|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 8, 2019 10:52:16 GMT -5
My garage is 30 metres away from my lounge room and I use the MIG welder in the garage (doesn't everyone). I also have a linisher, a pedestal drill and an air compressor. The fridge with the (electronically noisy) ice maker is 15 metres away. Plus my neighbours "man cave" is 5 metres or so from my garage wall. It's just a well equipped garage, far from being a machine shop (that has a lathe and a rotary mill) plus a TIG welder and decent sized air compressor. The fact is balanced connections removed all of the EMI from my system and I gave a pair of balanced cables to my neighbour and he's happy too. I don't think Keith is reaching, even the tiniest bit, and my back is just fine thank you. Yawn. Everyone out there with a processor has a fridge, but yours is the only one that is inducing noise. If you're trying to imply your environment is the norm, or even semi-common, you not only failed, you did the opposite. I am confused why you mentioned your back is ok, though, as it's Keith's I was concerned about.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 8, 2019 10:53:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure I follow. Keith wrote, in his typical style, 1 proposed element, then a mini-novella around that element. I responded to that 1 element. I simply diluted out his wordy analogies and comparisons and addressed his core point. Now you are jumping from illogical to incomprehensible! If you say so!
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Feb 8, 2019 11:06:35 GMT -5
You’re on the losing side of this argument unless your position is you might not need fully balanced but you also might. People are pointing out sometimes you do. There shouldn’t be an argument there. If you don’t great. Save some money. There are systems that match your needs. If you want to play it safe for the future if you move and might introduce noise in a different room/house arrangement you can still opt to pay for fully balanced. Some people including myself find value in just knowing there is signal purity in the most important part of the chain especially after hearing the thoughtful responses that helped a layman like me understand more about it being pre-amplification.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 8, 2019 11:07:16 GMT -5
If these guys bought it because it was balanced and there's no benefit for them when they tried it, wouldn't they return it? I haven't seen a trend like that here at Emotiva, so I don't think this is a problem. Now Goob - how would they know it didn't give them a benefit until they could test the unbalanced versions? Besides, I'm not sure how you seem stuck on there being a "problem". I'm simply pointing out the audiophoolery of the concept that balanced surrounds is an improvement. The only thing you are pointing out is your stubbornness or inability to grasp technical concepts. Balanced connectors and/or balanced circuitry design are technological scientific improvements. To call them 'audiophoolery' is an insult to Emotiva and any of us who have technical degrees as scientists, engineers, or technicians. As you must surely know, the newer audio codecs including Atmos and DTS-X sends full range audio signals to all speaker locations. In addition to that fact, side surrounds, side heights, and atmos top speakers are all actually closer to the mlp than the front/center speakers. Thus noise may be discerned due to that closeness. Lets put this discussion to bed. I think Keith should make a sticky FAQ that we can guide future questioners of balanced theory to.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 8, 2019 11:32:19 GMT -5
Besides, I'm not sure how you seem stuck on there being a "problem". Me? I thought you had a problem. You mentioned waste of money, no benefit, people are buying this stuff though they can't hear it etc. So you want them to spend MORE money putting in unbalanced connectors? If they bought it without an unbalanced version perhaps they don't care enough to test it that way. What I'm getting at is for there to be a benefit they don't have to follow your reasons. They just have to have benefited for there to be a benefit. I am assuming if they aren't complaining or returning something they spent $5000 on, then there must have been some benefit.
