A little off balance

Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Are you sure about that, preamp, or power amp? In we are to generalize, then I would think the reverse is true.
I was speaking of power amps. Most power amp input stages seem to be single-ended in overall topology, though they may have some differential individual gain stages. The most common topology I've seen for the recent solid state amps in the output stage is complementary pairs of transistors, hence they're differential. A long time ago so-called Triple Darlington topology was in vogue, but I haven't seen anyone talking about it in marketing literature for years. I used to speculate that marketing people just liked the "triple" term, because it implied better than single or double. :)
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
The real advantages of a true balanced design, balanced is better for:

Long runs
Noisy areas
Very small signals (i.e. microphones)

If you aren't dealing with one of these situations, then good quality single ended RCA will almost certainly be "good enough" and the benefit of XLR most likely won't be audible.

Still, I would prefer the XLR, but I know it's not necessary :)
I think slip’s point about being “good enough” hits the nail on the head. Home audio debates often seem to come down to two differing engineering philosophies – good enough vs. the best that money can buy. I’m on the side of good enough. Spending extra to get additional features that may not be audible makes no sense to me. Others, of course, have different thresholds for “good enough” or “too much cost”. :)

Although I think this subject has been adequately covered, I thought this brief anecdote might be interesting.

A number of years ago, a small manufacturer of audio gear, Frank Van Alstine, built a completely balanced audio system. It required a four-channel DAC and audio circuit set, a four-channel preamp, and a four-channel power amp (or two stereo power amps) maintaining balanced operation from input to output, summing the signal at the speakers. In theory, this canceled all common mode distortion in the system, and could provide audibly superior musical operation, depending upon how much distortion was originally there to cancel. Of course it also essentially doubled the cost of the audio system.

This was an experiment, and it had positive results. It produced an additional 3 dB in dynamic range. The audible improvement in this fully balanced system alerted him that there must be distortion from components in the electronic part of the audio chain that he hadn’t addressed.

This sent him on a serious effort to discover remaining weak links in the audio gear he produces and fix them at a reasonable cost, if possible. When these improved components were tried again in a fully balanced system, they resulted in only minimal improvements. The whole exercise was helpful in identifying where potential improvements might produce audible results.

An interesting question comes out of slip’s point about long runs – noisy areas – and very low (voltage) signals. Why are there never balanced interconnects coming from a phonograph? Phono cartridges put out the lowest voltage signal found in home audio, about 5 mV for a moving magnet cartridge, and they are the most prone to interference. If they don't require balanced connections, why do some people want to pay extra for balanced connections between a preamp and amp where much higher signal voltages are involved? Was it never done years ago because no one thought balanced connections were needed in home audio, or is there something inherent in these pickups that prevent using that design?
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
There is a boat load of misunderstanding in this thread.

The first issue is noise rejection. In a blanced circuit, both rails pick up the same noise and are canceled at the input. That is why good mic circuits are always balanced. This only applies to noise picked up from any given point A to a chosen point B. It does not apply to other noise like ground loops.

Almost all useful common mode rejection takes place at an input. So the biggest bang for the buck is at the high gain circuits which is almost always an input.

Unless you use a single ended triode, then the output stage of ALL amps are balanced. Most domestic amps are balanced by the phase splitting driver stage ahead of the complimentary output devices.

The next issue is quality. Now in most balanced circuits, the components must be hand matched so that the +ve deflection is the precise inverse of the -ve deflection of the sign wave. If not you have distortion. Now if you hand pick the components of any amp it will test better pretty much.

The problem is aging. The amp may start out with the components matched, but they won't stay that way. I can assure you they do not.

I was closely involved with amps, when I was the Quad western Canadian agent. We all came to the conclusion that for the highest reliability and maintenance of performance, balanced circuits should only be used where absolutely necessary. So we had the policy of domestic amps being unbalanced until the driver stage. Pro amps that would be used in line transmission, long cable runs and noisy environments would be balanced. All amps would have to have balanced output stages otherwise they were low powered wimpy amps with high distortion.

Now I think you know I'm a fanatic for long term reliability and maintenance of pristine factory specs over the long haul. This was the major impetus for the feed forward current dumping circuit. This topology IS able to compensate for as much as a 30% imbalance in the two halves of the balanced output stage.

My view is, and will remain, to only use balanced circuitry where necessary. Balanced circuits are inherently not as stable over time and they ALL drift.

