problem. Therefore, I see having it available as an option to be better than... well... NOT having it available as an option.
Guys, it does not matter if I can hear the difference or not. It's just because of the beauty of superior design. Why then even have the L/R channels balanced, if you can't hear the difference (which I think most of us will not)? If better design does not matter, why to go for a balanced system at all? So no Emotiva then? My question to you is if you can't hear a difference, how is it a "superior design". It's a "different" design, but superior is subjective.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,940
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 7, 2019 17:41:44 GMT -5
Balanced cables also have much better noise immunity in noisy environments - even over short distances. Balanced cables are specifically very resistant to interference that is transmit through the air - like from fluorescent fixtures, or large motors, or light dimmers, or wireless microphones. Not all sources of interference will affect a given audio system, and balanced cables won't prevent all of them from causing problems in all cases, but they reduce the likelihood of those sorts of problems. (And, yes, in some rare instances they may even make a difference over a few feet.)
What if my surrounds are powered and there is a 16+ metre run to the rears? What if I choose to run a monoblock power amp for each channel and locate them close by the speaker? What if I have no choice but to have power cords close by even short interconnects? Some equipment has power on the LHS and some has it in the RHS, the power cords have to cross the the interconnects and/or speaker cables in many cases? In summary, everyone’s system can be different and generalising about what is OK for one doesn’t mean it’s OK for all. As mentioned already, both today and in the past, balanced benefit is for long runs. Last I checked, 16+ meter runs are a long run. The reality is 99% of HT setups are in a rack and don't have their amps located near the speakers. The other reality is no one has ever mentioned having their 5, 10, or 13 surrounds powered with amps next to them. So in summary, I'm pretty comfortable generalizing for numbers like that.
|
|
|
Post by adaboy on Feb 7, 2019 20:55:43 GMT -5
Praise God from whom all blessings flow........... Please don’t make his religious. It’s offensive. No it isn't... Your beliefs or lack of don't Trump anyone elses. Btw "Praising God from whom all blessings flow" isn't a religion. It was a statement. Geez
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 7, 2019 21:10:58 GMT -5
You're talking about two different things..... (If you haven't already... go back and read my post on the difference between balanced gear and balanced connections.) If you compare the output of a channel with a fully balanced fully differential DAC, to one with a "regular" DAC, you will find slightly lower levels of certain types of distortion, and possibly a slightly better S/N. Whether you find this audible or not, or prefer it "simply because it's technically better", or don't care one way or the other, is up to you.
(I would say that gear at the level of the XMC-1 and the RMC-1 is so good that many people would find the difference inaudible - but some will be certain they can tell - and leave it at that.)
A balanced CONNECTION has the much simpler benefit of being more immune to picking up noise, and especially hum, when run through long leads, especially in noisy environments, or near power cables and such. My view on that subject, which I've shared with many folks I've spoken to, is that a balanced connection is usually a worthwhile form of insurance. If things are working perfectly you're probably not going to hear a difference. However, IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HUM OR NOISE PICKUP, then the balanced connection will probably perform better than the unbalanced connection - sometimes far better. Studios and recording professionals may occasionally use a balanced connection to avoid known noise issues, with very long cables, or long runs near power connections. However, far more often, they do so simply as a form of insurance, simply to avoid the POSSIBILITY of those sorts of problems, and I would apply the same exact logic in a home system. If I was running cables through walls, I would always use balanced whenever possible, because I will be MUCH less likely to have noise issues, and I really don't want to pull wires out of the wall.
Likewise, if I was running a long subwoofer cable, because it's a long cable, and subwoofers are quite sensitive to hum, I would use a balanced cable... And, even when connecting a processor or preamp to an amp with short interconnects, I would consider balanced cables to be preferred (again, extra insurance, and the difference in cost is minimal). BUT, and this is important, I would consider the difference to be "insurance against the possibility of noise problems"; I would not expect to outright hear a difference if there are no problems. (Or, to put that differently, if I had a system that already had unbalanced cables, and no noise problems, I would not expect an improvement from replacing them with balanced cables.) So, in the case of equipment, yes, by choosing equipment that supports both, you are buying the option of taking advantage of that extra insurance. Also, in case there was any doubt, you can ALWAYS use unbalanced cables with balanced outputs with the addition of a simple low-cost passive adapter. However, there is no practical way to go the other way, and convert an unbalanced connection to balanced. (That's why, if there's only room on the panel for one connector or the other, offering a balanced connection really gives you both, but offering an unbalanced connection is a limitation.)
Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, ANY TIME YOU SEE A BALANCED INPUT OR OUTPUT CONNECTOR ON ANY OF OUR EQUIPMENT YOU ARE GETTING A TRUE BALANCED INPUT OR OUTPUT.
(This is true for most equipment from most manufacturers - although there are a few exceptions out there.)
Pretty simple, not sure why it's difficult to grasp - one can't hear a difference in balanced vs. unbalanced surrounds so one is paying needlessly for something that provides no benefit. i.e. a waste of money Yet there all these golden ears just lined up begging to tell everyone they have 18+ channels of quad differentially balanced greatness. A lot of spin doctoring and shifting of mirrors going on with you lately Keith. 🤔 Yep, and you just proved a point that in one way the design of the XMC-1 is better than the XMC-2, because it CAN be used both ways, simultaneously. Yet Big Daddy D, sells it that there is no difference. So here's a technical question for you, one that I don't KNOW the exact detailed scientific principle behind, but I do have my own thoughts. Which wire is most likely to pick up noise, hum, or interference? A long run unbalanced interconnect, or a long run speaker wire?
|
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 7, 2019 21:13:19 GMT -5
Interconnects because of the low signal level are more prone to picking up audible interference. Speaker runs pick them up too but since the signal level is higher the same level of picked up noise is less audible. This is what signal to noise means.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 7, 2019 21:15:12 GMT -5
I doubt Emotiva is getting many returns because of this supposed no benefit. I know I didn't return my XPA-1 gen 2 and couldn't be happier with my purchase. Granted they aren't driving any surround speakers. But if I had the funds, they would be! Er, um, yeah, no clue what returns have to do with this, so... I agree? Well said? Maybe?
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 7, 2019 21:19:38 GMT -5
Balanced cables also have much better noise immunity in noisy environments - even over short distances. Balanced cables are specifically very resistant to interference that is transmit through the air - like from fluorescent fixtures, or large motors, or light dimmers, or wireless microphones. Not all sources of interference will affect a given audio system, and balanced cables won't prevent all of them from causing problems in all cases, but they reduce the likelihood of those sorts of problems. (And, yes, in some rare instances they may even make a difference over a few feet.] Right. Because most people build their home theaters around their machine shop and over their electromagnetic satellite control station, and then plop their $5k processor in there with it. Good grief man, be careful or you'll throw your back out making a reach like that at your age.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 7, 2019 21:20:23 GMT -5
Interconnects because of the low signal level are more prone to picking up audible interference. Speaker runs pick them up too but since the signal level is higher the same level of picked up noise is less audible. This is what signal to noise means. So then back to a previous post of mine, which says most people, in normal applications, will typically use short interconnects, and long speaker wire. Components in the same rack, short run. Surround sound speakers all over the room, long run speaker wires. Using self powered speakers or close to speaker amps change the equation, but that does not represent most people. Not even close. So?
|
|