Bob Reynolds: It may not have been clear from the other posts, but there is zero advantage (other than the XLR being a better connector) of connecting the unbalanced signal from your preamp to the balanced input of your amp; there will be no noise rejection. TVAD: IMO, there's zero benefit connecting single ended outputs (Linn) to balanced inputs (MC402). Might as well run single ended. But, try it both ways and decide for yourself. In principle, I don't think that is true, gentlemen, although of course in practice whether it would yield a net improvement, a net degradation, or no net change is dependent on the specific equipment and the specific noise environment. See Figure 2.1 of the Jensen paper I linked to earlier, and the words immediately under the figure: http://www.jensen-transformers.com/an/an003.pdf Note the statement that in this example CMRR will be "only 30db at 60Hz." However, 30db rejection of common mode noise (at least at the power line frequency) is considerably better than no noise rejection. Basically, by using the adapter cable into a balanced input you are still driving a balanced differential input stage with a cable whose construction provides symmetry between the hot and cold signal lines. Therefore noise pickup in the cable will tend to be closer to equal between those two lines than between the shield and the center conductor of an unbalanced interconnect, allowing the differential input to still subtract out that fraction of the noise which is picked up symmetrically. And note in Figure 2.1 that currents flowing in the shield of the interconnect due to voltage differentials between the chassis of the two components (caused by offsets in their ac safety grounds) will not be sensed by the differential receiver stage, while they definitely would be by a single-ended input stage. Shadorne: However, a listen and see kind of approach is exactly how sonic properties become associated with interconnecting wires when the root cause is equipment related or impedance matching or mistaken volume level matching or any of hundreds of possibilities that have nothing to do with the purity of the copper. Creating a new myth every month, week or day. Very well put! And I'll add that both the op and Mechans specifically seemed to be asking for technical explanations, which I think have now been provided and which, while obviously not being the final determinant of what is best in any given system, can help prevent going down the wrong path and even blowing up equipment (as cautioned against in my second prior post). Regards, -- Al |
Thank you, Almarg, for underscoring my point so well. You gotta try it and listen. One method may sound better than the other. Maybe the better sounding method will happen to follow correct theory. Perhaps the better sounding method will not follow correct theory. In either case, go with what sounds best. |
This is how you end up with nice sounding products that do not reproduce the source material with much accuracy (measure badly but are claimed to be SOTA).To the customers of this equipment, nice sounding is everything. You may not be a customer for this gear, but that doesn't make the nice sounding gear, or the approach used by the company to achieve the nice sounding gear, any less valid than the gear you choose for its ultimate accuracy. There are those who will choose Bryston (i.e. accuracy) over VAC (i.e. nice sounding) every time, and there are those who will do the opposite. Who is to say what is correct for each individual? |
To the customers of this equipment, nice sounding is everything. Good point. I think one needs to be aware of both valid philosophies and make one's choices accordingly. I can't tell where the OP's preferences sit but hopefully both the technical and non technical advice will be helpful. I guess all I am saying is that "listen and see" may not get to nirvana for everyone...for some it could be the holy grail while for others it may mean getting lost in a forest of near random equipment flipping/experimentation in order to get the nicest sound. |
