Are balanced XLR cables better, and if so is it worth spending a fortune on them?

[MP1968]

I posted recently on the topic of speakers. Now it's on XLR cables. I've looked at a number of forum conversations, and I'm confused.

I have a Leema Antila IIs (which has balanced outputs) and a Chord 2650 amp (which has balanced inputs). A lot of what I've read on the Net suggests that balanced is better than RCA phono, so I started looking at cables.

XLR cables can cost hundreds. However, a number of people on various fora suggest that (unlike RCA phono) spending more money on XLR cables isn't worth it. This appears to be down to the basic design of an XLR cable relative to an RCA phono. I don't understand the ins and outs of why this should be the case.

There also appears to be some debate as to whether hi fi components which say they are balanced actually are so. Something to do with it being very expensive to create a fully balanced hi fi component. Again, I don't understand the ins and outs of this.

So in the end I shelled out on some Van Damme XLR cables, on the basis that VD are used in recording studios, by the BBC, etc.. On which note, I've also read that while XLR is good for the long cable runs as used in the music / recording industry, for the short runs used in hi fi (say up to 1 metre) it has no advantage.

Anyway, the proof is in what it sounds like. And the Van Damme cables to my ears don't sound a whole lot different to the Van den Hul phonos I previously had. But they certainly don't sound worse, and only cost around £35.

The question, then, is whether to spend much more money on a Chord or an Atlas XLR (for example), and see if that's better. Or find a hi fi shop which does sale or return. Either way, I could end up spending a lot of money on something which is essentially a cable, i.e. a length of 99.999999% oxygen-free copper (perhaps silver plated), or pure silver (so fair enough, I'd expect to pay more).

Can anyone shed any light on this? I notice that WHF don't seem to review any XLRs (or have them in their Awards), and I'm not sure why that is. Presumably a Chord Crimson Plus with XLR connectors does just as well as the phono equivalent?

Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[eclecticmonkey]

I've just posted a slightly different interconnect question under "Looking for general advice re interconnects" - I didn't specify balanced connections in mine although that is what I intend to buy. So I'll be watching this thread with interest, maybe you'll get something useful out of the other one too.

 

[hugokhf]

it takes trained ears to listen to balanced input IMO.

at least I can't. but again, I don't have the brightest ear

a bit like copper cable/gold cable change. Personally I think there will be no difference in blind test, but some say one of them have more bass than other

 

[Ajani]

IMO, no cables are worth spending a fortune on. As for whether balanced cables are worth it - depends on the design of the product. However, ASFAIK, balanced cables will sound equal to or better than RCA (but generally not worse). More importantly, they only cost a fortune if you buy from typical HiFi cable brands. Check out a pro audio store and you'll likely see a range of balanced cables at reasonable prices.

 

[Overdose]

Apart from a more secure connection, XLR cables offer nothing over ordinary RCA/phono interconnects in a normal home environment.

XLR cables are predominantly used in studios which generally have a much noisier electrical environment and their design allows the cable to eliminate this interference.

Costs are not expensive at all and a quick look at a proaudio website will give you all the info you need. RCA interconnects should not be much different in terms of cost, but more money should get you better build quality in terms of termination, but other than that, save your cash.

 

[CnoEvil]

I think you have a better understanding than you think......and my advice is also based on knowledge which is a little tenuous.

My understanding is as follows:

- There are no hard and fast rules

- It works best with kit that is "fully balanced".....eg. a lot of amps are "unbalanced" internally, and so the balanced input runs through a balanced to unbalanced chip.

- It doesn't always sound "better" than RCA (some of the older Linn stuff), but with the right kit, it often does (eg. Electrocompaniet)

- Here is Atlas's description of a Balanced Cable (6.5): http://www.atlascables.com/right-connection.html

- Like the rest of hifi, it's suck it and see, I'm afraid.

 

[busb]

Both my DAC & power amp are truly balanced & both also have RCA.The XLR does sound slightly better but comparison isn't straightforward 'cos the XLR's level is higher. The differnce is so marginal, if someone swapped without telling me, I'd bet I'd never suspect! The RCA's were 0.5m Chord Chameleon Plus Vee's so hardly cheap & cheerful.

Both set of XLRs I own are 0.5m. One cost £10 & the other £130. The difference in SQ is close enough to zero to my ears. XLRs are technically better & are the most common for professional use. Because they are balanced, they are quite tolerent of length where they are less prone to picking up noise (good Common Mode rejection) & unlike the cr*p RCA design, they make the ground before live so you don't get high levels of hum until the out shell connection is made. They also lock, are male one end & female the other so can be daisy-chained which is less useful for domestic use but great for studio/stage use. This also means that they cannot be reversed but most professionals don't believe that directionality effects SQ anyhow!

