I have a question about connecting XLR cables

[Trell]

You are asking in terms of digital. XLR is an analog cable. I don't recall seeing XLR used as digital, but I suppose it is possible.

XLR can be used for digital, an example is AES/EBU that is the commercial version of the consumer-grade S/PDIF. Such a cable is required to have an impedance of 110 Ohm, though not sure how important that is for short distances.

My two Genelec 2.1 setups supports AES/EBU but I just use analogue input (which is balanced using XLR jack).

 

[Trell]

Yamaha CX-A5200 have a look yourself and yes this connection are for speakers only in this case this is why I ask in the first place it is possible to connect XLR from amp to cd player because I wasn't sure after I saw cx-a5200

Here is the manual for that Yamaha. Why don't you take a look yourself?

https://in.yamaha.com/files/download/other_assets/8/1215228/web_AV17-0237_CX-A5200_om_UCABGLVF_En_D0.pdf

To be honest, you've quite some gaps in knowledge here and you don't seem that open to information given here.

 

[Chris Anderson]

This is what I was saying earlier, if you are asking this question, you would first need gear that supports XLR on both sides. The A5200 has XLR for connecting to an amp, analog line level signal. They are all outputs.



You are asking in terms of digital. XLR is an analog cable. I don't recall seeing XLR used as digital, but I suppose it is possible.

Ok so is impossible to measure in analog signal how much data can transfer????

 

[Chris Anderson]

Here is the manual for that Yamaha. Why don't you take a look yourself?

https://in.yamaha.com/files/download/other_assets/8/1215228/web_AV17-0237_CX-A5200_om_UCABGLVF_En_D0.pdf

To be honest, you've quite some gaps in knowledge here and you don't seem that open to information given here.

Iam open very much open but I have gaps that's true is only one thing I don't buy nor sir no way (RCA is batter from XLR) or sound quality will be better from RCA but not from XLR that's the only thing I don't believe

 

[Trell]

Iam open very much open but I have gaps that's true is only one thing I don't buy nor sir no way (RCA is batter from XLR) or sound quality will be better from RCA but not from XLR that's the only thing I don't believe

So why don’t your try reading that manual I linked and do some Googling?

It’s already a thread four pages long.

 

[TLS Guy]

Iam open very much open but I have gaps that's true is only one thing I don't buy nor sir no way (RCA is batter from XLR) or sound quality will be better from RCA but not from XLR that's the only thing I don't believe

Look wire is wire.

Balanced XLR cables were created for long runs. So there are two connectors which go into a transformer or two identical solid state circuits. The shield does not carry the signal. The idea behind this, is that both the conductors will pick up interference identically and therefore cancel out at the input.

XLR does not solve ground loop problems. This is a common misconception, as the hum is due to a potential between grounds, which will not be affected by a balanced cable.

As was said previously the balanced system was developed for microphone cabling. Mic cables are often long, and the signal voltage small. So they are prone to pick up interference, often from nearby radio and TV stations. Good quality balanced cables are designed to deal with this problem.

So good quality balanced cables are important as if the two conducting cables are not identical in every way, then they would work to prevent interference. In my location recording days, I only used the best Belden microphone cable, and was careful not to abuse them.

If the above is not an issue, then a high impedance RCA connection is just as good as XLR. In fact the RCA connection is likely to be the better connection, as these days transformers are barely used at the input, and so the input circuitry is essentially duplicated, therefore increasing noise.

So, you have heard absolute rubbish and you need to stop promoting it.

I know what you have come to believe is rubbish. I have had a lot of gear of the years, and still have, and made professional recordings. I also do the lions share of my own service work and have a lot of measurement gear.
So stop be gullible and believing fantasies.

 

[Chris Anderson]

Look wire is wire.

Balanced XLR cables were created for long runs. So there are two connectors which go into a transformer or two identical solid state circuits. The shield does not carry the signal. The idea behind this, is that both the conductors will pick up interference identically and therefore cancel out at the input.

XLR does not solve ground loop problems. This is a common misconception, as the hum is due to a potential between grounds, which will not be affected by a balanced cable.

As was said previously the balanced system was developed for microphone cabling. Mic cables are often long, and the signal voltage small. So they are prone to pick up interference, often from nearby radio and TV stations. Good quality balanced cables are designed to deal with this problem.

