# Balanced VS. Single ended - Poll



## VictorHalgaard

Right, so here is the princip. What do you prefer and why? But on the following terms:
  -Ignore power output (Imagine you hook a can that is only 35 ohm, or but amps just have equal power output)
  -Ignore price and size 
  -Only sound matters, what difference does it really make?
   
  So, is it just a power thing or would there really be a significant sound difference between the same amp section in balanced vs. unbalanced mode?


----------



## Willakan

I voted single-ended. One of the major engineers at Benchmark is on record as saying the benefits as oft' advertised simply don't exist(AMB forum); even as a layperson looking at it it's not clear what you get for doubled output impedance and other tradeoffs.
   
  EDIT: Located the quotes (http://www.amb.org/forum/benchmark-engineer-on-balanced-v-unbalanced-headphone-amps-t326.html#p2942) and reproduced them below:
   
  It is worth noting that AMB contested some of these claims, but I side *very* strongly with the Benchmark engineer on this one.
   
*Initial message expressing opinion on debate:*
_Hello!

 My name is Elias Gwinn, I'm an engineer at Benchmark Media Systems.

 We've been getting a lot of questions lately about balanced headphones. We are interested in the debate, but I can't say we agree with any technical explanations about the benefits of the set up.

 So far, there are 4 major points mentioned so far (that I have heard, at least):

 1. Unshared common conductor reduces crosstalk

 2. Two amps (per channel) increases slew-rate

 3. Two amps provide better damping

 4. Balanced cabling provides better common-mode rejection

 If I may, I'd like to add my thoughts on these points:

 1. Most headphones (at least those of decent quality) do not share a common conductor through the length of the cable (as opposed to what was said in 6 Moons). Most headphones have a separate wire from each negative terminal that remain isolated through the length of the cable. In other words, most headphone cables are effectively balanced inherently. If they were sharing a common through the length of the cable, the impedance of the cable may cause some of the signal to show up on opposing channels. However, they are not connected until the plug, and therefore have a minimal impedance to ground.

 2. Any headphone amp that is struggling with slew-rate is a poorly designed headphone amplifier. The HPA2 headphone amplifier on the DAC1 has a bandwidth of 55 kHz, and it doesn't even approach any slew-rate limitations even at those high frequencies.

 3. Two amps provide WORSE damping. This is why power amplifiers run better in normal mode vs. bridged mode. A balanced (dual-active) headphone amplifier is exactly analogous to a bridged amplifier driving one speaker. The only advantage is increased power, but it comes at an expense of increased distortion, decreased damping, and altered frequency response. This is common knowledge for bridged amplifiers.

 4. Headphones don't need any help with common-mode rejection because they inherently will not respond to common mode signal. If, for example, you apply a signal to both terminals of a speaker, it will not move at all. A speaker only responds to differential voltages.

 5. There is another cost incurred by dual-active headphone amps that is not addressed. Headphone amps should have as low of a source impedance as possible. If you are using two amps to drive a channel, you are doubling the source impedance. This will cause the headphones to suffer in frequency response, distortion, and ringing.

 Please continue the great discussions. It is important to resolve these debates so that product manufactures can respond to provide the best audio solutions possible.

 Thanks!
 Elias Gwinn_
   
*Second response to similar query:*
   
_ALL headphones have non-linear mechanical impedances (that is, the mass and shape of a speaker will resonate more at certain frequencies and much less at other frequencies). This means the physical build of the headphones (as well as other physical impedances, like your head and ears!) will try to override the electrical system (amplifier and speaker coil).

 To create low-distortion headphone response, one must consider 'damping factor'. A high damping factor will control the response of the speaker, thus preventing the physical impedances from dictating frequency response. Damping factor is the ratio of speaker (load) impedance to amplifier (source) impedance. In other words, the best damping factor will result from a low source impedance. Again, the source impedance from the HPA2 is less then 0.01 ohms...as low as gets!!

