Rowland Continuum 500, RCA vs. XLR

" suggest two separate analog modulators?"
Yes, and everything else - two monoblocks, not one monoblock

"...You could possibly put two monoblocks for each channel and connect one wire of balanced input signal and the GND to each input (+ phase reversing circuit) but it would not make any sense. Am I missing something?"

Yes, I use single ended input so I use hot (+ phase reversing) and GND. If I do not to phase reversing then I have...no music i.e. signal cancellation.

Moreover - I carry thes signals directly to speaker binding posts: red - to positive and black to negative....

Balanced signal transmission, BY DEFINITION, is transmission of two signals, equal in magnitude and opposite phase - ITS DEFINITION, I have nothing to do with it...

Also, my amps are not ICE-based if this of any logic....I wound't know...

Regards
Simon

Simontiu - Continuum 500 couldn't be balanced all the way thru because of its output stage (already bridge).

Do you know of any fully balanced (input to output) Class D amps (not counting DIY seettings). I don't even know traditional fully balanced integrated amp - do you know? It is probably not very common.

Your amps must be Channel Island (Hypex based) or other design.

This phase reversal means that it is not fully balanced (am I missing something). In order to create fully balanced system you need to get fully balanced output and connect each of the output signals to separate amps' inputs and connect ground of the preamp to ground of the inputs. Two output signals of balanced preamp are already i opposite phase - no need to reverse. Each power amp has signal related to GND but the output signal depends only on the difference (speaker between amps removes ground dependency). If you need to reverse input signal - it means that at one point you use the same signal to create different polarities and therefore you are not fully balanced - you're just bridged to get 4x power.

Balanced cables provide three benefits. You get locking connections in every case, and if you are running a significant distance you will have less signal loss than single ended, and better quieting capability as both poles are within each run. That's it. All other benefits are imaginary.

If your cables are only a meter or two, don't waste your money on the changeover. You might be able to imagine an improvement, but nothing will have changed.

Hello Kijanki: If I understood your last post correctly ( I am not sure if I did ) then you are correct. My system is not fully balanced (nor did I ever claim it). The key is in your own phrase: "If you need to reverse input signal - it means that at one point you use the same signal to create different polarities " - yes and from THAT point (input to the amp to be specific) to the speakers binding posts - its fully balanced signal transmission.

Enourmous (IMMENSE!!!!) advantage of this approach is (as oppose to balanced cable WITH true balanced input which reduce RANDOM upstream noise) the distortion caused by amplifier are NOT random - this is very specific function of the design (and, of course, tolerance of the parts and craftsmenship). Almost identical but of phase - and when they arrive to speaker - they cancel each other (while signal double and noise increase by square root only - which is fine but not big deal as proponents of balanced inputs/cables try to make - see the question of the thread and post above mine).
So in principle you have (amplifier's) distortion-free music coming from your speakers. Consequently, your presentation not only will have better detail bit much more noticeable - three dimensionality i.e. space and palpability of the instrument.

Regards
Simon

Simon - I understand advantage but you have to pay for it. I'm more experienced on electronics side of things than audio.