Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: DAC choice help (Read 14147 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

DAC choice help

I'm hoping you might be able to give me some advice on purchasing a DAC.

Brief background: I have quite an extensive music collection which I increasingly find myself listening to using copies ripped to my computer. Because it's so convenient I have found myself almost always hearing my music through my dirt cheap Logitech computer speakers which, whilst tolerable, is far from ideal. I want instead to listen using my speakers (a pair of Yamaha HS8),  and whilst I realise that I can connect from the 3.5mm audio out jack my motherboard to the XLR or TRS inputs on the speakers, I am given to understand that the sound will be superior I instead use a decent soundcard or DAC. Since I sometimes listen using my netbook it seems like a DAC would be more convenient.

I've been reading around a little but I am a total novice in these matters, and I've been little a overwhelmed when trying to compile and compare DAC the options. I would appreciate some guidance as to which products I might want to consider, and any clarification you can give on the following issues.

DAC output: Given that the inputs on the speakers are XLR or TRS, how important is it to get a DAC that has XLR outputs? Is it foolish to get a DAC that only has 3.5mm out?

Headphone amp: I would also like to be able to use the DAC with my headphones (KRK KNS-8400). Is it best to look at buying these separately (given that I want to use it with speakers too), or should I consider DAC / headphone amp units?

Thanks in advance.

DAC choice help

Reply #1 –
I'm using a FiiO D3, which probably isn't 100% what you want. It's got TOSLINK and coax input, and no USB, but it's only $30 for a really nice piece of hardware. FiiO makes a couple of other DACs that have USB input as well if you need that.

Quote from: freezingcold on
DAC output: Given that the inputs on the speakers are XLR or TRS, how important is it to get a DAC that has XLR outputs? Is it foolish to get a DAC that only has 3.5mm out?


You can turn a balanced TRS into a normal RCA input using one of these:



Then you just plug your normal jack->RCA or RCA->RCA signal cable in there and it'll work as a normal unbalanced input. The reason it works is that you're connecting the inverted phase signal to ground and just using the normal signal. It won't be balaned, of course, but that doesn't really matter in home audio. You can get XLR adapters that do the same thing if you'd rather use XLR for some reason.

Quote
Headphone amp: I would also like to be able to use the DAC with my headphones (KRK KNS-8400). Is it best to look at buying these separately (given that I want to use it with speakers too), or should I consider DAC / headphone amp units?


Personally, I went with the FiiO D3 DAC and a Millenium HP-1 headphone amp. The HP-1 has balanced inputs, so I used two adapters like I mentioned above. Because the FiiO D3 has two outputs (RCA and 3.5mm jack), I feed one signal to my active speakers and the other to the headphone amp. It works beautifully and was less expensive than buying a DAC with a headphone output and volume control on it.

DAC choice help

Reply #2 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
Personally, I went with the FiiO D3 DAC and a Millenium HP-1 headphone amp. The HP-1 has balanced inputs, so I used two adapters like I mentioned above. Because the FiiO D3 has two outputs (RCA and 3.5mm jack), I feed one signal to my active speakers and the other to the headphone amp. It works beautifully and was less expensive than buying a DAC with a headphone output and volume control on it.

That said, it's not as good either. Apparently there are several versions of the D3 out there, and some of them had quirks like an early treble rolloff. I also bet that linearity near 0dBFS is anything but great with the stock opamp. (Have you run some RMAA tests?) And the HP-1 seems to be kinda wimpy when it comes to output current, apparently struggling with AKG K240S' (55 ohm, kinda insensitive). A FiiO E10 is hardly grand but OK while not costing much more, and I'd definitely prefer it to this combo at the PC.

Incidentally, I would check what sort of sound chips the respective computers employ. There really is nothing much wrong with e.g. the Realteks of the better kind when implemented well.

BTW, going unbalanced to balanced isn't always all that trouble-free. You can usually turn down monitor input gain far enough to make ground loop noises disappear though. Otherwise you can also buy a ground loop isolator or "hum destroyer" (the Behringer HD400 seems to be just fine).

DAC choice help

Reply #3 –
Quote from: stephan_g on
That said, it's not as good either. Apparently there are several versions of the D3 out there, and some of them had quirks like an early treble rolloff. I also bet that linearity near 0dBFS is anything but great with the stock opamp. (Have you run some RMAA tests?)