 Balanced headphone amps will double the source impedance of an unbalanced headphone amp. No matter how low the impedance of a balanced headphone amp, it could be half that much if it was unbalanced. This is one reason balanced headphone amps are not a good idea. (It should also be noted that the balanced output of the DAC1 / USB / PRE is 60 ohms or greater, depending on the attenuator settings).

 Not only will the source impedance double with balanced headphone amplifiers, but the total distortion and noise of the amplifier will double as well!! Every output device (opamp, transistor, tube) creates some distortion and some noise. If there are two opamps or transistors or tubes driving each headphone speaker, twice as much distortion and noise will be added!!

 The result of balanced headphones is less damping factor, more distortion, and more noise. Also, balanced headphones configurations offer no real benefits, to boot.

 Feel free to use the XLR outputs of the DAC1 / USB / PRE for balanced headphone outputs (as mentioned above, the DAC1 USB and DAC1 PRE will do better then the DAC1 at this task, because of the 4562's). It won't damage anything to operate in this configuration. But, for the reasons above, I don't recommend it.

 Thanks,
 Elias_


----------



## Jalo

Quote: 





victorhalgaard said:


> Right, so here is the princip. What do you prefer and why? But on the following terms:
> -Ignore power output (Imagine you hook a can that is only 35 ohm, or but amps just have equal power output)
> -Ignore price and size
> -Only sound matters, what difference does it really make?
> ...


 

 May I add one more term, which is who ever going to vote has to use a balance system for at least six months.  It will not be fair to vote if one does not have sufficient experience with what a balance sound is like.  Agree?
   
With that, 1 vote for balance with three years of balance use.
   
  Withdrawn.


----------



## VictorHalgaard

But the the question would be: Wouldn't a balanced amplifier via "push-pull" factor in turn offer superior control of the diaphragm, like a electrostatic setup does and thus provide a more accurate reproduction of sound?
  And isn't the distortion level on any properly built and commercially available balanced so low pr. channel that even added up it is not near anything audible?


----------



## VictorHalgaard

Quote: 





jalo said:


> May I add one more term, which is who ever going to vote has to use a balance system for at least six months.  It will not be fair to vote if one does not have sufficient experience with what a balance sound is like.  Agree?
> 
> With that, 1 vote for balance with three years of balance use.


 


  What have you gained in terms of sound from balanced vs. SE? And which headphones have you mainly used? High/low impedance etc. ?


----------



## Adda

I voted for single ended, for low output impedance and half the complexity of balanced systems.
  The only real benefit of balanced setups is noise rejection and stereo separation, so they are good in a noisy environment or for long cable runs.


----------



## RexAeterna

going balanced eliminates cross-talk and usually means better shielding as well. i only have experience with balanced professional gear mostly. that's why headphones back then also used balanced 4-core TRS jacks or DIN/XLR connectors due to eliminate cross-talk. like how speaker amps have a separate ground/negative to eliminate cross-talk but cross-talk still happens due to the crossover limitations. headphones have the advantages due to them having no cross-over limitations so going balanced is more effective. elimination of cross-talk means more accurate 3d soundstage and imaging and faster how the headphone and amp communicates from transferring electrical energy into acoustic energy.

just impedance usually doubles going balanced since no longer the drivers are sharing a common ground cable between each other meaning sharing resistance as well and impedance has a higher fluctuation during certain frequency ranges due to impedance vs. frequency. depending on the person it might differ but their is lot of arguments like many other things that there is not much difference going from shared ground to balanced( separate negative/ground,positive).