|
|
|
Post by audiosyndrome on Feb 8, 2019 13:54:11 GMT -5
A length of wire is an antenna. Same length, same pick up frequencies. Doesn't matter if you call it an interconnect or a speaker wire - no difference, it's still a given length of wire. If the induced noise is on top of a low level signal such as a phono level signal, it is more likely to be audible. If the induced noise is on top of a higher level signal, such as that going to a power amp, then it is less likely to cause the same level of noise. Okay, so another tech question, and really, I'm currently enjoying this conversation because I'm trying to learn from you guys. Really. Aren't the way interconnects designed and produced, especially balanced cables, made with shielding to help with this? But how many speaker wires have such shielding? Is it not possible, or even likely, that a long speaker wire run couldn't pick up much more crap than a short run interconnect? Past power wires, past a refrigerator, past a ceiling fan etc? How about my room, where 2 of my surround speakers are located in close proximity to the entire house breaker box? Typically, any outside interference impinging on the speaker cables is shorted out by the minuscule output impedance of the driving amplifier (not so much by tube amps). The cables are essentially at ground to the interference. Russ
|
|
|
Post by Casey Leedom on Feb 8, 2019 13:58:14 GMT -5
... Also bear in mind that, since neither terminal of the speaker is grounded at the speaker end, as far as the amplifier is concerned, a speaker is a balanced load... As a result, the speaker wire on a passive speaker acts as a sort of balanced connection - any noise that is induced equally in both conductors will cancel out and result in no current flowing through the speaker.
... Huh, I hadn't thought of the speaker connection this way. Thanks for the insight. Casey
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 8, 2019 16:37:48 GMT -5
The only thing you are pointing out is your stubbornness or inability to grasp technical concepts. Balanced connectors and/or balanced circuitry design are technological scientific improvements. To call them 'audiophoolery' is an insult to Emotiva and any of us who have technical degrees as scientists, engineers, or technicians. As you must surely know, the newer audio codecs including Atmos and DTS-X sends full range audio signals to all speaker locations. In addition to that fact, side surrounds, side heights, and atmos top speakers are all actually closer to the mlp than the front/center speakers. Thus noise may be discerned due to that closeness. Lets put this discussion to bed. I think Keith should make a sticky FAQ that we can guide future questioners of balanced theory to. Sigh. And the beat goes on. I'm a degreed electrical engineer - spare me that I can't grasp the technical concept. Yes, balanced circuitry is a more sophisticated design - where I differ with you and others is whether it's better or not. That's not a technical concept. That is solely determined by whether it improves the end product or not, not just because it's more advanced technology. Balanced has been around forever. The fact that it's been argued and debated for decades that people can't reliably discern, in a properly setup 2 channel setup whether one sounds better over the other, should tell you all you need to know about the surrounds. If you think you could tell a difference in an Atmos surround that is balanced vs. unbalanced that is pure vanity. Yes balanced will reduce noise. The reality is, noise interference is exceedingly rare in a modern HT system. So if noise isn't issue, your left with no difference.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 8, 2019 16:45:14 GMT -5
The only thing you are pointing out is your stubbornness or inability to grasp technical concepts. Balanced connectors and/or balanced circuitry design are technological scientific improvements. To call them 'audiophoolery' is an insult to Emotiva and any of us who have technical degrees as scientists, engineers, or technicians. As you must surely know, the newer audio codecs including Atmos and DTS-X sends full range audio signals to all speaker locations. In addition to that fact, side surrounds, side heights, and atmos top speakers are all actually closer to the mlp than the front/center speakers. Thus noise may be discerned due to that closeness. Lets put this discussion to bed. I think Keith should make a sticky FAQ that we can guide future questioners of balanced theory to. Sigh. And the beat goes on. I'm a degreed electrical engineer - spare me that I can't grasp the technical concept. Yes, balanced circuitry is a more sophisticated design - where I differ with you and others is whether it's better or not. That's not a technical concept. That is solely determined by whether it improves the end product or not, not just because it's more advanced technology. Balanced has been around forever. The fact that it's been argued and debated for decades that people can't reliably discern, in a properly setup 2 channel setup whether one sounds better over the other, should tell you all you need to know about the surrounds. If you think you could tell a difference in an Atmos surround that is balanced vs. unbalanced that is pure vanity. Yes balanced will reduce noise. The reality is, noise interference is exceedingly rare in a modern HT system. So if noise isn't issue, your left with no difference. So when we disregard the advantage of balance drive, we are left with no advantage? If you disregard the fact that a car can go faster than a bicycle, there’s really no advantage to a car.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 8, 2019 16:51:00 GMT -5