So good quality balanced cables are important as if the two conducting cables are not identical in every way, then they would work to prevent interference. In my location recording days, I only used the best Belden microphone cable, and was careful not to abuse them.

If the above is not an issue, then a high impedance RCA connection is just as good as XLR. In fact the RCA connection is likely to be the better connection, as these days transformers are barely used at the input, and so the input circuitry is essentially duplicated, therefore increasing noise.

So, you have heard absolute rubbish and you need to stop promoting it.

I know what you have come to believe is rubbish. I have had a lot of gear of the years, and still have, and made professional recordings. I also do the lions share of my own service work and have a lot of measurement gear.
So stop be gullible and believing fantasies.

Strong reply I like it ok no problem thanks

 

[lovinthehd]

Nothing on this topic?

XLR is analog. You may be able to connect xlr from your pre-pro to active/powered speakers, but not passive speakers.

 

[Bucknekked]

I applaud the original responders to this topic for not losing their collective s-hit over this OP.
I only read this thread because i just installed some powered monitors in my office for music recording and mixing and the preferred way to connect them is XLR since they are powered. I had two options and I can say there's not an iota bit of difference in how they sound. As soon as the OP started quoted WHAT HIFI and other sources akin to that, I knew we had an instant expert with no real clue. One reason I like the AH is nobody lets pseudo bullshit, or the real BS, pass without a challenge. When Doc weighed in, I think the discussion ended, as it should.
Good job on not losing your decorum.

 

[TLS Guy]

XLR is analog. You may be able to connect xlr from your pre-pro to active/powered speakers, but not passive speakers.

AES/EBU outputs and inputs use XLR cables for a digital connection. This is generally confined to pro studio equipment.
Digital microphones that have been in common practice for some time, use this connection for instance.
This is for convenience. My RME mixer/DAC has microphone inputs that can be switched from analog to digital AES/EBU from the mix screen.

This also makes sense, as one of the design objectives is to not only carry signal but power. Both analog and digital pro microphones are phantom powered. This is all part of the brilliance of XLR. Although the inner core two cables carry the signal, the two signal cables are at the same DC powering voltage. This means that no signal can flow between those signal conductors. But both those signal conductors are + 48 volts above ground and so can supply power to the microphone.

This is the arrangement.

And it gets better, as you can switch on phantom power on your mix panel and still use a combination of powered condenser and dynamic moving coil microphones. Since the signal pins are at the same voltage no power can flow through the microphone capsule transducer coil. Hence the name 'phantom power'. Just brilliant and also simple. I frequently used to use a combination of powered and dynamic microphones with 48 volt phantom power active.

 

[lovinthehd]

AES/EBU outputs and inputs use XLR cables for a digital connection. This is generally confined to pro studio equipment.
Digital microphones that have been in common practice for some time, use this connection for instance.
This is for convenience. My RME mixer/DAC has microphone inputs that can be switched from analog to digital AES/EBU from the mix screen.

This also makes sense, as one of the design objectives is to not only carry signal but power. Both analog and digital pro microphones are phantom powered. This is all part of the brilliance of XLR. Although the inner core two cables carry the signal, the two signal cables are at the same DC powering voltage. This means that no signal can flow between those signal conductors. But both those signal conductors are + 48 volts above ground and so can supply power to the microphone.

This is the arrangement.

And it gets better, as you can switch on phantom power on your mix panel and still use a combination of powered condenser and dynamic moving coil microphones. Since the signal pins are at the same voltage no power can flow through the microphone capsule transducer coil. Hence the name 'phantom power'. Just brilliant and also simple. I frequently used to use a combination of powered and dynamic microphones with 48 volt phantom power active.

Yes, I know. The poster was referring to the xlr outs from his pre-pro, tho. So the question of bandwidth was somewhat moot.

What is the bandwith of AES/EBU in case he wants to know? I suspect it covers all needs, but....

 

[TLS Guy]

Yes, I know. The poster was referring to the xlr outs from his pre-pro, tho. So the question of bandwidth was somewhat moot.

What is the bandwith of AES/EBU in case he wants to know? I suspect it covers all needs, but....

