Unbalanced sounds better...?

[abechap024]

to bad they don't make those kind of switches for the fuses on audiophile power amps  :

 

[StudioSQ]

the difference is going to be the output topology. If it is good it is almost invisible, if it is bad it will really f up your signal. unbalanced will be cleaner overall, just because there is one less process happening. the thing is that it is pretty slight. some mastering studios run unblanced, i think for most of us stick to balanced.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Topology and wiring...  some circuitry is more tolerant of miswiring than others.

Short an unbalanced output or float it's ground reference and it will sound a little off too...

JR

 

[grantlack]

Is it not possible to build a little box to text this, using a couple of XLR (or TRS) connectors, and a switch to connect pin 3 to ground?

Then you can listen, switch, listen, switch.... (You may need to correct for a drop in level.)

But then to omit the variable of leveling psychoacoustics you have to either drive the signal path harder or add a makeup stage, which could also be culprits. This guy Heisenberg had a principle...

 

[Seeker]

didn't see anyone mention it in this thread yet but alot of my gear is impedance balanced.  Its very effective and its hard to get much more sonically neutral, though I don't see it brought up too much.... 

I think you can (manytimes) get a bit of a more "immediate/present" sound, but good or bad will vary depending on your gear and your tastes...

 

[abbey road d enfer]

didn't see anyone mention it in this thread yet but alot of my gear is impedance balanced.  Its very effective and its hard to get much more sonically neutral, though I don't see it brought up too much.... 

I agree 100% on this. Unfortunately, it is often seen as an inferior solution to fully balanced. For this reason, it has been confined to budget mixers. Only in very demanding conditions would fully balanced show any superiority to impedance-balanced. But on sales litt, fully balanced gets +26dBu output instead of +20 (out of +/-15V power rails), FWIW.
Also, some exotic (mostly DIY) pieces of equipment require fully balanced sources for proper operation.
In the 1990's Soundcraft came with an upgraded version that combines the basic advantage of impedance-balance with the possibility of remote ground sensing, with made it useful also on unbalanced-input equipment. In addition, due to the small amount of PFB, the actual output Z is divided by 2.

 

[okgb]

Didn't Massenburg prefer unbalenced ?
someone must want to bow to him  ?

In my quad G.R.
the first two channels are lundahl 1539 xl in and jensen
outs [ plus unbal outs which i always add to pres ]
the second two chs are Cinmag in and only unbal out

the first two chs has a slightly  [ pick your own word ]
rounder , duller , warmer  or vibey compared to the unbal out
but only when compared to the jensen [ slightly ]
the cinmags / unbal out seeme a little brighter / thinner
but only when compared , in practice i use them for classical / choir
& overheads mostly and the mics make a bigger difference
as nothing about the pres bothers me , their sound is  , i think
a smooth solid midrange
i end up using the 1/2 jensen outs and 3/4 unbal
simply because that is what is connected to the xlr's

maybe a switch to ground the pin3 or leave it hanging
depending on what it's feeding , or cable wired one way or the other

could be a few reasons why unbal sounds better to you , but nothing wrong with that

 

[abbey road d enfer]

IIRC, he went balanced-in, unbalanced-out, because it's easy and cheap to implement, and works as well as fully balanced in most situations. Balancing inputs with differential technology has no detriment compared to unbalanced. Balancing the output is always a compromise.