• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Balanced vs unbalanced

Hipper

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
753
Likes
625
Location
Herts., England
Is the OP talking about balanced as in inputs/outputs of DACs, amps etc., or balanced is with headphone cables and amps?
 

Atanasi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
713
Likes
792
Meanwhile 4 pin mini XLR's have been perfect for this application and completely ignored.
5-pin would be a bit better, including the ground. Pentaconn has the ground wire, too. Ground can be used as a shield against interference and for converting to single-ended.
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
5-pin would be a bit better, including the ground. Pentaconn has the ground wire, too. Ground can be used as a shield against interference and for converting to single-ended.

What would you need a shield for in a headphone cable? Maybe an extra long extension cable on a really sensitive IEM?

Even if you did need it, there are 5 pin mini XLRs too.
 

JohnYang1997

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Audio Company
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
7,175
Likes
18,292
Location
China
It's false that balanced give lower noise floor. Balanced is inherently more noisy. It just reduced the interference. If a system is ideal, unbalanced will give lower noise.
It's also not always correct that balanced give more power. It's only higher when output is voltage limited. If the output is current limited, balanced is no help.
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
Ideally differential ("balanced") improves SNR by 3 dB. In practice it's a don't-care.
 

AnalogSteph

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,336
Likes
3,278
Location
.de
If anyone uninitiated ends up reading this thread, they'll be so confused. More noisy? Less noisy? As a matter of fact, all of the above is true, just not under the same conditions. If we stick with theory for now, SNR is a matter of available power (which relates to voltage and impedance levels), and an ideal signal transformer will allow converting between balanced and unbalanced at will.

The practical deviations from theory come about due to the way we handle balanced connections in real life. You can't actually buy any ideal signal transformers at your usual parts distributors it turns out, and those you can buy have their quirks and are not cheap, so in many cases you'll be better off going all electronic.

Practical balanced connections tend to be either microphone level - generally around 0 dBu or below (I've seen inputs max out between -4 and over +10 dBu), with very low-noise input stages whose EIN may be below -130 dBu at highest gain - or line level, where input stage noise may be as high as -105..-100 dBu, but signal output levels tend to be 6-12 dB higher than consumer line level as well, with +16 to +20 dBu @ 0dBFS not being uncommon. If you do the math, you can get 100-110 dB through pretty much universally, even 120 dB with more effort. This will beat past consumer-level abominations like DIN tape I/O (output impedance 1 Megohm, input impedance 1 kOhm = microphone, around 70 dB at best) any day of the week.

Yes, it's easier to get a high dynamic range through an unbalanced connection, but what good is that if you then have to jump through hoops to keep ground loops away and power supply leakage currents at bay? It's kind of like putting a Ferrari engine in a Trabant.

Regarding the connector situation, IMHO that is a major factor that's hampering wider-scale adoption of balanced I/O in the consumer audio realm. RCA was simple, compact and inexpensive. Full-size XLRs are fabulous connectors and reasonably common, but just too big. 1/4" TRS gets closer in footprint and is common, but still takes up a bit more space inside a device than RCA. Mini-XLR, well, nothing Neutrik is ever cheap. 4.4 mm TRRRS is neat because it gets a full stereo pair plus shield onto a single compact, yet still decently robust connector; at this point, its main detriment is price (again), it's just not common enough to be available inexpensively at this point.
 
Last edited:

Veri

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
9,596
Likes
12,036
Balanced headphone cables make little difference anyway. However, full compatibility with Pentaconn is nice.
I don't really care for balanced headphone cables but if we slowly move from 3.5mm to a 4.4mm standard, I'd kinda like that. Pentaconn is nice.
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
I don't really care for balanced headphone cables but if we slowly move from 3.5mm to a 4.4mm standard, I'd kinda like that. Pentaconn is nice.

Pentacon is almost the MQA of audio connectors...
 

Veri

Master Contributor
Joined
Feb 6, 2018
Messages
9,596
Likes
12,036
Pentacon is almost the MQA of audio connectors...
Don't really understand this statement, it is a solid connector providing 4 connection points as well as a ground return path. It is a far better standard than the 2.5mm connector ever was. The only downside is licensing cost, yes, if that is what you meant :)
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
The only downside is licensing cost, yes, if that is what you meant :)

Yes. And when better alternatives already exist why go to all the trouble of an expensive new connector?

The only thing it's missing is backdoor DRM potential. :)
 

Atanasi

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
713
Likes
792
I think Pentaconn is trademarked and sockets are currently expensive with limited supply, but making alternative implementations is not illegal, if there will be more demand. As for me, I think mini-XLR is a more robust solution, and I would prefer that when there is enough space.
 
Last edited:

AnalogSteph

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,336
Likes
3,278
Location
.de
Yes. And when better alternatives already exist why go to all the trouble of an expensive new connector?
It makes for slimmer jacks than even Min-XLR, which is not unimportant for portable devices, while still providing a decent amount of robustness. Said jacks could also be relatively simple.