The only thing you are pointing out is your stubbornness or inability to grasp technical concepts. Balanced connectors and/or balanced circuitry design are technological scientific improvements. To call them 'audiophoolery' is an insult to Emotiva and any of us who have technical degrees as scientists, engineers, or technicians. As you must surely know, the newer audio codecs including Atmos and DTS-X sends full range audio signals to all speaker locations. In addition to that fact, side surrounds, side heights, and atmos top speakers are all actually closer to the mlp than the front/center speakers. Thus noise may be discerned due to that closeness. Lets put this discussion to bed. I think Keith should make a sticky FAQ that we can guide future questioners of balanced theory to. Sigh. And the beat goes on. I'm a degreed electrical engineer - spare me that I can't grasp the technical concept. Yes, balanced circuitry is a more sophisticated design - where I differ with you and others is whether it's better or not. That's not a technical concept. That is solely determined by whether it improves the end product or not, not just because it's more advanced technology. Balanced has been around forever. The fact that it's been argued and debated for decades that people can't reliably discern, in a properly setup 2 channel setup whether one sounds better over the other, should tell you all you need to know about the surrounds. If you think you could tell a difference in an Atmos surround that is balanced vs. unbalanced that is pure vanity. Yes balanced will reduce noise. The reality is, noise interference is exceedingly rare in a modern HT system. So if noise isn't issue, your left with no difference. It's not an issue of sound quality, it's an issue of noise rejection. Also, fully balanced circuits have both + and = power supplies, so the signal is at a higher voltage level, thus increasing the signal to noise level even more. HT environments have many noisy components these days - Class D power modules, switching power supplies, and televisions especially plasma, not to mention many other appliances.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 8, 2019 16:51:26 GMT -5
I thought you had a problem. You mentioned waste of money, no benefit, people are buying this stuff though they can't hear it etc. So you want them to spend MORE money putting in unbalanced connectors? If they bought it without an unbalanced version perhaps they don't care enough to test it that way. What I'm getting at is for there to be a benefit they don't have to follow your reasons. They just have to have benefited for there to be a benefit. I am assuming if they aren't complaining or returning something they spent $5000 on, then there must have been some benefit. Yep, I'm saying balanced surrounds is laughable and a waste of money. Not sure how disagreeing is a problem. I simply disagree with the 18 balanced channels of RMC greatness hoopla around here. I didn't say add unbalanced connectors, rather getting a processor with balanced circuitry for anything more than the front three is a waste of money. You yourself said that's the way they have to justify the price tag, meaning it would cost less if it didn't have so many balanced channels. As for returns, that's a silly metric to use to determine if there is a difference or not.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 8, 2019 16:54:14 GMT -5
So when we disregard the advantage of balance drive, we are left with no advantage? If you disregard the fact that a car can go faster than a bicycle, there’s really no advantage to a car. Let me know when you come up with a benefit to balanced surrounds other than noise cancellation. I'm all ears. Can't wait to see that long list and compare it to a bike vs. a car.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 8, 2019 16:58:01 GMT -5
It's not an issue of sound quality, it's an issue of noise rejection. Also, fully balanced circuits have both + and = power supplies, so the signal is at a higher voltage level, thus increasing the signal to noise level even more. HT environments have many noisy components these days - Class D power modules, switching power supplies, and televisions especially plasma, not to mention many other appliances. And once again, "better" is not defined by noise rejection. "Better" is defined by which one sounds better. There are millions and millions of unbalanced HT setups, spanning decades, out there and noise isn't an issue. If it were, it would have been solved and everything would be balanced now. Who, in their right mind, would pick a system with a lower noise floor over a system higher S-N but sounds better? I'm just dumbfounded by this logic.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 8, 2019 17:01:45 GMT -5
