MC amps fully balanced and not?

moves

moves

Audioholic Chief
What's the diff? The MC302 is not fully balanced but has balanced puts where as the mc452 is fully balanced (quad balanced what ever that means)?
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
I didn't even know what an MC amp was until I searched the model numbers. The difference, I assume, is that one has balanced circuitry while the other one does not but does have the right connectors to use balanced cables. If you are talking about home audio, then it doesn't matter in terms of performance. Balanced circuitry is of value where there are long cable runs. It doesn't matter in home audio environments.
 
moves

moves

Audioholic Chief
Hmmmm interesting........ You're right that the quad balanced means the circuitry but i had no idea that it has to do with the length of speaker cable.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I didn't even know what an MC amp was until I searched the model numbers. The difference, I assume, is that one has balanced circuitry while the other one does not but does have the right connectors to use balanced cables. If you are talking about home audio, then it doesn't matter in terms of performance. Balanced circuitry is of value where there are long cable runs. It doesn't matter in home audio environments.
You're mixed up. Balanced circuitry lowers noise and distortion by improving the design's common mode rejection ratio. Balanced cables use common mode cancellation to reduce induced noise on the cable, so balanced cables are advantage for long cable runs, not balanced circuitry.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Without getting too complicated, may be suffice to say balanced circuitry from input to output offers lower distortions as some of those get cancelled, and when used with balanced cable throughout, would also result in better noise rejections as Irv mentioned. IMO I wouldn't bother with low cost balanced amps because I believe to get it right the components used has to be top notch, probably need to be hand picked, to make sure the components in the +/1 line have virtually identical specs in order to reap the benefits of being truly and fully balanced. Otherwise one may be better off with the unbalanced ones.

I would think the price points of ATI's balanced amps are probably as low as they could be, for the products to be credible, but that is just my semi educated guess and I could well be totally wrong.

I would trust those by Krell, Bryston, McIntosh, Passlab and of course the other more expensive, proven and reputable ones.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Hmmmm interesting........ You're right that the quad balanced means the circuitry but i had no idea that it has to do with the length of speaker cable.
It has nothing to do with the length of the cable.

All commercial solid state amplifiers have balanced output stages (with the exception of a few of Nelson Pass's esoteric products, which are single-ended). In other words, two amplifier output stages do the work of one, each one of the positive and negative phases of the audio signal, and then when the outputs of the stages are combined for the speaker output common mode noise and distortion are cancelled. Quad-balanced is a topology where two balanced amplifier stages are used for each of the positive and negative phases, so four stages doing the work of one, supposedly further reducing noise and distortion by increasing the common mode rejection ratio.

Fully balanced means that all of the amplification stages in the amplifier are balanced. In most amplifiers there are three gain stages, and usually only the output stage is fully balanced. At lower voltages and currents the advantages of common mode cancellation are reduced. In some expensive amplifiers, like the quad-balanced McIntosh and the ATIs I use, all of the gain stages are fully balanced. So if you feed a fully balanced amp with a balanced signal there is end-to-end noise common mode cancellation, which supposedly improves sound quality. As Gene has pointed out, the improvement is measurable, but I think audibility is another question.

To be honest, I have a conventional amp (balanced output stage only) and a fully balanced amp from the same manufacturer, and if I don't clip the lesser amp I can't hear *any* differences in sound quality. Balanced circuitry can measure better, but I'm not convinced fully balanced circuits are necessary for the best available sound.

I should also mention that I'm not a fan of McIntosh solid state amps, because they have useless output transformers that simply add cost, weight, and complexity, and increase the output impedance of the amp. They also reduce available power into low impedance speakers, when I think many modern speakers designers count on solid state amps to provide more power at lower impedance. (Of course, at McIntosh power levels I'm probably making a moot point.) Yeah, they are awesomely built and look great, but those output transformers (autoformers) are about as much use as the batteries on some Audioquest cables, IMO, so they bug me.
 
Last edited:
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
IMO I wouldn't bother with low cost balanced amps because I believe to get it right the components used has to be top notch, probably need to be hand picked, to make sure the components in the +/1 line have virtually identical specs in order to reap the benefits of being truly and fully balanced. Otherwise one may be better off with the unbalanced ones.
Good point, especially with discrete components. This is also true with highly parallel amplifier output stages (the ones with long fancy rows of output transistors). Unless the output transistors are perfectly matched all of the current will flow through the complementary pairs with the lowest impedance (which may be only one).
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
You're mixed up. Balanced circuitry lowers noise and distortion by improving the design's common mode rejection ratio. Balanced cables use common mode cancellation to reduce induced noise on the cable, so balanced cables are advantage for long cable runs, not balanced circuitry.

