Mr Cynical says:
IMO The reason that balanced interconnects have never taken off seriously in HiFi is that they would no longer be able to sell outrageously priced connectors and leads.
Consider:
The music you cherish coming off a CD or LP, has already been through at least a dozen balanced interconnects in studio, probably nickel.
How would you rank the difference one more would make?
a) A lot
b) Some small effect
c) Sweet FA
I'm for c).
In studio, we don't look at the make of the cables. It's whether they are well made, and correctly wired.
Unbalanced interconnects, properly made, in a quiet environment are OK. But the coming of switch mode power supplies, dimmers, mobile phones, made that a thing of the past.
Why on earth should thick unbalanced cables sound (generally) better than thin ones? The reason in my book, is 2 fold.
1) Better screening against sh*t.
2) Better earth bonding between chassis, thus reducing sh*t.
You can buy bigger and better unbalanced interconnects each year. Or, you can use what the professionals use.
Oh alright
they're available in gold as well!
BUT THEY SOUND THE SAME
Rant over Back to normality
Now wheres my RCA/Cinch/Phono......I must have put it somewhere............
Insomnia does strange things.........
IMO The reason that balanced interconnects have never taken off seriously in HiFi is that they would no longer be able to sell outrageously priced connectors and leads.
Consider:
The music you cherish coming off a CD or LP, has already been through at least a dozen balanced interconnects in studio, probably nickel.
How would you rank the difference one more would make?
a) A lot
b) Some small effect
c) Sweet FA
I'm for c).
In studio, we don't look at the make of the cables. It's whether they are well made, and correctly wired.
Unbalanced interconnects, properly made, in a quiet environment are OK. But the coming of switch mode power supplies, dimmers, mobile phones, made that a thing of the past.
Why on earth should thick unbalanced cables sound (generally) better than thin ones? The reason in my book, is 2 fold.
1) Better screening against sh*t.
2) Better earth bonding between chassis, thus reducing sh*t.
You can buy bigger and better unbalanced interconnects each year. Or, you can use what the professionals use.
Oh alright
they're available in gold as well! BUT THEY SOUND THE SAME
Rant over
Back to normality Now wheres my RCA/Cinch/Phono......I must have put it somewhere............
Insomnia does strange things.........
On the isolation between digital and analog
So the idea I'm getting is a balanced phase splitter (Concertina) probably would not be that great when used in analog to analog applications but would be ideal for say inside a DAC?
On that side note, If that's true, would this type of phase splitter go before the digtal signal was converted to an analog signal?
I'd still like to hear what type of balanced output is ideal, which on kills all others?
David
So the idea I'm getting is a balanced phase splitter (Concertina) probably would not be that great when used in analog to analog applications but would be ideal for say inside a DAC?
On that side note, If that's true, would this type of phase splitter go before the digtal signal was converted to an analog signal?
I'd still like to hear what type of balanced output is ideal, which on kills all others?
David
Re: What do you mean Joel?
The standard RC-coupled "paraphase", uses two triodes. The grid resistor of the 1st triode has a tap which is tied directly to the grid of the 2nd tube. Usually, the point is determined by two fixed resistors, but I use a pot instead, and the wiper is tied to the grid, so I can move the pick-off point around. Look in the back of any RCA tube manual for an example of the (unmodified) circuit.
EternaLightWith said:
The standard RC-coupled "paraphase", uses two triodes. The grid resistor of the 1st triode has a tap which is tied directly to the grid of the 2nd tube. Usually, the point is determined by two fixed resistors, but I use a pot instead, and the wiper is tied to the grid, so I can move the pick-off point around. Look in the back of any RCA tube manual for an example of the (unmodified) circuit.
Coupling
Here is a 1949 article by Frank McIntosh and Gordon Gow in which:
“the first major change in years in amplifier coupling circuit principles is discussed, together with details of the components employed.”
http://www.audiophool.cjb.net/Misc/Mac1949.pdf
Nothing new under the sun
I have a large collection of online articles/info with live links. Drop me an email if you would like a copy.
I sure am glad they dropped the "dimwit" member ranking from my name!
Cheers
Craig
Here is a 1949 article by Frank McIntosh and Gordon Gow in which:
“the first major change in years in amplifier coupling circuit principles is discussed, together with details of the components employed.”
http://www.audiophool.cjb.net/Misc/Mac1949.pdf
Nothing new under the sun
I have a large collection of online articles/info with live links. Drop me an email if you would like a copy.
I sure am glad they dropped the "dimwit" member ranking from my name!
Cheers
Craig
John, in all seriousness, there was nothing ridiculous about it. The triodes in the above circuit do not need to be "matched". They do need to be the same though - ie. both 6J5, or one 6SN7, 6C8, 6SC7, etc.
Matching implies there is no compensation mechanism built into the circuit. I never rely on tube condition to set the operating points of the circuit.
Matching implies there is no compensation mechanism built into the circuit. I never rely on tube condition to set the operating points of the circuit.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.