cliveb;200226 Wrote: > I hate trying to use "audiophile" terminology, but here goes. To my > ears, the difference is that balanced operation somehow makes things > sound more solid, "meatier", more "organic". The timbres of instruments > have greater texture. For reasons I can't fathom, bass seems better > defined. Balanced definitely sounds better to me, but of course > "better" is a subjective term - I have no idea which is more accurate. > > Speculating, I wonder whether even short runs of unbalanced > interconnect are vulnerable to interference - not at a consciously > obvious level, but perhaps enough to smear very low level detail. It's > the only explanation that begins to make sense to me. > > And finally, bear in mind that these observations are within the > context of my own system - a pair of ATC SCM100A active monitors, which > have built-in power amps with balanced inputs. The interconnects > (whether balanced or unbalanced) are about 5 metres, so they probably > count as "medium length" - perhaps long enough that unbalanced is at a > disadvantage.
I think as a digital transport the tests are valid. But I have to agree about the balanced vs unbalanced on the analog outputs when ever I've had the option, balanced analog was always better. The noise floor completely disappears. You don't even know you have noise on the unbalanced until you compare them. -- mswlogo ------------------------------------------------------------------------ mswlogo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9090 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35068 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