 

[MP1968]

Thanks all for the comments. And CnoEvil thanks for the Atlas link: it's helped shed a little bit of light.

I think my conclusion is that balanced XLRs maybe aren't the night and day difference you read in some places, or at least they may be for some equipment, but it isn't a universal rule. The Van Dammes came from a pro audio type store, so at least that appears to have been a good call.

I take the point that XLRs are perhaps more designed for a recording studio sort of environment, with long cable runs, plenty of possible electrical interference, that type of thing.

On CnoEvil's point, I think I'll contact Leema and Chord, and find out whether the 'architecture' (if that's the right word) of my CD player and amp are fully balanced.

But overall I think shelling out a lot of the hard earned for an expensive hi fi brand XLR cable probably isn't worthwhile.

 

[BigH]

Van Damme are a decent company selling mainly to the pro market rather hifi market, I believe their cables are good value.

 

[Rimse]

If the system is balanced it would add +6db more gain ,cable material matters and in xlr mode.Even the solder matters .I have right now 3cable xlr sets, 2 of them van damme digi grade and patch,one atlas elektra xlr ,made from rca cable with neutrik plugs and Mundorf solder Sn88.6% Cu1.8% Ag9.5% Au0.1% .So far atlas elektra sound the best.No grain ,huge sound,with nice slam ,even Harbeth generaly known as sounding polite now sound punchy,joy to listen music or movie.For example atlas elektra has more copper strands I did not count but around 30 and one a bit fatter in the middle,while van damme only 7 strands .So my conclusion it is worth

 

[Overdose]

If the system is balanced it would add +6db more gain ,cable material matters and in xlr mode.Even the solder matters .I have right now 3cable xlr sets, 2 of them van damme digi grade and patch,one atlas elektra xlr ,made from rca cable with neutrik plugs and Mundorf solder Sn88.6% Cu1.8% Ag9.5% Au0.1% .So far atlas elektra sound the best.No grain ,huge sound,with nice slam ,even Harbeth generaly known as sounding polite now sound punchy,joy to listen music or movie.For example atlas elektra has more copper strands I did not count but around 30 and one a bit fatter in the middle,while van damme only 7 strands .So my conclusion it is worth

Correct me if I'm wrong, but RCA cable is single core no? How has a balanced configuration been achieved with single core cable?

XLR mode means nothing in itself, it is merely a type of connector, Neutrik is a manufacturer and solder type (even if this statement were to be believed) would affect a cable of any type of construction if it affected one.

 

[Rimse]

atlas elektra rca cable was called pseudo balanced,it has the same cores as balanced:shield ,hot(red+),inverting(black-), I found this by accident when after 1month of use suddendly music stopped playing in left channel,one of cores was loose.

 

[abacus]

Balanced has 2 internal wires and a shield, unbalanced has 1 internal wire and a shield, there is no such thing as pseudo balanced cable.

As to special Hi Fi cable manufactures then I am afraid nothing they say actually stands up to scrutiny, as while they do not tell a lie, none of the special features mentioned have any relevance to Hi Fi audio and digital transmission.

There will be no difference between balanced cables unless they use stupidly thin cables and poor quality connectors, so don’t go paying over the odds for them.

TIP: When it comes to selecting cables, avoid Hi Fi manufactures, Hi Fi magazines and Hi Fi dealers, just go to a pro music store (Where professionals get there cables from) and take their advice, that way you are less likely to be conned and ripped off.

Hope this helps

Bill

 

[proffski]

IMO, no cables are worth spending a fortune on. As for whether balanced cables are worth it - depends on the design of the product. However, ASFAIK, balanced cables will sound equal to or better than RCA (but generally not worse). More importantly, they only cost a fortune if you buy from typical HiFi cable brands. Check out a pro audio store and you'll likely see a range of balanced cables at reasonable prices.

Good advice, why not use as to what the recording studios, BBC and main radio stations use? Some right amazing bargains with these people, suppliers to most of Europe!

Link: http://www.canford.co.uk/

 

[Rimse]

Balanced has 2 internal wires and a shield, unbalanced has 1 internal wire and a shield, there is no such thing as pseudo balanced cable.