----------



## RexAeterna

victorhalgaard said:


> But the the question would be: Wouldn't a balanced amplifier via "push-pull" factor in turn offer superior control of the diaphragm, like a electrostatic setup does and thus provide a more accurate reproduction of sound?
> And isn't the distortion level on any properly built and commercially available balanced so low pr. channel that even added up it is not near anything audible?




push-pull is always better especially for high voltages increases and decreases. that's why you find speaker amps with push-pull design and not op-amps. op-amps can be great but their real limitation is when it comes to fluctuations of voltages and current especially when the source has massive current and voltages changes.

like to add also push-pull designs using a big power transformer is also better when it comes to impedance matching cause the transformer will lower and higher it's voltages to meet the respective impedance at the certain frequency range.


----------



## nikongod

My R10 only have single ended connections, and in the interest of conservation I refuse to reterminate them. 
   
  They sound better than my HD800, or pretty much any other headphone that I own. They win.


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


rexaeterna said:


> push-pull is always better especially for high voltages increases and decreases. that's why you find speaker amps with push-pull design and not op-amps. op-amps can be great but their real limitation is when it comes to fluctuations of voltages and current especially when the source has massive current and voltages changes.
> like to add also push-pull designs using a big power transformer is also better when it comes to impedance matching cause the transformer will lower and higher it's voltages to meet the respective impedance at the certain frequency range.


 
 Unless I have got totally the wrong end of the stick, this is an argument for the increased slew rate of balanced drive. I wasn't aware, however, that slew rate was a problem in the overwhelming majority of headphone amplifiers. The slew rate requirements for delivering music perfectly as far as slew rate is concerned into most headphones really are not particularly onerous and certainly not beyond the means of opamps.


----------



## VictorHalgaard

Yep, you got the wrong end of the stick 
  Slew rate/power is one of the things that is redundant in this discussion, only sound matters, as in accuracy, soundstaging and so on...


----------



## Adda

Quote: 





victorhalgaard said:


> Yep, you got the wrong end of the stick
> Slew rate/power is one of the things that is redundant in this discussion, only sound matters, as in accuracy, soundstaging and so on...


 


 The reason for balanced systems is not sound quality, but to make PA sound systems quiet and noise free.


----------



## qusp

Quote: 





rexaeterna said:


> push-pull is always better especially for high voltages increases and decreases. that's why you find speaker amps with push-pull design and not op-amps. op-amps can be great but their real limitation is when it comes to fluctuations of voltages and current especially when the source has massive current and voltages changes.
> *like to add also push-pull designs using a big power transformer is also better when it comes to impedance matching cause the transformer will lower and higher it's voltages to meet the respective impedance at the certain frequency range.*


 


  hmm, not sure where you are getting this information. a transformer does not lower and raise its voltage to react to the load impedance, in fact the transformer hardly does anything at all to even power the amplifier most of the time. the stored energy in the reservoir caps supply power/transient response wrt the load and the transformer is only connected to the amp through the diode bridge for about 10% of the time. so the diode bridge and transformer are literally doing nothing most of the time. opamps can slew with the best of them, but current in most cases, for speakers anyway, is limited and many by themselves don't really have too fun a time driving low impedance headphones directly either
   
  me, I prefer balanced for the bass response and speed, even for loads that you wouldn't think would need it, but single ended amps can sound fantastic as well in their own way, tbh although the dac1 is a good design, its hardly the last word and i'm getting a little bored of all this regurgitated O2, dac1, nwavguy diatribe.
   
  not sure how AMB let himself go on record as saying balanced lowers output Z though


----------



## Head Injury

Quote: 





victorhalgaard said:


> Yep, you got the wrong end of the stick
> Slew rate/power is one of the things that is redundant in this discussion, only sound matters, as in accuracy, soundstaging and so on...


 

 But how does a balanced amp improve (or not improve) these things? Crosstalk could help with soundstaging, but good crosstalk is not inherent to balanced amps. Many headphone amps have under 90dB crosstalk single-ended. So ultimately here wouldn't the measurement matter, not the design? A single-ended amp with better crosstalk than a balanced amp would be better for crosstalk, no discussion needed. The design helps, but isn't the most important thing.
   
