C-J Pre-amps & XLR's

[Masterlu]

I notice a conspicuous absence of XLR inputs on the C-J Pre-amps. What's up with that? :scratch2:

[joeinid]

From what I understand, you need twice the number of parts to balance the circuit which add complexity. If not done correctly, would sound worse and some think Single Ended sounds better in some/most instances. Keep the signal path short and sweet with the least number of parts. Sort of a purist approach. I tend to go for XLR's but hey, don't mess with success. I guess this would mean shorter cable runs are preferred.

[Puma Cat]

C-J doesn't believe in the use of XLR/balanced connectors. Joe has summed it up well. C-J has sound reasons for this, but you'd be best off to discuss with Ed (or Lew Johnson if you can speak with him directly). My understanding is that they feel single-ended sounds better and is easier to manage grounding.

[ronenash]

CJ believe that a balanced design only complicates the audio circuits with no need. They try to keep the design as simple as possible. Many of their preamp and amps are phase inverting because they have only one gain stage (every gain stage in an amp inverts phase, to have correct phase you need an even number of gain stages which CJ feels only degrades the audio quality). A balanced design will require twice the number of components and requires very carfull match between the two halfs of the balanced signal which is seldom achieved correctly and is very expensive to implement. Avoiding this leaves you with more money to invest in the component of the amp. This is why CJ are the only audio manufacturer using loads of polyprop and teflon caps in all power supplies and amp circuits. The capacitors and resistors alone cost more than many other high-end components.
XLR/Balanced circuits were originally developed to surpass noise in microphone circuits where the signal is very very low. With today's preamp handling 2 volt signals this is not needed.
Try the magic of CJ and you will understand :D

[joeinid]

Try the magic of CJ and you will understand :D

Bingo! :banana:We have a winner!

[Masterlu]

Thanks for the explanation Gents! :)

[dpod4]

CJ believe that a balanced design only complicates the audio circuits with no need. They try to keep the design as simple as possible. Many of their preamp and amps are phase inverting because they have only one gain stage (every gain stage in an amp inverts phase, to have correct phase you need an even number of gain stages which CJ feels only degrades the audio quality). A balanced design will require twice the number of components and requires very carfull match between the two halfs of the balanced signal which is seldom achieved correctly and is very expensive to implement. Avoiding this leaves you with more money to invest in the component of the amp. This is why CJ are the only audio manufacturer using loads of polyprop and teflon caps in all power supplies and amp circuits. The capacitors and resistors alone cost more than many other high-end components.
XLR/Balanced circuits were originally developed to surpass noise in microphone circuits where the signal is very very low. With today's preamp handling 2 volt signals this is not needed.
Try the magic of CJ and you will understand :D

My VAC preamp is the same. Phase inverting pre-outs if using SE - a simpler preferred circuitry to its XLR outputs

[TommyC]

This is Octave's thought regarding SE vs Balanced.

"Unlike transistor amplifiers, it is not possible to design balanced (or bridgeable) tube power amplifiers. You may come across an occasional "quasi-balanced" tube power amp, but this makes little sense when you think about it, because it is complex to implement and the need for very tight tube tolerances means that sound quality will suffer when tubes are replaced. This is why unbalanced remains the better approach for tube equipment. It also has the added benefit of superior long-term stability."

[Myles B. Astor]

Some years ago when balanced first made an appearance, there was an excellent article in TAS on "balanced" vs "pseudo-balanced."

[Dj_AmTraX]

CJ gear is very very good. The three I buy are CJ, Cary, & McIntosh.

[Rayooo]

Just my 2cents worth of opinion on the issue. :dazed-7:

The only advantage to analog balanced audio interconnection is in providing common-mode-rejection for noise, and eliminating ground loop issues.

Balanced interconnection schemes would provide zero improvement in a "typical" home setup.

In professional environments, i.e. Television Broadcast where I work, balanced analog audio connections are an absolute must, and in many cases this simply means transformer coupling.

I have always assumed that CJ's philosophy is as mine, that in home hifi, there is no advantage, and arguably disadvantages in using true balanced interconnection schemes. And if a manufacturer is simply using XLR in single ended anyway, then it's simply a marketing decision.

which then begs the question, why does your typical golden ear reviewer always seem to state something like "when moving the the balanced interconnects, everything got better, faster, smoother, more dynamic. etc.etc. ?? :confused-22:

[joeinid]

Just my 2cents worth of opinion on the issue. :dazed-7:

The only advantage to analog balanced audio interconnection is in providing common-mode-rejection for noise, and eliminating ground loop issues.

Balanced interconnection schemes would provide zero improvement in a "typical" home setup.

In professional environments, i.e. Television Broadcast where I work, balanced analog audio connections are an absolute must, and in many cases this simply means transformer coupling.