In stationary equipment I'd probably prefer Mini-XLR-5, which seems to be less exotic than I first thought. Carrying a full (line-level) stereo pair over a single Starquad cable (if need be) is not an unattractive proposition either way. (If you do the cable wiring right, you could just sum both channels for a "high-robustness" mode.)

When it comes to carrying multiple channels at once, I might look at the team of "cast-offs" from the computer world. A single DVI-D 18+1 (single link) cable could carry 4 channels right away (there must be tons of these still floating around that nobody wants), or up to 6 when deviating from standard usage. Add 2 more with a DVI-I cable, and yet another 3 for a dual link cable. Theoretical maximum = 11. DVI has always seemed perfectly fine in terms of ruggedness to me.
DisplayPort might be another option, which provides 5 differential pairs as-is, but there is less room for expansion due to fewer pins overall.
 
Last edited:

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
2,527
Likes
3,308
Location
Midwest, USA
When it comes to carrying multiple channels at once, I might look at the team of "cast-offs" from the computer world. A single DVI-D 18+1 (single link) cable could carry 4 channels right away (there must be tons of these still floating around that nobody wants), or up to 6 when deviating from standard usage. Add 2 more with a DVI-I cable, and yet another 3 for a dual link cable. Theoretical maximum = 11. DVI has always seemed perfectly fine in terms of ruggedness to me.
DisplayPort might be another option, which provides 5 differential pairs as-is, but there is less room for expansion due to fewer pins overall.

I think that would probably work, but I sure wouldn't want to deal with soldering those jacks.
 

AnalogSteph

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
3,336
Likes
3,278
Location
.de
I think that would probably work, but I sure wouldn't want to deal with soldering those jacks.
I was thinking more like a niche pro-audio solution, not so much DIY level, and taking advantage of existing cable stock where possible, so interconnect between multi-ch preamp and power amp or something.

But yeah, not sure about these if you want to make some custom cable on a small scale. Maybe that's why the handful of PC expansion cards with breakout cables are making use of way older connector types to this day - they work well enough and don't pose extreme hurdles in cable assembly. (The Lynx E22/E44 cards are literally using a good ol' DB-25 for analog I/O plus a 15-pin D-Sub for AES/EBU. The latter obviously is the VGA monitor connector, the former one might still know from COM ports or SCSI peripherals.)
 

192kbps

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 3, 2019
Messages
534
Likes
614
It's false that balanced give lower noise floor. Balanced is inherently more noisy. It just reduced the interference. If a system is ideal, unbalanced will give lower noise.
It's also not always correct that balanced give more power. It's only higher when output is voltage limited. If the output is current limited, balanced is no help.

BALANCED VS. UNBALANCED ANALOG INTERFACES
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/balanced-vs-unbalanced-analog-interfaces
AUDIO MYTH - BALANCED HEADPHONE AMPLIFIERS ARE BETTER
https://benchmarkmedia.com/blogs/application_notes/audio-myth-balanced-headphone-outputs-are-better
 

Katji

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Messages
2,990
Likes
2,273
I know a bit of this but not very sure so for the benefits of the newbies can anyone answer me these:
1) Is it true balanced is the "gold standard" if so why are there still unbalanced?
2) Balanced gives higher output and lower noise floor, again why are unbalanced still around?
and 3)
[...]

Balanced - or "balanced" - is now a fad.
 

MBWORLDZ

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2020
Messages
28
Likes
7
I am also confused with the different between Balanced vs Unbalanced. When I google it, they all say XLR better than Unbalanced. But during my test, I notice that it is not the case. I don’t know if its my system act differently or not.
Here is my gear.
McIntosh C52 preamp
Lumin D2 Streamer
Cambridge DAC Magic 200M.
https://www.moon-audio.com/silver-dragon-digital-cable-v1.html

Right now, I have the Digital Coax Silver Dragon silver cable connected from the Lumin D2 to my external DACMagic 200M. The DACMagic 200M has two output XLR or RCA.
I have both cables connected to my McIntosh C52 Preamp line in. So when I play the music from my streamer, I can switch from RCA or XLR to compare different. I noticed the sound from the RCA is much clear and brighter. I played a few songs that I listen to million times and hear the hi-hat way more clear than the XLR. I just don’t know why. Other people who used the XLR saying it has more clarity then RCA. But I don’t hear that at all. Even though I had my girlfriend did a blind test. She always pick the RCA has crystal clear sound.

Does any one have that experience ?

If I am not using the external DAC. I have the Lumin D2 connected to the digital coaxial silver dragon and XLR to the McIntosh C52. Switching back and forth for comparison. The clarity still from the Digital Coaxial cable. Is it because the XLR is more flat and neutral sounding?

or something wrong with my equipment lol?

Please help :-(
 
Top Bottom