AES/EBU is 4.096 MHz to 24.5 MHz/sec, and an impedance of 110 ohms ± 20%.

Toslink optical cables are 20-125 megabits per second. There are optical cables in the Gigabit range, but not Toslink.

I believe that digital RCA is 125 megabits per sec. It has to be to meet SPDIF specs.

HDMI is 10.2 Gigabits per second currently, but runs over 12 feet and some say 10 are no longer adequate for HDMI, and require high bandwidth optical cores for the video and copper for the audio, as audio is two way.

That is the state of things currently as far as I know. But HDMI is a constantly moving target.

The band width required for the latest multichannel audio formats, like Dolby Atmos is 37 megabits/sec

 

[mono-bloc]

I use an XLR connection between the Pre-amp and the power amps. which are located next to the speakers.Really XLR are the excepted choice for long runs, and there is little to know advantage, in using it for short interconnected runs.

 

[Chris Anderson]

I applaud the original responders to this topic for not losing their collective s-hit over this OP.
I only read this thread because i just installed some powered monitors in my office for music recording and mixing and the preferred way to connect them is XLR since they are powered. I had two options and I can say there's not an iota bit of difference in how they sound. As soon as the OP started quoted WHAT HIFI and other sources akin to that, I knew we had an instant expert with no real clue. One reason I like the AH is nobody lets pseudo bullshit, or the real BS, pass without a challenge. When Doc weighed in, I think the discussion ended, as it should.
Good job on not losing your decorum.

Meaby you are right I can't say I never try out but I want I just read about and what ever I try search is the same answer apart from here

 

[Chris Anderson]

AES/EBU is 4.096 MHz to 24.5 MHz/sec, and an impedance of 110 ohms ± 20%.

Toslink optical cables are 20-125 megabits per second. There are optical cables in the Gigabit range, but not Toslink.

I believe that digital RCA is 125 megabits per sec. It has to be to meet SPDIF specs.

HDMI is 10.2 Gigabits per second currently, but runs over 12 feet and some say 10 are no longer adequate for HDMI, and require high bandwidth optical cores for the video and copper for the audio, as audio is two way.

That is the state of things currently as far as I k

now. But HDMI is a constantly moving target.

The band width required for the latest multichannel audio formats, like Dolby Atmos is 37 megabits/sec

 

[Chris Anderson]

I have another idea Last time I watch some channel about audio and subject was to improve audio signal for better sound quality using HDMI audio extractor
And questions is what if I connect cassette deck player with RCA to HDMI audio extractor and from audio extractor cable hdmi to amplituner
So from amplifier to audio extractor will be hdmi cable from audio extractor to cassette deck will be RCA
What do you guys think?

 

[TLS Guy]

I have another idea Last time I watch some channel about audio and subject was to improve audio signal for better sound quality using HDMI audio extractor
And questions is what if I connect cassette deck player with RCA to HDMI audio extractor and from audio extractor cable hdmi to amplituner
So from amplifier to audio extractor will be hdmi cable from audio extractor to cassette deck will be RCA
What do you guys think?

A cassette recorder is far below the quality of the lowliest digital connection. You can't improve a signal once it is adulterated.

I have a TEAC Z2000, one if not the finest cassette deck ever produced.

I don't go pretending it is comparable to today's digital wizardry. For one thing you can only get a reasonable FR curve at -20db below full modulation. It takes a reel to reel machine, well set up running at 15 ips to get a flat FR at 0db modulation.

You can not upgrade signals, equalize to a degree yes. Once a digital signal is compressed you can up the bit rate or do what ever you want with it, but it will always be the same as the stream it was "upgraded" from. You can not improve it at all.

That picture is part of the '"museum" end of my system. I have that to enjoy my legacy software, and show people what we used to be able to achieve at its best, not claim audio nirvana.

When you really comes down to it, the quality of the rig, is speakers, speakers and speakers, which is why I put so much effort into really getting them right. It is upgrading speakers that gives you better sound, not foolery round the edge, like arguing over absurdly high bit rates, that make not one wit of difference because you have reached a point not only above the limits of human hearing, but beyond the dynamic rage of any conceivable program.
If you get the idea I'm saying there is huge waste of time money, resources and effort on absurdly high bandwidth digital streams you would be correct.