  I suppose my point is, balanced design has advantages and disadvantages, all of which a properly or improperly designed single-ended amp can meet. The issue isn't the design, but the performance. Discussing balanced vs. single-ended is a moot point without numbers.


----------



## Willakan

Quote:


qusp said:


> , tbh although the dac1 is a good design, its hardly the last word and i'm getting a little bored of all this regurgitated O2, dac1, nwavguy diatribe.


   
  And others are getting bored of the "Hi-Fi design is magic and costs insane amounts of money and you can't measure it cos I heard it and stuff" approach. Each to their own.
   
  Not saying that you said exactly that, I just can't see how you can object to what NwAvGuy, Benchmark Audio and the like do with their designs.


----------



## qusp

Quote: 





adda said:


> The reason for balanced systems is not sound quality, but to make PA sound systems quiet and noise free.


 


  actually its mostly used in studios and was developed afaik for telephone systems, but differential signalling finds its place all over the place wherever low error/distortion is prized. instrumentation, usb, ethernet, hdmi etc etc. regardless of the reasons it does provide audible benefits, speaking for myself anyway.
   
  see we aren't just talking about the cable here, but balanced signal path as a whole, it allows error the whole way back to the source to be largely deleted. there is a reason that the majority of dac chips of today, whether used in audio or scientific endeavour are balanced, i see no reason not to extend that all the way to the transducer. even with the doubling of the output impedance a properly designed amplifier will have damping factor good enough for any headphone load


----------



## Jalo

Quote: 





victorhalgaard said:


> What have you gained in terms of sound from balanced vs. SE? And which headphones have you mainly used? High/low impedance etc. ?


 

 To me the balance sound stage is bigger, less restrictive, and better imaged.  The sound is cleaner, more air, darker background, more involving and as Qusp said, better bass response. This is comparing within the same amp as most of my balance amp also can output or drive single ended also.  Don't get me wrong though, there are excellent, excellent SE amps that are better than balance amp.  It all depends on the implementation.  But when compare apples to apples within the same class or same amp, I definitely prefer the balance amp.  
   
  As for headphones that I have used in balance mode, they are: GS1000 (2 years, sold), HD800 (since release, balanced w/ SAA voice cable and Crystal Piccolino), LCD2, v1 (since release, ALO chain mail cable), ED8 LE (1 year, balance w/ ALO ChainMail cable), JH13 (since release, balance w/Crystal Piccolino).


----------



## Jalo

From a different perspective and leaving all technicality of the merit of balance vs SE aside for a second, this voting exercise is misleading just strictly on a statistical bases.  For instance, If we are sampling from a hundred people with regard to, let say, language preference where 80 percent of the sample is English speaking natives and twenty percent of the sample is all others, guess what the result would be?  By the same token, if single ended design occupy the majority of the amp market (especially the low end market), then the result will be skewed just by the design of the voting exercise.  On the contrary, if the question is for those amps that are above $1,500.00 the result could be totally different.  That is why a statistician can give you any answer you want by phrasing the question and the parameters differently.  Just tell me what you want to hear and I'll tell you how to ask it


----------



## Adda

I'm starting to think the whole balanced vs. single ended discussion is misleading, I don't think one design is inherently better then the other.
  There are good balanced designs and good single ended designs, some single ended are better then balanced but it also goes the other way.
  I prefer simple designs because 20+ years down the road I might need to repair my gear, and single ended designs are just more simple and therefore easier to maintain.
   
  It all comes down to preferences.


----------



## Jalo

Quote: 





adda said:


> I'm starting to think the whole balanced vs. single ended discussion is misleading, I don't think one design is inherently better then the other.
> There are good balanced designs and good singe ended designs, some single ended are better then balanced but it also goes the other way.
> I prefer simple designs because *20+ years down the road I might need to repair my gear*, and single ended designs are just more simple and therefore easier to maintain.
> 
> It all comes down to preferences.