That is why I'm opposed to bridging. The chance for increased distortion and unreliability is just too great for me.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
There is a boat load of misunderstanding in this thread.
I find that most responses that start out with a phrase like this have some new misunderstanding embedded in them! :)

The first issue is noise rejection. In a blanced circuit, both rails pick up the same noise and are canceled at the input. That is why good mic circuits are always balanced. This only applies to noise picked up from any given point A to a chosen point B. It does not apply to other noise like ground loops.
That's correct, but keep in mind that there are really two discussions in this thread, balanced cables and balanced circuits. Balanced cables are always, always, always better. Always. :) The only question is whether or not balanced cables are worth the additional connector cost and, in marketplace reality, space on components for XLR connectors. Yes, you can poorly implement a phase splitter and you can do a lot of other stupid things in design, but assuming a designer with even modest training it is unlikely to be screwed up.

Balanced circuits are, IMO, a somewhat different story, but some engineers, like Gene to name one, still argue that properly implemented balanced circuits are better, period. We had this discussion in a thread some time back that I'm too lazy to search for. I take a more middle ground, myself.

Almost all useful common mode rejection takes place at an input. So the biggest bang for the buck is at the high gain circuits which is almost always an input.
I was taught that the most useful common mode rejection takes place in the stages where the gain is greatest, and in a power amplifier that's the output stage.

Unless you use a single ended triode, then the output stage of ALL amps are balanced. Most domestic amps are balanced by the phase splitting driver stage ahead of the complimentary output devices.
I think "ALL" is a strong term. Some transistor amps from the 60s used output stages that weren't technically balanced. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I think all modern solid state designs use differential output stages.

The next issue is quality. Now in most balanced circuits, the components must be hand matched so that the +ve deflection is the precise inverse of the -ve deflection of the sign wave. If not you have distortion. Now if you hand pick the components of any amp it will test better pretty much.

The problem is aging. The amp may start out with the components matched, but they won't stay that way. I can assure you they do not.
Here we deviate. Aging may have been a problem decades ago, but I've seen or read no evidence that over a reasonable lifespan, say 20 years, amplifier performance is negatively impacted by drift in balanced circuits. In my own case, I had my Levinson 334 amps checked out by a friend with access to AP test equipment, and everything he measured was well below spec. [Interestingly, he did not find the high-frequency noise problem measured by Stereophile in my two samples.] The amps were twelve years old at the time. I realize that you like to keep equipment around for more like 40 years, and that you like the inherent self-adjusting nature of the Quad Current Dumping designs, but for most of us after 20 years we're ready to move on, or at least get the caps refreshed.

I was closely involved with amps, when I was the Quad western Canadian agent. We all came to the conclusion that for the highest reliability and maintenance of performance, balanced circuits should only be used where absolutely necessary. So we had the policy of domestic amps being unbalanced until the driver stage. Pro amps that would be used in line transmission, long cable runs and noisy environments would be balanced. All amps would have to have balanced output stages otherwise they were low powered wimpy amps with high distortion.

Now I think you know I'm a fanatic for long term reliability and maintenance of pristine factory specs over the long haul. This was the major impetus for the feed forward current dumping circuit. This topology IS able to compensate for as much as a 30% imbalance in the two halves of the balanced output stage.

My view is, and will remain, to only use balanced circuitry where necessary. Balanced circuits are inherently not as stable over time and they ALL drift.

That is why I'm opposed to bridging. The chance for increased distortion and unreliability is just too great for me.
You are, TLS Guy, a known point in the universe. :)
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Without making any assumptions :D, do you know of any other fully balanced pre-pro (not Stereo preamp)?

Gene said Denon boasted that the AVP-A1 was the world's first fully balanced from input to output pre-pro.
With the kind of features it packs, they may well be the first and only. I am sure there are other prepros that are fully balanced but I do not know of any such thing packs with full audio/video features including room EQ, and with that many channels. That thing is well worth its list price, considering even the AV8801 Marantz flag ship was listed for almost 4K at launch.
 
