Balanced vs Unbalanced - pro & cons

Hi..just browse thru some interesting topic in web..wish to share it over here..

Normal vs. balanced
I suspect many of us do not know what balanced operation is, other than that it involves a different kind of signal connector from the familiar RCA plug.
Audiophiles have lived with normal connections—two wires, respectively, for ground and signal connections—for decades without experiencing significant problems . Even the requirements of those delicate low-level signals from moving-coil cartridges can be handled satisfactorily, provided that appropriate care is taken with local hum fields and system grounding. And with digital sources, the signal levels are so high that noise and hum are considered wholly negligible. If a normal, unbalanced connection can be made to work for a tenth of a thousandth of a volt signal from a low-output phono cartridge, it must be cast-iron reliable for the 1V or 2V signal from a modern digital source. Most "balanced" products are, in fact, single-ended inside with messy, potentially sound-corrupting conversion buffer/amplifiers at the inputs and outputs. Some components even have more amplification stages in the cold line than in the hot. Only a few products are truly balanced from input to output, but then costs escalate. Smemore, a true balanced preamplifier, needs a four-gang selector switch and a four-gang volume control, each section closely matched to the others. So do not be mislead by balanced inputs and outputs are becoming a must for any audio equipment that has any claim to quality. The word itself has promotional value, suggesting moral superiority over the long-established "unbalanced" connection.The High End could be paying dangerous, costly lip service to the received wisdom that balanced operation is the goal for an audio system with more stages, more matching required and longer signal path and processing.. so ask urself. Do you really need it..

Balanced Design benefit or Bluff ?

For:
1) High electrical noise immunity to both induced signals (Radio Frequency and Electromagnetic Interference, RFI and EMI) and chassis ground-hum loops.
2) Essentially noiseless, hands-on cable connection; with the ground made first, contact transients are suppressed.
3) Standardized XLR connectors are mechanically self-locking; make good, gas-tight contact to a specified close tolerance; and generally have good cable strain-relief fittings.
4) With balanced cable, the + and - signal paths are equal; ie, they have the same conductor, which improves the potential for good cable sound.
5) Effective over very long runs—greater than 60'—and/or for very-low-level signals of very wide dynamic range, such as those from microphones.
6) Professional and broadcast studio use implies quality by association.
7) Safety requirements for effective chassis grounding can be easily met.
Encourages good practice for low electromagnetic radiation and good immunity.
9) For the digital interface, it provides a beneficially higher operating level.

Against:
1) Greater cost.
2) Greater length and complexity of audio circuits.
3) Often results in matching difficulties with existing normal equipment.
4) Restricted choice of cables.
5) Restricted choice of connector grades; the best XLR types are technologically inferior to the best, albeit costly, RCA plug types.
6) Partial disagreement between Europe and the US over pin connections.
7) Poorer sound?

if properly implemented, balanced connections will sound better than single-ended ones.

balanced connections have much lower noise floor and are less prone to rfi and emi interference. pros always use balanced connections in the studio and even on stage.

I've always had in mind Balanced are best suited for studio, broadcast or for mission critical industry standard. Its very secure and technically more advantageous in practice. Of course if its offered as an option in consumer audio equipment, why not if user can prefer them over the norm. Cost no object and always an avenue to better performance, certainly more sophisticated then the norm, why not ya? The pros n cons above more or less summarize it all.

7) Poorer sound?

but if you look at point # 7, it saying balanced is poorer sound than unbalanced.

wabun wrote:

7) Poorer sound?

but if you look at point # 7, it saying balanced is poorer sound than unbalanced.

IMHO the point is with a question mark, i.e, not 'a point' per se, just a questionable point. From my limited experience on this, if amplifier or CD player with option for balanced, I'd use them. The firm locking/connection of the xlrs I'm pretty sure beneficial to the audio connection chain. From the point of view of a manufacturer, I'm sure if not for any improvement, it will just be extra cost for them. Unless one have them just a pretext that their product is 'high-end'..

my two sens..

zeebee

Poorer Sound? Doubt so... Then all the cds we buy all mixed using mixers that cost more than our average hifi, worst of all in balance connection...