 









 20 years down the road it will be my brain not my gear that needs to be repaired.


----------



## Adda

Quote: 





jalo said:


> 20 years down the road it will be my brain not my gear that needs to be repaired.


 

 But the point is, I would be able to go buy a single ended amp that's better then your balanced amp, but then you could also go buy a balanced amp that even better, and then we could go on and on until diminishing returns makes fools of both of us.


----------



## Jalo

Quote: 





adda said:


> *I'm starting to think the whole balanced vs. single ended discussion is misleading, I don't think one design is inherently better then the other.*
> *There are good balanced designs and good single ended designs, some single ended are better then balanced but it also goes the other way.*
> I prefer simple designs because 20+ years down the road I might need to repair my gear, and single ended designs are just more simple and therefore easier to maintain.
> 
> It all comes down to preferences.


 

 This is a given.  Of course, it goes without saying that a $3,000.00 SE amp is going to out perform a $300.00 balance portable amp on any given day.  That is why I said when comparing apple to apple within the same class and/or same model, I prefer balance.


----------



## Jalo

Quote: 





adda said:


> But the point is, I would be able to go buy a single ended amp that's better then your balanced amp, but then you could also go buy a balanced amp that even better, and then we could go on and on until diminishing returns makes fools of both of us.


 

 Your point is well taken.  But in audio, a piece of twenty year old equipment regardless balance or SE is not going to out perform (at least I hope not) twenty years of addition research.  There are exceptions, of course, like Sony R-10 for instance, twenty five year old and still going strong.  But that is exception and not the rule.


----------



## Adda

Quote: 





jalo said:


> This is a given.  Of course, it goes without saying that a $3,000.00 SE amp is going to out perform a $300.00 balance portable amp on any given day.  That is why I said when comparing apple to apple within the same class and/or same model, I prefer balance.


 


  But if you compared a 1000$ single ended to a 3000$ balanced, the situation may have changed, double the complexity and it'll cost more for that reason alone.
  But I don't think price reflects how good a product is anyway, price is often just part of marketing, if it's expensive it has to be good right?


----------



## Adda

Quote: 





jalo said:


> Your point is well taken.  But in audio, a piece of twenty year old equipment regardless balance or SE is not going to out perform (at least I hope not) twenty years of addition research.  There are exceptions, of course, like Sony R-10 for instance, twenty five year old and still going strong.  But that is exception and not the rule.


 

  
  Well my Alpha III is from 1978 and performs as good as you can expect form a mid level 80w class A/B mosfet amp, my Aragon 18k is from 1993 and outperforms almost any preamp out there.
  There is lots of great vintage gear, new tech has done little to improve analogue audio.


----------



## Jalo

Quote: 





adda said:


> But if you compared a 1000$ single ended to a 3000$ balanced, the situation may have changed, double the complexity and it'll cost more for that reason alone.
> But I don't think price reflects how good a product is anyway, price is often just part of marketing, if it's expensive it has to be good right?


 

 That is something I could agree with you on.  The Shiit Lyr should worth two times the value given the sound.  It is true that price doesn't always reflect the virtue of the product.


----------



## RexAeterna

qusp said:


> hmm, not sure where you are getting this information. a transformer does not lower and raise its voltage to react to the load impedance, in fact the transformer hardly does anything at all to even power the amplifier most of the time. the stored energy in the reservoir caps supply power/transient response wrt the load and the transformer is only connected to the amp through the diode bridge for about 10% of the time. so the diode bridge and transformer are literally doing nothing most of the time. opamps can slew with the best of them, but current in most cases, for speakers anyway, is limited and many by themselves don't really have too fun a time driving low impedance headphones directly either
> 
> me, I prefer balanced for the bass response and speed, even for loads that you wouldn't think would need it, but single ended amps can sound fantastic as well in their own way, tbh although the dac1 is a good design, its hardly the last word and i'm getting a little bored of all this regurgitated O2, dac1, nwavguy diatribe.
> 
> not sure how AMB let himself go on record as saying balanced lowers output Z though