JohnnieB

JohnnieB

Senior Audioholic
My Sherbourn PT-7030 has XLR outs for all 7 channels, though I am not under the assumption that it's fully balanced. I will, however, run XLRs to my amps since the option exists.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
My Sherbourn PT-7030 has XLR outs for all 7 channels, though I am not under the assumption that it's fully balanced. I will, however, run XLRs to my amps since the option exists.
Isn't Sherbourn related to Emotiva somehow ? Yeah, I wouldn't make any assumptions either. :D
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
With the kind of features it packs, they may well be the first and only. I am sure there are other prepros that are fully balanced but I do not know of any such thing packs with full audio/video features including room EQ, and with that many channels. That thing is well worth its list price, considering even the AV8801 Marantz flag ship was listed for almost 4K at launch.
I would figure that being "fully balanced" is a huge selling point. So if a company has a fully balanced pre-pro, I would think they'd brag about it all over creation.

But when I look at the McIntosh, Bryston, Krell, etc., I don't see any of them bragging about their pre-pro being fully balanced. We assume they are fully balanced because of the hefty price. But they sure don't brag about it. I guess it must have slipped all their minds. :D
 
JohnnieB

JohnnieB

Senior Audioholic
You probably know this, Emo bought out Sherbourn. I got the pre for 700 clams and Emo honors the 7 yr warranty. It had the features I wanted without all the added garbage I didn't. All in all, i'm pretty happy with it. I am however looking into using the Oppo 105 as my pre, since I plan on going with Oppo for Blu-ray, DAC duties anyway. Once again, the Oppo has XLR outs, which I will use, balanced? Eh. :rolleyes:
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
You probably know this, Emo bought out Sherbourn. I got the pre for 700 clams and Emo honors the 7 yr warranty. It had the features I wanted without all the added garbage I didn't. All in all, i'm pretty happy with it. I am however looking into using the Oppo 105 as my pre, since I plan on going with Oppo for Blu-ray, DAC duties anyway. Once again, the Oppo has XLR outs, which I will use, balanced? Eh. :rolleyes:
No, I didn't know about the buy out.

I see the Oppo 105 says "differential". But I don't see "fully balanced" anywhere. :D

One thing is for sure. Everyone wants to justify what he owns or thinks is right. There are many experienced and renowned experts and engineers. But everyone knows best. ;)
 
JohnnieB

JohnnieB

Senior Audioholic
No, I didn't know about the buy out.

I see the Oppo 105 says "differential". But I don't see "fully balanced" anywhere. :D

One thing is for sure. Everyone wants to justify what he owns or thinks is right. There are many experienced and renowned experts and engineers. But everyone knows best. ;)
You know that's right. Nobody likes to feel they got duped. Can't tell you how many times I bought something and found out a month later it sold for half that somewhere else. Oh well. I guess the real trick is, buy what you like and don't worry about what everyone else thinks. :D
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
You know that's right. Nobody likes to feel they got duped. Can't tell you how many times I bought something and found out a month later it sold for half that somewhere else. Oh well. I guess the real trick is, buy what you like and don't worry about what everyone else thinks. :D
Exactly. Many people ask, "This is the best I can do?" That's why so many people upgrade so much. Unfortunately, we learn only thorough years of experience.
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
No, I didn't know about the buy out.

I see the Oppo 105 says "differential". But I don't see "fully balanced" anywhere. :D
I do not believe the 105 is fully balanced. The HA-1 is a fully balanced class-A headphone amp but not the preamp section, to the best of my knowledge. Since it a fantastic sounding piece, I really do not care. But if it was fully balanced, I would care a lot :p :D

- Rich
 
RichB

RichB

Audioholic Field Marshall
You probably know this, Emo bought out Sherbourn. I got the pre for 700 clams and Emo honors the 7 yr warranty. It had the features I wanted without all the added garbage I didn't. All in all, i'm pretty happy with it. I am however looking into using the Oppo 105 as my pre, since I plan on going with Oppo for Blu-ray, DAC duties anyway. Once again, the Oppo has XLR outs, which I will use, balanced? Eh. :rolleyes:
If the 105D suits your connectivity and processing needs, then this works great.
My friend is going to do this.

Amp triggering can be a problem, some amps will trigger on 5-volts, some wont.
The Parasound A51/A21 auto-turn on is not reliable enough for me.
On the back of the 105(D), the USB2 output is active when the player is powered on. USB-1 is active when you go to the home screen.
If you can wire at USB to trigger cable, then USB-2 may work for you. If not, all is not lost.
Digikey has 5 volt to 12 volt DC to converters to solve this problem.
They also sell USB and mono-trigger cable assemblies.