Bill

so what,I am using balanced van damme cable for rca interconnects,no problem .Who can prevent to use multicore cables for rca interconnects 8)

"PSEUDO BALANCED INTERCONNECT: (usually terminated with RCA plugs) - this interconnect is recommended for analogue interfaces such as that between a turntable and pre-amplifier or between pre and power amplifier where RCA sockets are provided. Pseudo balanced interconnects are always directional - the screen and return path must be connected at the 'source' end for them to work best."

 

[GSB]

Hasn't it already been said that from a studio's view point signal isn't directional :?

 

[andyjm]

Hasn't it already been said that from a studio's view point signal isn't directional :?

'Directional' is the wrong word. The cables are constructed with the screen connected at one end only, hence the cable needs to be installed the correct way around. It has nothing to do with the 'flow' of the signal. It might be better to call the cables 'handed' or something similar.

 

[abacus]

Hasn't it already been said that from a studio's view point signal isn't directional :?

'Directional' is the wrong word. The cables are constructed with the screen connected at one end only, hence the cable needs to be installed the correct way around. It has nothing to do with the 'flow' of the signal. It might be better to call the cables 'handed' or something similar.

What actual cable are you using, (Is the lead pre-made or did you make it yourself) as currently the description you are giving makes no electrical sense.

Alternatively post a link to it so that we can have a look at it.

Bill

 

[andyjm]

Hasn't it already been said that from a studio's view point signal isn't directional :?

'Directional' is the wrong word. The cables are constructed with the screen connected at one end only, hence the cable needs to be installed the correct way around. It has nothing to do with the 'flow' of the signal. It might be better to call the cables 'handed' or something similar.

What actual cable are you using, (Is the lead pre-made or did you make it yourself) as currently the description you are giving makes no electrical sense.

Alternatively post a link to it so that we can have a look at it.

Bill

Bill,

This is not a 'balanced' cable where common mode interference on two conductors is nulled by either a centre tapped transformer or differential input, and I have no idea what 'pseudo balanced' is, but the argument for cables of this type goes something like this:

Using a balanced cable (two conductors in 'twisted pair' configuration and an overall screen) and two RCA plugs.

At one end of the cable connect one conductor (lets say red) to the tip of the RCA. Connect the screen and the other conductor (say black) to the screen of the RCA. At the other end of the cable, leave the screen unconnected, connect the red conductor to the RCA tip, the black conductor to the RCA screen. The argument is then that EM interference is induced equally into both conductors and is 'common mode' and nulled at the amp. The overall screen is only connected at one end, doesn't carry any signal and just provides EM screening.

Personally, I dont think it holds any water, but there you go....

 

[abacus]

Now I get you.

You are also correct in that it is a complete load of rubbish, in fact it sounds like somebody has picked up a little knowledge from Wikipedia, put 2 + 2 together and made 5.

Bill

 

[SpursGator]

Cables are a religion to some people. IMO the answers to the OP's question are:

1. Yes using balanced cables makes a difference, at least on paper, and quite often an audible difference. There are a lot of reasons for this other than the cable itself.

2. No it doesn't matter that much about the quality of the cable, provided it is of professional standard with good connectors. People will argue about this all day, but if it is a truly balanced connection, any noise introduced in the cable is being cancelled out anyway, this being the advantage of this kind of connection.

In a lot of equipment XLR may not be any better than RCA, that is true. But it's no worse and has less noisy plugs so why not.

Speaking of pro audio, you will never see a pro using an RCA cable. One of the reasons people get so obsessed with improving their RCA cables is presumeably because they are so crappy to being with. My best component - my BAT preamp - does not even have RCA jacks. They were invented for gramophones in the 1940s, FFS. I just built my first amp, a little class T, and the blasted RCA jacks were responsible for more noise issues whilst I was working out the bugs than the rest of it combined.

The cable-obsessed dude that has been posting is right about one thing: if you want to have great cables, the best way to do it is build them yourself. It isn't that hard - not like building speakers or amps or whatever, it's just wires in a sleeve with some connectors - and there are kits with instructions as well. You can be as obsessive as you feel is necessary.

 

[andyjm]

1. Yes using balanced cables makes a difference, at least on paper, and quite often an audible difference. There are a lot of reasons for this other than the cable itself.

Over short runs, in a domestic situation, there are no benefits to be had by using balanced interconnects instead of single ended connections.

On paper, what are the 'lots of reasons' you think make a difference?

 

[SpursGator]

1. Yes using balanced cables makes a difference, at least on paper, and quite often an audible difference. There are a lot of reasons for this other than the cable itself.