the power transformer in power amps help handle impedance matching in most cases. so when helping to match impedance it has to maintain a certain voltage and increase and decrease amperes/milliamps depending on the impedance given and demand of the source presented. that's why tube amps always has massive output power transformers(or dual transformers) cause tubes are high voltage sources but only operate in milliamps so the power transformer helps when it involves if the circuit needs amperes instead. i think in headphone amps it should be same formula maybe since they're basically just tiny low power, power-amps to drive headphones instead of speakers.


----------



## Adda

Quote: 





rexaeterna said:


> the power transformer in power amps help handle impedance matching in most cases. so when helping to match impedance it has to maintain a certain voltage and increase and decrease amperes/milliamps depending on the impedance given and demand of the source presented. that's why tube amps always has massive output power transformers(or dual transformers) cause tubes are high voltage sources but only operate in milliamps so the power transformer helps when it involves if the circuit needs amperes instead. i think in headphone amps it should be same formula maybe since they're basically just tiny low power, power-amps to drive headphones instead of speakers.


 


  Most amps are capacitor or direct coupled and don't use output transformers at all.


----------



## qusp

Quote: 





rexaeterna said:


> the power transformer in power amps help handle impedance matching in most cases. so when helping to match impedance it has to maintain a certain voltage and increase and decrease amperes/milliamps depending on the impedance given and demand of the source presented. that's why tube amps always has massive output power transformers(or dual transformers) cause tubes are high voltage sources but only operate in milliamps so the power transformer helps when it involves if the circuit needs amperes instead. i think in headphone amps it should be same formula maybe since they're basically just tiny low power, power-amps to drive headphones instead of speakers.


 

  
  i'm sorry but you really need to get your terminology straight. a *power* transformer (which is quite logically; in the power supply) has absolutely NOTHING to do with impedance matching and it would be rare for a power amp to use *output* transformers either (a totally different device to power transformers) and the ones that do, the output transformer is a 100% passive device, it does not adjust to a load dynamically at all, it can be used for 2 main reasons:
   
  • to transform a high voltage, low current signal (usually, but not exclusively from a tube amp) into a lower voltage but higher current signal that is more suitable for driving transducers (this can also happen in reverse for electrostatic speakers)
  • a step up, or step down tx can be used to _transform_ (in a completely *passive* and steady way) an amp with a high output impedance into one with a lower output impedance in order to drive the load more effectively. it does this to a set and unchanging ratio, based on the number of turns of wire on the core, it does not actively adjust anything and does not react to the changing load impedance (it changes over frequency too) at all.
   
  as mentioned above, the vast majority of modern amps are either DC coupled (no caps) or AC coupled (with caps) its only really tube amps that use output or interstage transformers and even then the trend now, even for tube amps is towards OTL (output transformer less) designs. by in large most power amps (certainly ones that have any actual power, not pissie little 5W single ended, direct heated triode amps) are solid state, or chip amps and these do not as a rule use output transformers at all.


----------



## verycoolalan

Wanted to chip in my two cents.
  
 Currently have the Woo Audio WDS-1 Reference DAC ->  HD800S -> with a Woo Audio WA22 with a couple hundred dollars in upgrades ($2200 amp)
  
 Tested both balanced and single ended and here is what I have found.
  
 Balanced sounds better, it sounds more spacious more wide more fat. 
 The level of clarity is about the same but the difference I hear is the soundstage, it sounds like the musician is in the room with me! (listen to Pink Floyd - Wish you were Here)
  
 I am one of those people that vote for balanced, after listening to single ended for most of my life.


----------



## chicken beer

verycoolalan said:


> Wanted to chip in my two cents.
> 
> Currently have the Woo Audio WDS-1 Reference DAC ->  HD800S -> with a Woo Audio WA22 with a couple hundred dollars in upgrades ($2200 amp)
> 
> ...