I have always assumed that CJ's philosophy is as mine, that in home hifi, there is no advantage, and arguably disadvantages in using true balanced interconnection schemes. And if a manufacturer is simply using XLR in single ended anyway, then it's simply a marketing decision.

which then begs the question, why does your typical golden ear reviewer always seem to state something like "when moving the the balanced interconnects, everything got better, faster, smoother, more dynamic. etc.etc. ?? :confused-22:

I like the convenience and perceived superiority balanced provides but don't always believe it sounds better, unfortunately.

[Face]

I notice a conspicuous absence of XLR inputs on the C-J Pre-amps. What's up with that? :scratch2:
It's better than those who use balanced inputs and outputs on gear that's not fully balanced. :stirthepot::D

[Rayooo]

I like the convenience and perceived superiority balanced provides but don't always believe it sounds better, unfortunately.

One of the things I admire most about CJ is that they seem to be driven almost entirely by engineering... and at the same time I wonder how much ART/GAT business they lose due to no balanced I/O on their flagship products?

If I'm a high-end dealer selling everything but CJ, and a high-end customer comes in...guess what the first thing I say is when the person says: "what about CJ?" I say: "you're a high end audiophile, you'll want balanced at this level. please step into my listening room, I want you to hear...."

If I'm CJ engineering I'd say: "waste of time and money putting in balanced"
If I'm CJ Marketing I say: "we would sell X% more if we had balanced I/O on our high end products"

[Masterlu]

It's better than those who use balanced inputs and outputs on gear that's not fully balanced. :stirthepot::D

I'm so confused... :confused-12:

:)

[Puma Cat]

One of the things I admire most about CJ is that they seem to be driven almost entirely by engineering... and at the same time I wonder how much ART/GAT business they lose due to no balanced I/O on their flagship products?

If I'm a high-end dealer selling everything but CJ, and a high-end customer comes in...guess what the first thing I say is when the person says: "what about CJ?" I say: "you're a high end audiophile, you'll want balanced at this level. please step into my listening room, I want you to hear...."

If I'm CJ engineering I'd say: "waste of time and money putting in balanced"
If I'm CJ Marketing I say: "we would sell X% more if we had balanced I/O on our high end products"

I thnk the C-J engineering team would say single-ended also sounds better than balanced for home audio applications. These guys DO know what they are doing.

[Rafale]

One of the things I admire most about CJ is that they seem to be driven almost entirely by engineering... and at the same time I wonder how much ART/GAT business they lose due to no balanced I/O on their flagship products?

If I'm a high-end dealer selling everything but CJ, and a high-end customer comes in...guess what the first thing I say is when the person says: "what about CJ?" I say: "you're a high end audiophile, you'll want balanced at this level. please step into my listening room, I want you to hear...."

If I'm CJ engineering I'd say: "waste of time and money putting in balanced"
If I'm CJ Marketing I say: "we would sell X% more if we had balanced I/O on our high end products"

+1
It is it why this small company is respected so much all over the world, quality rather than quantity, reliability and musicality, respect for its own values and respect for the customer on the long term
This is what Lew Johnson answered Neil Gader in TAS:
Why the lower case for the company name ?
Because it went with our original aesthetic concept of understated elegance-and because we felt we had ample reason to be humble
Do you think there is a definitive c-j sound and have you been able to translate it from tubes to solid-state ,
I feel there is. We have a very clear idea of what live music sounds like. We spend a lot of time engineering our products in a way that's consistent with and honors music. We attend a lot of live music, not only because we love it but because it keeps us calibrated. So that ultimate target doesn't change with technology we use.

[Rayooo]

Unfortunately the "balance" :D between science and urban-legend in hifiville makes these things way way complicated sometimes.

The lowest of the lowest weasel manufacturer would simply put an XLR on the chassis and use it as single ended. Thus no benefit whatsoever beyond the mechanical benefit of XLR vs RCA connectors. But, many in hifiville would argue that XLRs sound better than RCAs. so right off we're into the wormhole.

On the other end, would be an absolutely fully balanced design from input to output. Thus would provide common mode rejection, and the product would be able to state "fully balanced design". This design would cover all bases and very likely be praised in hifiville, all else being equal of course.

The 3rd option would be to use fully balanced input/output receivers and drivers, and run single ended on the internal circuity. As a science person this would be my choice--IF embarking on a product design that would be used in professional environments! It would reap benefits from common mode rejection, and still be simpler overall. I would also argue that there should be no reason this design could not be every bit as good as the "fully balanced" design in every way.
But then again, the argument would be.. well, it's not "fully balanced" ..and again we're heading down the wormhole. :dazed-7:

[chessman]

My BAT gear is fully balanced. I intentionally chose if for that design. I wanted the lower noise floor and the higher output. Is it "better?" There is no single answer to that because it depends upon implementation and a host of variables. I have heard single ended gear that sounds better than mine and other single ended gear that sounds worse. All I can say is that mine is dead silent. Like everything else audio, I suspect each choice involves pros and cons and one ends up making a subjective cut.