Balancing a vinyl rig

[kevin gilmore]

There are lots of monoblocks that are not H bridge amplifiers. All of the

older marantz and parasound amplifiers for example.

There are monoblocks that have rca inputs only but are bridge output

amplifiers. (crown, mackie et all)

The easiest way to tell (with the power off) is measure the resistance

between the rca ground and the minus terminal of the amplifier. If the

resistance is very close to zero, then it is NOT a bridge output amplifier.

All of my electrostatic amps are in fact H bridge amplifiers. Certainly not

complementary but in fact dual push pull. If you replaced the heaphone

with a large value resistor, (and eliminate the bias) it would look just like

any other bridged amplifier, other than the very large voltage swing.

Not counting the bias, electrostatic headphones are 4 wires just like

dynamic headphones without a common ground. The fact that the

resistance is almost pure reactive means little.

[kevin gilmore]

Pop quiz: K1000, stock cable, driven out of a single-ended stereo speaker amp -- balanced, or no?

Here is a twist... Take 2 balanced output monoblocks (OK, don't do this unless

you really know what you are doing) Tie the output minus terminals together

and wire to 3 wire (as in common ground headphones). Make sure you use

ground cheaters on the power cables. Now use 1:1 audio input isolation

transformers at the inputs to the amplifiers.

Is it balanced Sure is...

It is just a matter of what you consider your reference to be.

[Dusty Chalk]

Here is a twist... Take 2 balanced output monoblocks (OK, don't do this unless you really know what you are doing) Tie the output minus terminals together and wire to 3 wire (as in common ground headphones). Make sure you use ground cheaters on the power cables. Now use 1:1 audio input isolation transformers at the inputs to the amplifiers.

Is it balanced Sure is...

It is just a matter of what you consider your reference to be.

Well, as you said before, the load does not know if it's being driven by a balanced amplifier or not, so I stand by what I said before. Nothing you're saying is making the headphones balanced, even if the amp that you drive them with is balanced. My dad always said that most arguments can be concluded by defining your terms, so: what do you mean by "it" in "is it balanced?" The "reference" that you refer to in your last sentence is not "seen" by the headphones.

And: Are you insane? (Rhetorical question.) Why would you want to tie the outputs of two amplifiers together? Other than to prove a point.

And: why do you need ground cheaters? (I think I know the answer to this, but am very not sure about it.)

Dan -- exactly. And yet, by their definitions, they're trying to say that 4 connectors == balanced.

[Smeggy]

Here is a twist... Take 2 balanced output monoblocks (OK, don't do this unless

you really know what you are doing) Tie the output minus terminals together

and wire to 3 wire (as in common ground headphones). Make sure you use

ground cheaters on the power cables. Now use 1:1 audio input isolation

transformers at the inputs to the amplifiers.

Is it balanced Sure is...

It is just a matter of what you consider your reference to be.

Shit. I think my head just imploded

[Pars]

NYAH... I liked that Dusty

[kevin gilmore]

And: Are you insane? (Rhetorical question.) Why would you want to tie the outputs of two amplifiers together? Other than to prove a point.

And: why do you need ground cheaters? (I think I know the answer to this, but am very not sure about it.)

If you have not figured out whether or not i am insane yet, nothing i can do will help you any further.

You need ground cheaters because the center of that bridge amp is almost certainly connected to earth ground.

Connecting the earth grounds of 2 amps together, and the minus terminals of the bridges together is going to

result in lots of broken parts.

OK, lets see if you can answer this one.

You can buy those really big subwoofers generally for the automotive wars. Many of those drivers have

dual voice coils. You can certainly wire the 2 coils in series, and now you would have what you would

call a balanced dynamic driver. But you can also wire them in parallel, and what do you have. But really

the difference is the same, the voice coil adds the forces from each coil together and turns that into

a single force that moves the speaker cone. Does the speaker cone know whether it is being driven

balanced or not, of course it does not. All that matters is the total electromotive force.

[philodox]

-10 reading comprehension points for you, and you miss a down for being snippy about it.

Did you read my reply to Nate? I think I pretty clearly stated that "I have always been told that having it connected at one end is proper". I also admitted that I was wrong. If anyone is being a snippy whiney bitch, it is you. NYAH

In addition, there are obviously times when both configurations would be preferable depending on the grounding scheme of the two devices that are being connected.

FURTHER, if you scroll down towards the end, to where it says "Floating, Pseudo, and Quasi-Balancing", you'll see that they very explicitly define exactly what I was talking about, when I used my made-up term of faux-balancing. So I AM NOT ALONE in making this differentiation.

I read that blurb at the end and they are talking about something completely different.

Exactly!!!1! That's why I don't want to call it "balanced"!!!1!

Yep, I was agreeing with you. It will happen sometimes.

One was the one that you latched on to, that I referred to "balanced" headphones as not really balanced, but you seem to have forgotten about why I mentioned that.