 
 I see. How did you do the comparison? Did you use the same cable but an adapter? I think the proper way to do the comparison is to use the same balanced output on your WA22, but use an dual XLR adapter and connect to your HD800s TRS cable, comparing which to use the same quality Sennheiser balanced cable plugging directly into the balanced.. 
  
 I never tried balanced except using the balanced output in a Hifiman DAP. But my guessing is that balanced transmission circuit design is simple in physics for amp designers to improve the circuit design, therefore facilitating the signal improvement.


----------



## verycoolalan

chicken beer said:


> I see. How did you do the comparison? Did you use the same cable but an adapter? I think the proper way to do the comparison is to use the same balanced output on your WA22, but use an dual XLR adapter and connect to your HD800s TRS cable, comparing which to use the same quality Sennheiser balanced cable plugging directly into the balanced..
> 
> I never tried balanced except using the balanced output in a Hifiman DAP. But my guessing is that balanced transmission circuit design is simple in physics for amp designers to improve the circuit design, therefore facilitating the signal improvement.




I used two ALO Audio SXC Cables. One 1/4" and one Balanced. A/B test. My sister helped by being blindfolded. She didn't notice the difference. I barely did.


----------



## paradoxper

chicken beer said:


> I never tried balanced except using the balanced output in a Hifiman DAP. But my guessing is that balanced transmission circuit design is simple in physics for amp designers to improve the circuit design, therefore facilitating the signal improvement.


 
  
 Facilitating what signal improvement? 
  
 Single ended is every bit as good as balanced. The focus should be on the topology.


----------



## chicken beer

paradoxper said:


> Facilitating what signal improvement?
> 
> Single ended is every bit as good as balanced. The focus should be on the topology.


 
  
 Wow, guess I made a good decision whether to go for TRS or balanced in the beginning when I started buying so many high end headphones~


----------



## paradoxper

chicken beer said:


> Wow, guess I made a good decision whether to go for TRS or balanced in the beginning when I started buying so many high end headphones~


 
 The whole balanced terminology has become so convoluted, it's essentially meaningless.


----------



## Condocondor

Found this article on balanced vs. single ended.  The article is:   "The Last Word On Class A"  http://www.aikenamps.com/index.php/the-last-word-on-class-a

 Hope this adds to the discussion at hand.


----------



## GRUMPYOLDGUY

What sounds best is a very subjective question... When you ask it that way, there is no right or wrong answer.
  
 Personally, I can't hear a difference. But I've never done a blind test either.
  
 A better question is what measures better... My suspicion is that balanced outputs will measure better because of common mode noise rejection.
  
 If I had to guess, I'd say there would be no audible improvement... That common mode noise is probably so far down from the signal that it would probably be inaudible anyway.


----------



## Jmop

I wanted to throw down my impressions of Balanced vs SE and see if it lines up with anyone else's opinion, so here goes. My reference is only regarding a handful of IEMs, perhaps full size headphones have an advantage with Balanced that I'm unaware of. Anyway, I think SE sounds more correct and to me, better. Soundstage dimensions are obscured in Balanced so that vocals are no longer in the center, which to me takes away from the intimacy/emotion. Yes, the stage is noticeably wider, but I have a harder time discerning layers of the stage (depth). You'll see a lot of people stating that the bass becomes more dynamic, and to my ears this is true, along with faster decay in the treble (less sibilance). This faster decaying treble can make the sound less "digital" as well. I find, however, that these elements as a whole don't mesh well. The bass punches more, the treble splashes less, and the midrange is thrown around as to make the experience more "involving" but the pacing feels off, and the image is no longer picturesque.


----------



## Gilles De Rais

This must be a record - a thread being necro’ed not once but *twice* five years after the last post! 2011, 2016 and now 2021. I look forward to the next set of posts in 2026…


----------