I'm mixed up several times per day. You're right, I wrote it incorrectly. Thanks.
 
Speedskater

Speedskater

Audioholic General
Once again, two different ideas are getting co-mingled:
a] Balanced interconnect systems
b] A unit with balanced internal circuitry. That is one that has symmetrical mirror image paths for the + and - parts of the signal.

Balanced interconnect systems are the best way to go and the more complex the audio system the more necessary they are.

While balanced internal circuitry are a solution in search of a problem. Modern single ended circuitry does not have problems with internal noise or distortion.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Once again, two different ideas are getting co-mingled:
a] Balanced interconnect systems
b] A unit with balanced internal circuitry. That is one that has symmetrical mirror image paths for the + and - parts of the signal.

Balanced interconnect systems are the best way to go and the more complex the audio system the more necessary they are.

While balanced internal circuitry are a solution in search of a problem. Modern single ended circuitry does not have problems with internal noise or distortion.
Didn't I just say all that, two hours before you posted? And fmw agreed?
 
moves

moves

Audioholic Chief
Well.... that was a detailed answer thanks for that! I don't understand all of it but I get the idea. Those damn blue meters do look awesome though.

It has nothing to do with the length of the cable.

All commercial solid state amplifiers have balanced output stages (with the exception of a few of Nelson Pass's esoteric products, which are single-ended). In other words, two amplifier output stages do the work of one, each one of the positive and negative phases of the audio signal, and then when the outputs of the stages are combined for the speaker output common mode noise and distortion are cancelled. Quad-balanced is a topology where two balanced amplifier stages are used for each of the positive and negative phases, so four stages doing the work of one, supposedly further reducing noise and distortion by increasing the common mode rejection ratio.

Fully balanced means that all of the amplification stages in the amplifier are balanced. In most amplifiers there are three gain stages, and usually only the output stage is fully balanced. At lower voltages and currents the advantages of common mode cancellation are reduced. In some expensive amplifiers, like the quad-balanced McIntosh and the ATIs I use, all of the gain stages are fully balanced. So if you feed a fully balanced amp with a balanced signal there is end-to-end noise common mode cancellation, which supposedly improves sound quality. As Gene has pointed out, the improvement is measurable, but I think audibility is another question.

To be honest, I have a conventional amp (balanced output stage only) and a fully balanced amp from the same manufacturer, and if I don't clip the lesser amp I can't hear *any* differences in sound quality. Balanced circuitry can measure better, but I'm not convinced fully balanced circuits are necessary for the best available sound.

I should also mention that I'm not a fan of McIntosh solid state amps, because they have useless output transformers that simply add cost, weight, and complexity, and increase the output impedance of the amp. They also reduce available power into low impedance speakers, when I think many modern speakers designers count on solid state amps to provide more power at lower impedance. (Of course, at McIntosh power levels I'm probably making a moot point.) Yeah, they are awesomely built and look great, but those output transformers (autoformers) are about as much use as the batteries on some Audioquest cables, IMO, so they bug me.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Well.... that was a detailed answer thanks for that! I don't understand all of it but I get the idea. Those damn blue meters do look awesome though.
I agree, those blue meters are awesome, but the price is rather breathtaking.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
I have to agree with you guys, they do look unique but good. The only amp I have now that has large VU meters is the 30+/- years old Marantz but I definitely would like to have a Mc, sooner or later. Not for SQ but for the look, feel of quality, last forever, and high resale value. Not all of us buy amps for SQ, just ask ADTG.:D
 
moves

moves

Audioholic Chief
it's pretty much a piece of art! It'll cost more for anything that looks better than the others = to a degree. This goes for anything even outside of audio. With the aesthetics, there may be an illusion of better sound or it may even in fact be better. Illusion, or not, as long as you think it is better than is it that the only thing that matters?

I am looking to future proof.. an MC302 is more than enough to drive my Totem Forests but it'll also be enough to drive anything I decide to upgrade to in the future.

To boot, it looks awesome and I can will it to my kids when I pass and it will likely still sing wonderfully.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
If MC302 will make you happy, go for it. Chances are it will out-live you too.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

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