bertsummerkids Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 I have a RF7 setup and using a B&K 200.2 and soon a 200.3 amp. I have a choice between a B&K ref 30 or a ref 50 ( for much more money). I know the processing of the 30 can be upgraded to the 50, so the main difference is that the 50 has balanced inputs and the 30 does not. My interconnects are only 2 feet long and i dont experience any feedback or speaker or amp hum or any noise. so is there any advantage of using the 50 in my setup and is there better sound quality with the 50 compared to the 30. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxman Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 Generaly I don't think you will appreciate a diffearnce at all, especially considering the short distance you are talking about. There might MIGHT be a measurable differance, but measurable and audible are two very differant things alltogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 There are qualitative costs with the use of balanced cables. Balanced inputs reduce sound quality. It is worth the cost on long runs with many opportunities to pick up noise. On short runs, there is usually no benefit to offset the qualitative costs in the use of balanced inputs. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 So all the studios in the world running balanced cables are ruining the sound quality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 DrWho, I said that there is a cost, not that the sound quality is ruined. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to put words in my mouth. Balanced inputs are not always used by the pros. A fellow that mixed major motion pictures for a living put me onto this fact and the fact that there is a cost. Adding a phase splitter in the preamp is another manipulation of the signal where quality may be reduced. When the signals are manipulated at the amp end to reject non-existent noise in a home system, there is another opportunity for signal degradation. Why manipulate a signal to solve a problem that probably does not exist in a home system? Why buy more expensive ables or additional cables? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 ---------------- On 5/12/2005 1:48:30 AM DrWho wrote: So all the studios in the world running balanced cables are ruining the sound quality? ---------------- No, Doc, they're defending their systems from noise generated (primarily) by the equipment they are recording - you know, guitar amps, bass amps. They're also defending their systems from the low-level noise generated by track lighting, power lines, RF interference (which really only occurs over the long runs from the control room to the recording areas) The point McGoo makes is still very salient. If you're not in an extremely noise-vulnerable situation (neighbor next door is using megawatt linear amplifiers to power his CB radio, for example), and you're only using two-foot interconnects, there's absolutely no real benefit to using XLR or TRS balanced cables. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 ---------------- On 5/11/2005 6:48:02 PM MrMcGoo wrote: ...Balanced inputs reduce sound quality.... ---------------- Not sure how I'm putting words in other's mouths... I didn't mean to come across as a prick, but that sentence was the only reason I responded that way. I totally agree that the benefits of balanced cables usually become less and less as the signal distances get shorter. But just to play devil's advocate, I've been in situations where even a 3 foot unbalanced cable was picking up noise. Ironically, the first time it happened to me I also had the option for running balanced lines, but I thought it was pointless to consider the difference. From then on I figured it was easier just to use balanced if the option was available so as to avoid the possibility of picking up noise. Despite the extra circuitry that might be involved with balanced lines, I personally find them to sound cleaner than unbalanced, even when using the same equipment with both options. I think it partly has to do with the fact that unbalanced lines use negative feedback for noise reduction. In the grand scheme of things, when you've got equipment capable of both, it's practically a free experiment to test both ways and determine for yourself which sounds better. Also, XLR cables really aren't that expensive either and I love how much better they connect to equipment (they actually lock instead of pressure fitting). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 The amount of "reduction" was not specified. It depends on the quality of the equipment used in the signal manipulation. For example most amps with balanced inputs are not fully balanced internally. Not all phase splitters are created and implemented equally. The cost (which may be small) needs to be weighed aginst the benefit gained. If there is no noise being picked up in a home system's 1 meter interconnect, then any cost in sound qualty or added cable cost is not worth the effort. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelerFan Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 ---------------- On 5/12/2005 9:33:11 AM DrWho wrote: But just to play devil's advocate, I've been in situations where even a 3 foot unbalanced cable was picking up noise. ---------------- I had a hum problem with my short unbalanced cables. I was wishing my preamp gave me the option of using balanced like my amp did but that was not the case. Fortunately Russ (minn_male) ran across my problem in a thread and suggested I try RCA to XLR cables. I didn't even know such a thing was made but it worked like a charm, the hum I had in my mains along with the hiss I had in the center disappeared like magic. The only issue is I now have to turn up the volume on my preamp higher than I used to with all RCA's to get the same SPL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 ---------------- On 5/12/2005 10:08:01 AM MrMcGoo wrote: The amount of "reduction" was not specified. It depends on the quality of the equipment used in the signal manipulation. For example most amps with balanced inputs are not fully balanced internally. Not all phase splitters are created and implemented equally. The cost (which may be small) needs to be weighed aginst the benefit gained. If there is no noise being picked up in a home system's 1 meter interconnect, then any cost in sound qualty or added cable cost is not worth the effort. Bill ---------------- By the way, Bill... The "extra cost" involved with a 3-foot XLR cable is minimal, if at all. One can go to any local music shop and pick up an inexpensive 3-foot XLR for around $8. They'll probably cut you a deal for buying two of them. You've just been shopping for XLR's from the wrong companies - "audiophile" cable companies that overcharge for what they view to be a limited interest item, because their market is home users, not professionals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMcGoo Posted May 12, 2005 Share Posted May 12, 2005 Griff, Why replace my RCAs if I have no noise problem? I already have too many cables. Many folks do no need to add more cables. The member that had the noise problem with his RCA cables is the exception. He benefitted from the balanced cables. It doesn't always turn out that way. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.