RCA to XLR Adapters - Any Benefits?

is there a significant improvements on using XLR fully balanced inputs? what if an rca to xlr interconnects or adapter being use, will it brings good impacts on our system? cheers

xlr or balanced connections, IF PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED, will be better than single-ended connections.

using an rca to xlr adapter will result in the benefits of balanced connections being lost.

if the balanced connections are pseudo balanced, the single-ended inputs may sound better.

sflam wrote:xlr or balanced connections, IF PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED, will be better than single-ended connections.

using an rca to xlr adapter will result in the benefits of balanced connections being lost.

if the balanced connections are pseudo balanced, the single-ended inputs may sound better.

Bang on answer!

im banged!! thanks lam

Just curious, if you're going for unbalance to balance..

Based upon a unbalance signal pathway, what is the benefits?
From the surface I can only see that XLR's connectivity contact point is much better than the RCA ones.

It's not so much the point of contacts but the dual differential signal architecture of the balanced connection which makes it better. Balanced connections carry 2 signals. One in phase and the other reverse phase. A differential amplifier on the receiving end uses the 2 signal to form a higher quality signal. At least that's how I think it works.

Where's Mugenfoo when you need him?

for an explanation (with graphics) on diff and advantages between single-ended and balanced, chk this link http://www.ofsoundmind.com/OSM2/tech/equipment/balanced.html

this is the best answer that i hv found after googling around on whether balanced is better than single-ended. this reply is from the absolute sound.

Robert Harley replies:
Whether using balanced interconnects is an advantage depends on the circuit topology of the products being connected.

Let’s take the first example of a CD player that creates a balanced signal by spitting the signal in the digital domain into the balanced connection’s “+” and “-” signals inside the CD player. The balanced digital signal is converted to analog by two DACs per channel and output from the CD player on balanced XLR connectors.

We then take that balanced signal and connect it to a preamplifier that is truly balanced. That is, it keeps the signal balanced from input to output. Such a preamplifier has four identical amplification stages, and the volume control has four elements (left +, left -, right +, right -). The preamplifier’s balanced output is then connected with balanced cables to a power amplifier, whose input circuitry is balanced.

This is the ideal situation, and in this case using balanced connection has advantages over unbalanced connection. These include the benefits of converting a balanced digital signal in the CD player to analog with two DACs per channel (lower noise, randomization of DAC non-linearity, for examples), as well balanced connection’s noise immunity.

Now, let’s look at another system in which using balanced connection would result in significantly inferior sound.

The CD player has balanced outputs on XLR jacks, but not dual-DACs per channel. The CD player creates the balanced signal by converting the unbalanced signal from the single DAC to balanced with a circuit called a “phase splitter.” The audio signal has just been subjected to an additional active stage, usually an op-amp.

The CD player’s balanced output is connected to a preamplifier that has balanced inputs. But the preamp is not truly balanced; it has just two amplifications stages, left and right. The preamp must therefore convert the incoming balanced signal to unbalanced with a circuit called a “differential amplifier.” The preamp amplifies and buffers the unbalanced signal, but then converts it back to balanced for output on its XLR jacks. It does this with a phase splitter, the same circuit used in the CD player to create a balanced signal from an unbalanced signal.

The preamp’s balanced output is then connected to the power amplifier’s balanced input. But the power amplifier’s input circuitry is inherently unbalanced, requiring that the balanced signal be converted back to unbalanced with yet another differential amplifier.

In the first case, we started out with a truly balanced signal that is theoretically superior to an unbalanced signal. The signal stayed balanced throughout the chain with no conversions, and enjoyed the noise immunity of balanced cables.

In the second case, the audio signal was subjected to four additional active amplifier stages (the CD player’s phase splitter, the preamp’s differential amplifier at the input and phase splitter at the output, and the power amplifier’s differential amplifier at its input), which will inevitably degrade the sound.

Needless to say, a truly balanced signal path from source to power amplifier is much more expensive; it requires double the circuitry.

Most unbalanced preamplifiers have a balanced input for compatibility with balanced-output components. If the preamp’s internal architecture is unbalanced, use the unbalanced connections.

The question “Is balanced connection better than unbalanced?” doesn’t have an easy answer.

thanks all, appreciate the explanations & answer. i'll stick to rca.. noob here