View attachment 13631

Another choice for 5 V to 12 V conversion:

USB DC 5V to 12V Step Up Module for Goip VoIP Gateway Solar Battery Mobile Power | eBay

I use the Balanced for the FL/FR and unbalanced for the center and rears.

I had an AV8801, now I don't. Other than an inability to find the volume knob, no one is seems to care. Of course, you have to set up the remote ;)
Here is my latest system picture. These days, I have to find ways things to put on the shelves :D

Oppo105-HA1-Parasound.jpg

- Rich
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Audioholic Jedi
Yes, and we rely on that point to keep our bearings.

These last two posts brought a big smile to my face – at a time when I needed it. Thanks guys!
I'm glad it brought a smile to your face! This is one of those issues where audiophoools devote enormous resources out of proportion to any benefit. In practical terms whether circuitry of an output stage is "full balanced" or differential is splitting hairs. The fact is both phase split so that that the output devices are spared off, and one set of output devices carry the +ve deflection and the other the -Ve.

I have further researched this, and I think things in a sane world pretty much still stand as Peter Walker and I discussed nearly a half century ago.


This is from an article by Ewe Beis with contributions by John Whitlock.

Firstly, it is commonly (but very much mistakenly) assumed that signal balance is important, but this is not correct. In reality, it doesn't matter at all if a balanced line has all its signal on one lead, and none on the other. What is important is impedance, and the signal leads of balanced lines must have the exact same value of impedance to earth/ground/common at all frequencies of interest. Ideally, this should be as high as possible for both the send and receive circuits. The InGenius® IC (licensed to THAT Corp.) is a solution that provides a much higher impedance to earth than normal balanced line receiver circuits, and it's worthwhile to have a look at the PDF to understand all the reasons.

In reality, balanced receiver circuits are extremely hard to get right, and all active solutions have a limited impedance, often made worse by the addition of capacitors to reduce EMI and/or high frequency noise. Bill Whitlock says "Transformers outperform all conventional input stages for one very simple (and, to me, obvious) reason: transformers have incredibly high common-mode input impedance. In the real world, simply matching these impedances is not enough - they must also be very, very high. With transformers, they are inherently in the area of 50 M-ohms at 50 or 60 Hz, and rejection is so high that it became taken for granted ... and seemingly, everyone who ever knew why either forgot or died! Ordinary balanced line receivers have common-mode input impedances in the area of 50 k-ohms ... a factor of 1000 less than a transformer (or the InGenius® input stage)."
Secondly, send circuits ('transmitters' if you like) should also have a high impedance to earth, and the circuit shown here does just that. However, it must be understood that the circuits shown are useful, but only to a limited degree. While there is no doubt that the circuit performs well, it is easily disturbed by cable capacitance and can become unstable. Because it uses positive feedback to achieve the high effective impedance to earth, it doesn't take much of an imbalance somewhere to cause oscillation - certainly something that should be avoided.
Ultimately, there is no active balanced send or receive circuit that can match a good transformer - this does not include $20 mic transformers you can purchase from retail electronics outlets! As noted above, the windings of (good) audio transformers have an extraordinarily high impedance to earth unless the centre tap is earthed - generally a very bad idea. If you need to provide phantom power via the transformer centre tap, this ruins the inherent high impedance, but the far end will be a microphone, and is floating. A low impedance to earth is not such a great concern then, as there is no earth reference at the far (microphone) end, other than the mic body which is connected back to the mixer anyway.
It is very important that the true principles of balanced lines are understood properly, but this is often not the case. Many people concentrate on signal symmetry, but neglect the requirement for a very high common mode impedance and/or impedance matching of the two inputs or outputs. Note that this does not imply that input and output impedances be matched, because doing so reduces signal level by 6dB and may overload send amplifiers - whether opamp or transformer based. Transformers provide an almost perfect match when the input or output winding is floating, and will nearly always give the best results in harsh conditions.

Predictably, most people shy away when they see the prices, so opt for (often simple) active circuits instead. Under relatively benign conditions with no heavy interference sources this is often quite alright, and works just fine. Just remember though - just because you have a balanced line, this doesn't mean that you'll get no noise. Oh, and I must point out that balanced lines don't sound 'better' unless better is defined as lower noise or interference.
I stand by my opinion that this is not a matter in the sphere of home audio, and home theater that deserves a lot of ink or angst. There are many issue in amplifiers and the total system in general requiring a lot more thought and research than this straw man!
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top