Balanced Line

Richard, well done for admitting you didn't realise a cart was a balanced generator or that several well regarded designers use this to provide maximum RF protection. I applaud your honesty.

Check your facts before you make a 'statement' then you wouldn't get pulled up for being incorrect, and this type of conflict wouldn't start. (Though I think you not so secretly like the conflict).
 
sq225917 said:
Richard, well done for admitting you didn't realise a cart was a balanced generator or that several well regarded designers use this to provide maximum RF protection. I applaud your honesty.

Check your facts before you make a 'statement' then you wouldn't get pulled up for being incorrect, and this type of conflict wouldn't start. (Though I think you not so secretly like the conflict).
Click to expand...

Don't be silly, you and flatty look for any excuse even if you have to make them up :rolleyes:
 
flatpopely said:
Twin conductors (signal and earth) surrounded by a screen should have greater immunity to RF noise. Does that mean it will sound better, I don't know but it will mean it has less RF noise than a cable without a screen.
Click to expand...

Your answer is ambiguous.

Sentence one says twin conductors surrounded by a screen will have greater immunity to RF noise (than a single conductor surrounded by a screen) Why? Because any induced RF noise is dumped to a single point at earth potential? Or because the conductors and the screen can have different and appropriate electrical properties?

Sentence two seems to say that an unscreened cable will pick up more noise than a screened cable, which may be true but is a trivial observation.

Please tell me me more (anyone). I have often wondered if the twisted pair with phonos at each end and a coax screen soldered only at one end is indeed a better HiFi cable than a single conductor and screen coax, or whether it's just HiFi hype and a way of inflating prices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard Dunn said:
Don't be silly, you and flatty look for any excuse even if you have to make them up :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Don't be silly Richard, I've never criticised you for anything other than making incorrect statements. Neither do I have any wish to align myself with any other posters on the forum, whatever their motives may be and regardless of what you may think.
 
sq225917 said:
Don't be silly Richard, I've never criticised you for anything other than making incorrect statements. Neither do I have any wish to align myself with any other posters on the forum, whatever their motives may be and regardless of what you may think.
Click to expand...

I repeat, you are a nasty bit of work who looks for conflict and any opportunity to insult.
 
Ladies please........ it says 'balanced' at the top of the thread.

Can we have some please.
 
RobHolt said:
Ladies
Click to expand...

"Ladies"? I ain't seen no ladylike behaviour Rob. :D

Now, it does seem that in a relatively clean domestic environment, with short cable runs, balanced lines may introduce as many problems as they may solve.

What about my question? Is there any objective evidence that, with an unbalanced cable, a twisted pair inside a screen connected at one end is less noisy than a single conductor with a coax screen connected at both ends?

What does physics tell us about the theoretical advantages and disadvantages of both options?
 
Is there any objective evidence that, with an unbalanced cable, a twisted pair inside a screen connected at one end is less noisy than a single conductor with a coax screen connected at both ends?

You'll probably have to define 'less noisy' and sketch the system in which the cable serves. If you then read any number of serious textbooks on systems, EMI, and shielding, you'll probably get any number of opinions and facts.
 
Guys,

Richard made a statement. It was pointed out that it was incorrect. He acknowledged this.

Now, reading the thread, I think he made an honest attempt to contribute usefully. God knows, I have had my moments with the guy, but hey, in this case he didn't really put a foot wrong. Ok, he got a bit "robust" once the shit started to fly....but that's Richard!

Chris
 
Mescalito said:
Guys,

Richard made a statement. It was pointed out that it was incorrect. He acknowledged this.

Now, reading the thread, I think he made an honest attempt to contribute usefully. God knows, I have had my moments with the guy, but hey, in this case he didn't really put a foot wrong. Ok, he got a bit "robust" once the shit started to fly....but that's Richard!

Chris
Click to expand...

Agreed, and we've also got into discussing cartridges which is not the intention of the thread.
 
Anyway back on subject. Someone on hifi subjective has said they will be bringing a balanced system or gear to the Bake-Off show this Sunday so some comparisons can be made.
 
I've only got very limited listening experience in this area:

At last Saturday's Wigwam bake-off there was a Lyngdorf CD player with RCA and XLR outputs - presumably balanced and unbalanced? This was fed into a "Spud" purist DIY integrated valve amp which had XLR inputs. We don't know if this was balanced or not as the owner bought it 3rd or 4th hand. Swapping from the Lyngdorf XLR outputs to the RCA outputs led to a drop in volume. It was difficult to then volume match the 2 connection methods as the Spud amp only has 7 different volume settings. My instinctive reaction was that there was a loss in dynamics in going to the RCA output - but I couldn't say this for sure due to the volume mismatch. The owner who has more experience with this amp feels that XLR is significantly better - and I'm willing to trust his judgement.


At home I've got a mixture of balanced and unbalanced amplification. It all seems to work well enough together. My impression is that the basic qualities of the components will shine through whether it's balanced or not. That there's good bad and indifferent balanced and single ended components.

If we are able to put together a fully balanced system at the Halloween bake-off it'll be interesting to see if there's any particular magic about the combination and how it compares to whatever fully single ended systems and a mixed systems we put against it.
 
Worked in a studio for the best part of 10 years, Balanced is for pro use, i don't really see the need for it in a domestic setting.




Oh and i see the post police is trigger happy on the old delete button :rolleyes:
 
conisby said:
Worked in a studio for the best part of 10 years, Balanced is for pro use, i don't really see the need for it in a domestic setting.

Oh and i see the post police is trigger happy on the old delete button :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The need for it is for the marketing men to find a new bullshit to foist on the hi-fi buying public. And then you get a few people to write about it and recommend it on forums as they wish to increase their on-line profile, and before you know it we have another fad. The fad before this that led into this one is active speakers, without even realising why studios (especially the modern trend to home studios) and radio / tv stations need active speakers - answer space!

Answer this why don't PA rigs include active speakers? And why have back line PA amps (guitar amps / combos) mainly, always even back to the 60's, been active speakers - ergonomic needs!
 
Active speakers are a whole new subject. I have heard direct AB against active and passive. The differences are not small.
 
Active v passive speakers is a very complex discussion. So many variables.

Weeks of discussion and exploration will only scratch the surface, but go for it!
 
Heard some NEXO speakers on the end of my deck 20 years ago. The difference between active and passive was huge. The only question to answer was cost. Active setup was bigger and more costly. But wow, it was worth it.

Richard, most PA rigs are active.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top