 

[Chris Anderson]

A cassette recorder is far below the quality of the lowliest digital connection. You can't improve a signal once it is adulterated.

I have a TEAC Z2000, one if not the finest cassette deck ever produced.

I don't go pretending it is comparable to today's digital wizardry. For one thing you can only get a reasonable FR curve at -20db below full modulation. It takes a reel to reel machine, well set up running at 15 ips to get a flat FR at 0db modulation.

You can not upgrade signals, equalize to a degree yes. Once a digital signal is compressed you can up the bit rate or do what ever you want with it, but it will always be the same as the stream it was "upgraded" from. You can not improve it at all.

That picture is part of the '"museum" end of my system. I have that to enjoy my legacy software, and show people what we used to be able to achieve at its best, not claim audio nirvana.

When you really comes down to it, the quality of the rig, is speakers, speakers and speakers, which is why I put so much effort into really getting them right. It is upgrading speakers that gives you better sound, not foolery round the edge, like arguing over absurdly high bit rates, that make not one wit of difference because you have reached a point not only above the limits of human hearing, but beyond the dynamic rage of any conceivable program.
If you get the idea I'm saying there is huge waste of time money, resources and effort on absurdly high bandwidth digital streams you would be correct.

Simple star away and professional reply that's the way I like it thank you ok so my thinking was wrong least l know now if you don't ask you never finds out right? In your room I will add acoustics panels all around for better acustic= better sound I know what I talk about because my room have such a Thing and now I hear things what I don't hear before from speakers sound don't bounce like before you are a pro respect man respect

 

[Trebdp83]

Thumbs up to all responders. A quality cable, regardless of type, will do nothing for a poor signal except make sure it arrives at its destination without further degradation. Devices injected into the stream to convert signals can only potentially harm, not improve the signal.

While many read about Toslink being limited to 96Hz, that limit is being imposed by certain new devices and not the cable itself. Some devices will limit both coaxial and optical signals to 96Hz. One must read the specs of their devices to make sure their port of choice is not limited in bandwidth to support the kinds of signals that may be sent through it.

As for the HDMI cable, it keeps advancing and offers new features with each iteration as well as increased bandwidth. But, features and speeds will be limited to the least capable device in any given chain.

Slaying the Cable Monster: What You Need to Know About HDMI Cables

TVs have come a long way in the last few years and HDMI cables have kept pace. Here's what you should know about buying video cables for your TV, including why a cheap cable usually provides the same performance as an expensive one.

www.pcmag.com

 

[Chris Anderson]

A cassette recorder is far below the quality of the lowliest digital connection. You can't improve a signal once it is adulterated.

I have a TEAC Z2000, one if not the finest cassette deck ever produced.

I don't go pretending it is comparable to today's digital wizardry. For one thing you can only get a reasonable FR curve at -20db below full modulation. It takes a reel to reel machine, well set up running at 15 ips to get a flat FR at 0db modulation.

You can not upgrade signals, equalize to a degree yes. Once a digital signal is compressed you can up the bit rate or do what ever you want with it, but it will always be the same as the stream it was "upgraded" from. You can not improve it at all.

That picture is part of the '"museum" end of my system. I have that to enjoy my legacy software, and show people what we used to be able to achieve at its best, not claim audio nirvana.

When you really comes down to it, the quality of the rig, is speakers, speakers and speakers, which is why I put so much effort into really getting them right. It is upgrading speakers that gives you better sound, not foolery round the edge, like arguing over absurdly high bit rates, that make not one wit of difference because you have reached a point not only above the limits of human hearing, but beyond the dynamic rage of any conceivable program.
If you get the idea I'm saying there is huge waste of time money, resources and effort on absurdly high bandwidth digital streams you would be correct.

One more thing---,,Once a digital signal is compressed you can up the bit rate or do what ever you want with it,,
A higher bitrate generally means better audio quality. “Bitrate is going to determine audio fidelity,” says producer and engineer Gus Berry. “You could have the greatest-sounding recording of all time, but if you played it with a low bitrate, it would sound worse on the other end So if I get higher bit rate technically the same audio should sound a bit better do I thinking correctly????