So when we disregard the advantage of balance drive, we are left with no advantage? If you disregard the fact that a car can go faster than a bicycle, there’s really no advantage to a car. Let me know when you come up with a benefit to balanced surrounds other than noise cancellation. I'm all ears. Can't wait to see that long list and compare it to a bike vs. a car. It's not just a noise floor. It cancels distortion picked up within the gear themselves. What makes surround speakers so different? Just because they are used less? There is a guy that uses all Maggies full range including for his surrounds + XPA-1 amps on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 8, 2019 17:07:47 GMT -5
It's not an issue of sound quality, it's an issue of noise rejection. Also, fully balanced circuits have both + and = power supplies, so the signal is at a higher voltage level, thus increasing the signal to noise level even more. HT environments have many noisy components these days - Class D power modules, switching power supplies, and televisions especially plasma, not to mention many other appliances. And once again, "better" is not defined by noise rejection. "Better" is defined by which one sounds better. There are millions and millions of unbalanced HT setups, spanning decades, out there and noise isn't an issue. If it were, it would have been solved and everything would be balanced now. Who, in their right mind, would pick a system with a lower noise floor over a system higher S-N but sounds better? I'm just dumbfounded by this logic. Less noise sounds better to me. Higher SNR has been sought since audio began in every source type of playback and the higher the SNR of the source material, the more important it is to retain that throughout the entire playback system.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 8, 2019 19:59:14 GMT -5
Less noise sounds better to me. Higher SNR has been sought since audio began in every source type of playback and the higher the SNR of the source material, the more important it is to retain that throughout the entire playback system. Sure, but amps aren't noisy and haven't been for a long time. Inaudible is inaudible; you don't get more points for being more inaudible. BUT, and that's a big but, if you could hear the noise between the 2 and could reliably discern which is which and the balanced sounded better, than yes that would be a better amp. This might be possible on the mains, but it ain't gonna happen on the surrounds.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 8, 2019 20:03:27 GMT -5
It's not just a noise floor. It cancels distortion picked up within the gear themselves. What makes surround speakers so different? Just because they are used less? There is a guy that uses all Maggies full range including for his surrounds + XPA-1 amps on this forum. You sure like to mix apple and oranges. Well I would certainly say that's way overkill, but the real question would be - could he tell a difference if his surround wasn't a Maggie vs. one that was? I'd imagine he actually could. Now my point is could he tell a difference if his Maggie surround was driven by the XPA's unbalanced out? Nope. If the output was balanced but not differentially balanced could tell a difference? Double nope.
|
|
|
Post by lrobertson on Feb 8, 2019 20:46:19 GMT -5
Everything sounds pretty presumptuous on the anti balanced side no offense. I agree there is less need for balanced on surrounds on most systems. That being said if it gets rid of audible hum then that’s crazy to say it isn’t worth every penny.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 8, 2019 20:58:46 GMT -5
It's not just a noise floor. It cancels distortion picked up within the gear themselves. What makes surround speakers so different? Just because they are used less? There is a guy that uses all Maggies full range including for his surrounds + XPA-1 amps on this forum. You sure like to mix apple and oranges. Well I would certainly say that's way overkill, but the real question would be - could he tell a difference if his surround wasn't a Maggie vs. one that was? I'd imagine he actually could. Now my point is could he tell a difference if his Maggie surround was driven by the XPA's unbalanced out? Nope. If the output was balanced but not differentially balanced could tell a difference? Double nope. If it's driven by the unbalanced output, you would be using only half its power, unless I got that backwards.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 8, 2019 21:13:39 GMT -5
I'm going to shift gears with this discussion a bit and ask another really stupid question.
If XLR cables alone can help reduce noise, why then do more high end components not use XLR connections for EVERYTHING instead of RCA? Limited rear end real estate?
|
|