Over short runs, in a domestic situation, there are no benefits to be had by using balanced interconnects instead of single ended connections.

On paper, what are the 'lots of reasons' you think make a difference?

Sorry for the slow reply - don't think you're still reading but I wanted to respond.

Your first statement is of such poor logic as to be absurd. I at least qualified my assertions about SQ with terms such as 'on paper' and 'quite often.' But you make an absolute statement, saying definitively that there are 'no benefits to be had' with balanced cables, if the cable runs are 'short' (normative; how short?) and in a 'domestic situation' (meaning the rules of physics change when I pass from work to home? What if I work from home?). An absolute unbending rule of nature based on two human-defined states.

And yes, I know what you mean. But the purpose of a balanced cable is to eliminate RF interference. My hifi stand currently contains - besides two amps, the Benchmark, and the Oppo - a PS3, a Wii, a Mac Mini, an Ethernet switch, several things charging in various USB ports and chargers, a couple of fused power strips, and a Sky receiver, all with a massive TV perched on top. This isn't even mentioning the electronic piano and all of the bloody crap with batteries and motors that my children leave in close proximity. My domestic situation may be smaller than the setup at the Fillmore East or the O2 Arena, but it surely creates RF noise and it's all crammed a lot closer together. And I may be a bit of a nerd but there's never been more RF interference in domestic situations.

As for 'short,' that can mean a lot of things. Having a look at the manual for my Benchmark DAC1 - useful since it's a piece of pro equipment and thus gives real data in their manual rather than the load of marketing rubbish we get from our usual friends - we can see that for a lot of these questions, the answers are too complex to answer with such a reductionist statement. The DAC1, using unattenuated balanced outputs, has an output impedance of 60 ohms and can drive 680 feet of cable. But if you use the -20db attenuator setting, which is what most 'domestic' users need to feed a consumer amp via XLRs, the output impedance rises to 500 ohms and the max cable length is 'only' 82 feet. You would expect the -10db setting to be in between, right? Not at all - at the middle setting the output impedance is 1600 ohms, and the max cable length only 26 feet.

All of this assumes a certain capacitance for the cables - this is all 'on paper' based on the design spec of the machine. But if you were using crappy cables with high capacitance, it might not make a difference on a 300-foot cable run at the 0 db setting, but make the innocent change of attenuating the output slightly for a consumer amp, and the relatively small increase in capacitance of the cable - through the magic of multiplication - could shrink that 26 feet down to 2 or 3. Attenuate it another 10db and it probably stops mattering again.

In case you are wondering, the RCA outputs on the DAC1 are only 30 ohms and can drive a 1,360 foot unbalanced cable. These outputs are attenuated by around -10db as well - outside of the main, balanced circuit - to conform to the consumer audio standard. 30 ohms is great and you wouldn't expect too much sensitivity to RCA cable capacitance - you probably don't need super cables here. The signal is being padded and impedance corrected to deal with the high capacitance of consumer audio RCA inputs.

So this is the answer to your second question - what 'other factors' was I talking about. I mean, there are a lot of reasons balanced interconnects CAN sound better OTHER THAN the quality of the cable itself. There are a couple of examples: single ended RCA inputs have a high capacitance, and balanced audio equipment typically must pad or otherwise modify the signal sent to them. It's better to pass a balanced signal directly to another machine's balanced input. Obviously.

But I thought it was interesting that, in fact, the balanced outputs in general support shorter cable lengths than the unbalanced. Balanced cables are better. They send the signal on one lead, a true current-free ground on another, and an inverted signal on the other. At the receiving end, only difference between the signals is sensed - whatever signal is common to both leads is assumed to be noise, and rejected. It's built-in analogue error correction - called Common Mode Rejection.

But the superiority of XLR interconnects is more about the inferiority of deriving and sending unbalanced signals than the noise rejection. Note the the opposite is true as well. Some unbalanced consumer equipment is sold with an XLR output or two. These will tend to sound worse than the RCA for the same reason - it's a derived signal and thus you are adding an additional stage.

 

[andyjm]

1. Yes using balanced cables makes a difference, at least on paper, and quite often an audible difference. There are a lot of reasons for this other than the cable itself.

Over short runs, in a domestic situation, there are no benefits to be had by using balanced interconnects instead of single ended connections.

On paper, what are the 'lots of reasons' you think make a difference?

Sorry for the slow reply - don't think you're still reading but I wanted to respond.