Well, yeah, that would be what I'm arguing with you about.

You, for some reason, are applying theory behind connecting two balanced devices to transducers which doesn't really make sense.

So, I think you owe me an apology for (a) accusing me of quite possibly talking out of my ass, and ( for trying to bully me into succumbing to your point of view.

I don't owe you shit, and I'm not trying to bully anyone.

Pop quiz: K1000, stock cable, driven out of a single-ended stereo speaker amp -- balanced, or no?

Of course not.

Dan -- exactly. And yet, by their definitions, they're trying to say that 4 connectors == balanced.

If I'm included in your 'they', you haven't been paying attention.

[grawk]

Dan -- exactly. And yet, by their definitions, they're trying to say that 4 connectors == balanced.

Once it's plugged into the stereo amp with shared ground, it's no longer 4 conductors.

[kevin gilmore]

OK, here is a little more sillyness.

You know those 3 channel amps with the active ground, How about this.

Channel 1 is made up of R - L

Channel 2 is made up of L + R

Channel 3 is made up of L - R

The left channel is channel 1 minus channel 2 == (r - l) - (l + r) == -2l

The right channel is channel 3 minus channel 2 == (l - r) - (l + r) == -2r

3 wires, yet balanced...

[Dusty Chalk]

Once it's plugged into the stereo amp with shared ground, it's no longer 4 conductors.

It is if you use the speaker terminals, which is why I specified speaker amp and stock wiring.

[Dusty Chalk]

You know those 3 channel amps with the active ground...

No, not really.

[Dusty Chalk]

I also admitted that I was wrong.

No, you didn't. You said that you would if, which is not the same as stating you are.

I read that blurb at the end and they are talking about something completely different.

Yep, I was agreeing with you. It will happen sometimes.

No shit! Well I never...

You, for some reason, are applying theory behind connecting two balanced devices to transducers which doesn't really make sense.

No, that's exactly my point -- it is nonsensical (except in this case of KG's dual-voice-coil subwoofer), which is why I don't think it's appropriate terminology. In some electrostatics, it makes perfect sense to have balanced -- including the reference ground, since they're powered. And "balanced" isn't theory, it's engineering.

Of course not.If I'm included in your 'they', you haven't been paying attention.

I have, and you state your position with great verve when you're talking one way, and with great qualification when you're talking the other (and sometimes not at all). So you'll excuse me if I don't hear you when you're talking out of the side of your mouth. You want people to understand you, speak clearly.

EDIT: translation -- if you are not part of they, then please reiterate your position, under the assumption that I have not been paying attention. And yes, the "they" I was referring to was the "everyone else except you" that you yourself referred to.

[grawk]

It is if you use the speaker terminals, which is why I specified speaker amp and stock wiring.

And why I specified common ground. Anyway, you're just arguing to argue.

[cclragnarok]

OK, here is a little more sillyness. ......

Isn't that what happens in the Corda Opera and Cantate?

[Dusty Chalk]

You can buy those really big subwoofers generally for the automotive wars. Many of those drivers have dual voice coils. You can certainly wire the 2 coils in series, and now you would have what you would call a balanced dynamic driver. But you can also wire them in parallel, and what do you have. But really the difference is the same, the voice coil adds the forces from each coil together and turns that into a single force that moves the speaker cone. Does the speaker cone know whether it is being driven balanced or not, of course it does not. All that matters is the total electromotive force.

Again, I am unfamiliar with your premise, I'm going to have to wander off and figure out what dual voice coils are -- are they around each other? Opposing (I guess this is a matter of which way you connect their inputs)? What separates them? Do they otherwise have the same specs (sensitivity, etc.)? I'm not sure I understand what you mean by series or parallel -- there should be 4 possible wirings, neh? You could swap the + and - terminals in both your series and parallel wirings. But a couple of those configurations are going to end up pitting the voice coils against each other, so I presume two of those wirings don't make sense? I'm thinking out loud here, so feel free to correct me.

[Dusty Chalk]

And why I specified common ground. Anyway, you're just arguing to argue.

A speaker amp with a common ground? Methinks you were just backpedaling. And no, you just hate being in the wrong, and if someone doesn't capitulate, you start in with the antisocial comments. Fuck you (hey, you going to find me guilty of being antisocial, I might as well live up to it). I cited that example because I think it's a perfect example of meeting the requirements for what qualifies as "balanced headphones", and yet clearly is not. If I misunderstood the requirements for a balanced headphone, someone please reiterate it in a way that clearly explains how my example does not meet the criteria.

[luvdunhill]

No, not really.

M^3, PPAv2, etc.

[Dusty Chalk]

OK, here is a little more sillyness.

You know those 3 channel amps with the active ground, How about this.

Channel 1 is made up of R - L

Channel 2 is made up of L + R

Channel 3 is made up of L - R

The left channel is channel 1 minus channel 2 == (r - l) - (l + r) == -2l

The right channel is channel 3 minus channel 2 == (l - r) - (l + r) == -2r

3 wires, yet balanced...

