Balanced connections

Graham Slee wrote: To say that balanced sounds better than a single-sided coax over a few metres is, in my experience, highly biased. It is marketing hype,...

I agree with Graham

Ash wrote: I think the rationale behind having two phases of equal/matched amplitude, one inverted and one non-inverted, is that when both signals are overlaid, the interference common to both can be completely eliminated.

 Ash, you are correct.

lfc jon wrote: I was told shorter is better if using RCAs, but XLR was better over long distances, that was said to me as a general rule

 Jon, you are correct.

 Any signal cable less than 8 feet (about 2.5 meters) is not going to benefit much from the common mode rejection properties of a balanced connection. At about 10 feet the difference will start to be noticeable, but just barely.

 With high impedance microphones (>1k ohms) single-ended RCA or UHF connectors were used up to 10ft long without a problem ... sometimes up to 25 feet, even.

 With low impedance dynamic microphones (50 to 150 ohms) the signal coming out of the MIC was balanced by the transducer directly or transposed with an internal balanced line transformer, that was then able to traverse up to 150 feet.

 With the use of "fantom power" on the MIC cable, the MIC could have its own preamp built in to drive longer cables with more clarity... balanced cables are not new... they are as old as radio used them in the 1940's !!!! and nothing newer has been made to improve the concept using wire cables. Only newer uses of old technology.

 Even the + and - signal balancing was 1st done in the early years (1940's).

Don't be brain-washed!

RCA cables are very good, and double-shielded, triple-shielded, even quad-shielded coax cables are the choice for most industrial and military signals... except armored ethernets which require twisted pairs and extremely low capacitance.