Your first statement is of such poor logic as to be absurd. I at least qualified my assertions about SQ with terms such as 'on paper' and 'quite often.' But you make an absolute statement, saying definitively that there are 'no benefits to be had' with balanced cables, if the cable runs are 'short' (normative; how short?) and in a 'domestic situation' (meaning the rules of physics change when I pass from work to home? What if I work from home?). An absolute unbending rule of nature based on two human-defined states.

And yes, I know what you mean. But the purpose of a balanced cable is to eliminate RF interference. My hifi stand currently contains - besides two amps, the Benchmark, and the Oppo - a PS3, a Wii, a Mac Mini, an Ethernet switch, several things charging in various USB ports and chargers, a couple of fused power strips, and a Sky receiver, all with a massive TV perched on top. This isn't even mentioning the electronic piano and all of the bloody crap with batteries and motors that my children leave in close proximity. My domestic situation may be smaller than the setup at the Fillmore East or the O2 Arena, but it surely creates RF noise and it's all crammed a lot closer together. And I may be a bit of a nerd but there's never been more RF interference in domestic situations.

As for 'short,' that can mean a lot of things. Having a look at the manual for my Benchmark DAC1 - useful since it's a piece of pro equipment and thus gives real data in their manual rather than the load of marketing rubbish we get from our usual friends - we can see that for a lot of these questions, the answers are too complex to answer with such a reductionist statement. The DAC1, using unattenuated balanced outputs, has an output impedance of 60 ohms and can drive 680 feet of cable. But if you use the -20db attenuator setting, which is what most 'domestic' users need to feed a consumer amp via XLRs, the output impedance rises to 500 ohms and the max cable length is 'only' 82 feet. You would expect the -10db setting to be in between, right? Not at all - at the middle setting the output impedance is 1600 ohms, and the max cable length only 26 feet.

All of this assumes a certain capacitance for the cables - this is all 'on paper' based on the design spec of the machine. But if you were using crappy cables with high capacitance, it might not make a difference on a 300-foot cable run at the 0 db setting, but make the innocent change of attenuating the output slightly for a consumer amp, and the relatively small increase in capacitance of the cable - through the magic of multiplication - could shrink that 26 feet down to 2 or 3. Attenuate it another 10db and it probably stops mattering again.

In case you are wondering, the RCA outputs on the DAC1 are only 30 ohms and can drive a 1,360 foot unbalanced cable. These outputs are attenuated by around -10db as well - outside of the main, balanced circuit - to conform to the consumer audio standard. 30 ohms is great and you wouldn't expect too much sensitivity to RCA cable capacitance - you probably don't need super cables here. The signal is being padded and impedance corrected to deal with the high capacitance of consumer audio RCA inputs.

So this is the answer to your second question - what 'other factors' was I talking about. I mean, there are a lot of reasons balanced interconnects CAN sound better OTHER THAN the quality of the cable itself. There are a couple of examples: single ended RCA inputs have a high capacitance, and balanced audio equipment typically must pad or otherwise modify the signal sent to them. It's better to pass a balanced signal directly to another machine's balanced input. Obviously.

But I thought it was interesting that, in fact, the balanced outputs in general support shorter cable lengths than the unbalanced. Balanced cables are better. They send the signal on one lead, a true current-free ground on another, and an inverted signal on the other. At the receiving end, only difference between the signals is sensed - whatever signal is common to both leads is assumed to be noise, and rejected. It's built-in analogue error correction - called Common Mode Rejection.

But the superiority of XLR interconnects is more about the inferiority of deriving and sending unbalanced signals than the noise rejection. Note the the opposite is true as well. Some unbalanced consumer equipment is sold with an XLR output or two. These will tend to sound worse than the RCA for the same reason - it's a derived signal and thus you are adding an additional stage.

Balanced interconnects are used in professional situations primarily because of the length of cables enountered. The main problems are crosstalk with other cables, frequency response issues from transmission line effects on longer runs and baseband EM interference (most often mains hum). These are countered by having cables correctly terminated at their characteristic impedence (110 ohms), driving the cables at a higher signal level than domestic 'line level' and the use of differential transmission techniques.

Domestic connections dont really face these issues. I would guess that most audio interconnects are less than a couple of metres, and the cable effects I mention above aren't really significant.

Balanced has its downsides, the vast majority of equipment is not balanced internally and the use of balanced links involves two conversions from unbalanced to balanced and back again. This comes with cost and sound quality penalties.

So I stand by my analysis, in a domestic situation with short runs of cable, there are no benefits to be had by using balanced internconnects.