Again, it's the amp that's balanced, the headphone driver still doesn't know whether or not it's being driven by a single-ended amp, a balanced amp, or a really big battery and someone who's really fast on an resistor...erm...potentiometer.*

*Or one can think of the electrical equivalent of Maxwell's Demon -- call him Prisekin's Demon -- who lets current through at a rate subject to the whim of the demon, and which just so happens to be musical and corresponds to Bach's Two-Part Inventions.

[philodox]

No, you didn't. You said that you would if, which is not the same as stating you are.

Huh? I said I have no problem being corrected when I am wrong. This implies that Nate corrected me and I WAS WRONG. Sheesh.

No, that's exactly my point -- it is nonsensical (except in this case of KG's dual-voice-coil subwoofer), which is why I don't think it's appropriate terminology. In some electrostatics, it makes perfect sense to have balanced -- including the reference ground, since they're powered. And "balanced" isn't theory, it's engineering.

Dude, an electronic device is balanced if it has both phases of each channel amplified. Stop. A headphone, by our definition, is considered balanced if it has been recabled in order to be driven balanced on a balanced amplifier.

I have, and you state your position with great verve when you're talking one way, and with great qualification when you're talking the other (and sometimes not at all). So you'll excuse me if I don't hear you when you're talking out of the side of your mouth. You want people to understand you, speak clearly.

Please see above. I can't believe you are telling me to speak clearly.

A speaker amp with a common ground?

If it is a stereo amp, wouldn't the ground most likely be common?

I know you can't tie the grounds together on tripath based amps, but those are special cases.

[n_maher]

If it is a stereo amp, wouldn't the ground most likely be common?

As far as I know you're correct, Jay. Just look at either a 2-channel or 3-channel beta22 wired as a speaker amp. The L and R speaker taps share a common ground for the '-' portion of the speaker output. And since I've used that exact amp wired exactly as amb shows it I think it's safe to say that it works and doesn't cause any issues. If it could blow up I'd be the one to blow it up. :)And if IIRC my gainclone works the exact same way and works just fine too.

[grawk]

Huh? I said I have no problem being corrected when I am wrong. This implies that Nate corrected me and I WAS WRONG. Sheesh.Dude, an electronic device is balanced if it has both phases of each channel amplified. Stop. A headphone, by our definition, is considered balanced if it has been recabled in order to be driven balanced on a balanced amplifier.Please see above. I can't believe you are telling me to speak clearly. :rant:If it is a stereo amp, wouldn't the ground most likely be common?

I know you can't tie the grounds together on tripath based amps, but those are special cases.

Your belief coincides directly with mine. Someone else in this conversation is just looking to argue, for whatever reason.

[Dusty Chalk]

Whatever, I give up trying to convince you guys, but quit trying to get me to capitulate.

[Dusty Chalk]

Withdrawn. You know, Dan, I fucking hate when people say that. How is any one of you perpetuating the argument any different from me perpetuating the argument? We just happen to be on opposing sides of the argument. You three are more guilty of perpetuating the argument than I am.

You do realize, that by calling the K1000 not balanced, you're making me correct, neh? It's wired for balanced operation -- per your definition -- and yet you are the ones calling it not balanced. You guys can gang up to agree with each other, but by doing so, you jointly screw up.

The only one who has come close to understanding what I had to say was KG, with his dual voice coil example. And even he will admit that it's (a) convoluted, ( the exception, not the rule, and © the closest one can come to calling a dynamic driver balanced.

You guys want to call it balanced, go the fuck ahead, I won't pretend to not know what you're talking about. But don't ask me to call it that.

[grawk]

When used with a balanced amp, the k1000 is balanced. When used with an unbalanced amp, the k1000 isn't balanced. I said that when used with a speaker amp with a common ground (the norm), it's not balanced. That's it. Balanced amps drive + and - actively. Balanced headphones don't share a common ground. Balanced cables have +, -, and shield. Whether something is balanced or not is entirely based on context.

Withdrawn. You know, Dan, I fucking hate when people say that. How is any one of you perpetuating the argument any different from me perpetuating the argument? We just happen to be on opposing sides of the argument. You three are more guilty of perpetuating the argument than I am.

You do realize, that by calling the K1000 not balanced, you're making me correct, neh? It's wired for balanced operation -- per your definition -- and yet you are the ones calling it not balanced. You guys can gang up to agree with each other, but by doing so, you jointly screw up.

The only one who has come close to understanding what I had to say was KG, with his dual voice coil example. And even he will admit that it's (a) convoluted, ( the exception, not the rule, and © the closest one can come to calling a dynamic driver balanced.

You guys want to call it balanced, go the fuck ahead, I won't pretend to not know what you're talking about. But don't ask me to call it that.

[aerius]

If it fall over when you let it go, it's not balanced.