|
Post by emofrmcgy on Feb 6, 2019 17:33:59 GMT -5
Gotta say. B&O (Icepower) seems to have really hit a a homerun with their asc 300 modules. Emotiva made a good decision to add a case to it and have the new bang for your buck super differential amp of the century.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 6, 2019 17:35:32 GMT -5
That's a little reactionary. I think if I was going to buy a fully balanced amp I would want it driven fully balanced. You might not, but I don't think the idea is that weird. That's a little upside down. You buy an amp for your mains; you buy a processor for your surround configuration and then get amps to drive them.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 6, 2019 18:14:46 GMT -5
That's a little reactionary. I think if I was going to buy a fully balanced amp I would want it driven fully balanced. You might not, but I don't think the idea is that weird. That's a little upside down. You buy an amp for your mains; you buy a processor for your surround configuration and then get amps to drive them. That is one way it happens out of many. Not sure what you are trying to say
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 6, 2019 20:13:45 GMT -5
That is one way it happens out of many. Not sure what you are trying to say 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.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 6, 2019 20:39:29 GMT -5
That is one way it happens out of many. Not sure what you are trying to say 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. So it's really about home audio gear that's balanced then. Well you'll have to get annoyed at a whole bunch of audio companies then. As for the "waste of money and no audible difference", that's a discussion which will have us going around in circles. I doubt the RMC-1 L will be sold cheaper if it wasn't all balanced.
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 6, 2019 22:12:31 GMT -5
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. Ah! But your incorrect about there being no benefit and that balanced is a Waiste of money! It’s not that difficult to grasp, as you say! Balanced signals aren’t effected by errant static or magnetic fields or much of anything that would introduce noise on the audio cable. XLR cables over long distances is the preferred method. Balanced cables are not speaker cables, they are interconnects. Place the amp and processor far apart, and yeah, maybe you have something. Put them close together with long speaker wire runs and you don't. This is how most people do it. Enter a benefit of powered speakers. But this might also be a great place for nice small and light Class-D monoblocks. Run balanced wires for the long runs near the speakers, into a small light amp, then very short speaker wires to the speaker. But back to reality for most. Processor to amp = short run. Amp to surround speakers = long run. Benefit deminished.
|
|
novisnick
EmoPhile
CEO Secret Monoblock Society
Posts: 27,223
|
Post by novisnick on Feb 6, 2019 22:43:34 GMT -5
Ah! But your incorrect about there being no benefit and that balanced is a Waiste of money! It’s not that difficult to grasp, as you say! Balanced signals aren’t effected by errant static or magnetic fields or much of anything that would introduce noise on the audio cable. XLR cables over long distances is the preferred method. Balanced cables are not speaker cables, they are interconnects. Place the amp and processor far apart, and yeah, maybe you have something. Put them close together with long speaker wire runs and you don't. This is how most people do it. Enter a benefit of powered speakers. But this might also be a great place for nice small and light Class-D monoblocks. Run balanced wires for the long runs near the speakers, into a small light amp, then very short speaker wires to the speaker. But back to reality for most. Processor to amp = short run. Amp to surround speakers = long run. Benefit My bad,! Brain malfunction. 🤯
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 6, 2019 22:46:19 GMT -5
That is one way it happens out of many. Not sure what you are trying to say 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. In a quiet (electronically) room you might be correct, but many of us don't have that luck/luxury. As a result external noise eliminating interconnects are a godsend. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 6, 2019 22:51:45 GMT -5
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. In a quiet (electronically) room you might be correct, but many of us don't have that luck/luxury. As a result external noise eliminating interconnects are a godsend. Cheers Gary Wrong Gary. Read my post above.
|
|
|
Post by alexreusch on Feb 7, 2019 1:07:02 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?
|
|
|
Post by cwt on Feb 7, 2019 2:36:41 GMT -5
In a quiet (electronically) room you might be correct, but many of us don't have that luck/luxury. As a result external noise eliminating interconnects are a godsend. Cheers Gary Wrong Gary. Read my post above. One of those grey areas perhaps Bonzo ;depending on how well designed the coax shield is at rejecting rfi and hum from fridge compressors and a/c etc .. How many times have you seen balanced cables solving a hum problem ? quite a few myself.. Depends too on how well the shielding on the unbalanced is rejecting the emi/rf . Not all are well shielded ;well designed . Read once where analog rca video cables were considered a good substitute for interconnect rca's because they had superior shielding - analogue video requires high quality rf rejection for a good picture Heres a few to put the cat amongst the pigeons majorhifi.com/balanced-vs-unbalanced-cable-can-hear-difference/www.rane.com/note151.html
|
|
|
Post by Gary Cook on Feb 7, 2019 3:36:25 GMT -5
In a quiet (electronically) room you might be correct, but many of us don't have that luck/luxury. As a result external noise eliminating interconnects are a godsend. Wrong Gary. Read my post above. I’m not sure how my post dissagrees with yours. When I had RCA terminated unbalanced interconnects I could hear the ice maker in the fridge. Sure it was infrequent and very hard to hear even in silent patches. But after the change to fully balanced interconnections , facilitated by the XSP-1 and XMC-1 bingo no more ice maker noise. My wife assures me it’s the same when I’m mig welding in the garage, no more EMI from it Just to be clear it needed the fully ballanced discrete circuitry at both ends. Single ended and/or ballanced cables on itheir own didn’t achieve it. Cheers Gary
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 7, 2019 8:40:18 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?
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Feb 7, 2019 9:16:35 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.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Feb 7, 2019 10:06:11 GMT -5
Wrong Gary. Read my post above. I’m not sure how my post dissagrees with yours. When I had RCA terminated unbalanced interconnects I could hear the ice maker in the fridge. Sure it was infrequent and very hard to hear even in silent patches. But after the change to fully balanced interconnections , facilitated by the XSP-1 and XMC-1 bingo no more ice maker noise. My wife assures me it’s the same when I’m mig welding in the garage, no more EMI from it Just to be clear it needed the fully ballanced discrete circuitry at both ends. Single ended and/or ballanced cables on itheir own didn’t achieve it. Cheers Gary If you read B'zilla's review in hometheaterhifi, a balanced connection eliminated a noticeable hum from the PA-1 due to some ground loop which was audible in the RCA connection.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,938
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 7, 2019 10:37:58 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.)
That is one way it happens out of many. Not sure what you are trying to say 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.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 7, 2019 11:09:18 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.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 7, 2019 11:16:34 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.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Feb 7, 2019 11:46:45 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. You must laugh a lot!
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 7, 2019 11:58:23 GMT -5
It's why I like to hang out here. Lot's of pure gold, Jerry. Gold.
|
|