Yes, the earlier versions had issues, but according to all sources, those were fixed in the "Taishan" D03K model.

I havent done an RMAA since I don't have a Windows installation readily available, but I did find this comparison of the V2 D3 and the V3 "Taishan" D3, which is the one I have: http://thomas.orgis.org/div/fiio_d03k/

I have not noticed any treble rolloff at all when I compare to the Xonar DG I was using before, neither on my Audioengine speakers nor on my Sennheiser, Beyerdynamic and AIAIAI headphones.

Quote
And the HP-1 seems to be kinda wimpy when it comes to output current, apparently struggling with AKG K240S' (55 ohm, kinda insensitive). A FiiO E10 is hardly grand but OK while not costing much more, and I'd definitely prefer it to this combo at the PC.


The HP-1 has more than enough oomph for the headphones I am using, but of course those are all 32 ohm, and the AIAIAIs in particular are stupendously efficient. You barely have to turn up the volume with those and you're into hearing damage territory. For inefficient headphones, you may need a beefier amp, but I would bet the HP-1 suits most headphones at a good volume level.

Quote
Incidentally, I would check what sort of sound chips the respective computers employ. There really is nothing much wrong with e.g. the Realteks of the better kind when implemented well.


It's not really a question of implementation, it's a question of the absurd levels of RF noise and EMI inside the average computer. It was even getting through to my USB DAC and into the analog signal that way, which is sort of an achievement. That's why I went for TOSLINK, to completely sever the galvanic link.

All in all, it actually all sounds really really good in combination. Funny how it's always easy to criticise when all you've done is read spec sheets and extrapolated from there, isn't it? You're more than welcome to drop by and have a listen and do an RMAA test, but it's a fair journey from Bavaria to Denmark.

DAC choice help

Reply #4 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
Yes, the earlier versions had issues, but according to all sources, those were fixed in the "Taishan" D03K model.

I havent done an RMAA since I don't have a Windows installation readily available, but I did find this comparison of the V2 D3 and the V3 "Taishan" D3, which is the one I have: http://thomas.orgis.org/div/fiio_d03k/

That does look a lot better, and FR would be just fine like that.

Quote from: KozmoNaut on
The HP-1 has more than enough oomph for the headphones I am using, but of course those are all 32 ohm, and the AIAIAIs in particular are stupendously efficient. You barely have to turn up the volume with those and you're into hearing damage territory.

BTW, I've just looked up the result of the little reverse engineering session that we did @hifi-forum.de 3-4 years ago. You need a metal saw to get to the surface-mount amplifier circuit, which then reveals a good ol' TL074 quad opamp (remember it's a balanced input affair) with an AB buffer stage involving BC847/857 small-fry transistors of not necessarily matched hFE rank and 22 ohm emitter resistors. Gain's about 6 (47k/10k resistors), output impedance 100||100 = 50 ohms. Output coupling caps look reasonably large. All this running single-supply from 12 VDC. Pretty usable little circuit, though I bet if you don't need balanced input, a single 5532 would be just as powerful as a TL07x plus small-fry buffer...

Quote from: KozmoNaut on
Quote
Incidentally, I would check what sort of sound chips the respective computers employ. There really is nothing much wrong with e.g. the Realteks of the better kind when implemented well.

It's not really a question of implementation, it's a question of the absurd levels of RF noise and EMI inside the average computer. It was even getting through to my USB DAC and into the analog signal that way, which is sort of an achievement. That's why I went for TOSLINK, to completely sever the galvanic link.

In other words, you had a classic ground loop, which you quite correctly defeated using the optical connection. But that has nothing to do with how good the sound hardware is, it would have occurred regardless of whether standard issue onboard sound or a top-flight soundcard were used. Your USB DAC did not have an integrated USB isolator, so it completed the ground loop as well. Always happens when you galvanically connect the PC, which has audio ground tied to safety earth, to some other device that does the same (like a lot of pro audio equipment that normally employs balanced connections, or when some sort of external antenna is connected somewhere). It's a purely topological issue.

It is true that there's a bunch of high-frequency currents running around inside a PC. But as long as there aren't any ground loops around to act as an antenna, that's not an issue.
A classic case of ground loop occurs in what seems to be quite a number of inexpensive PC cases: All kinds of unwanted noises show up when using the front panel audio connections, ruining them for sensitive headphones or microphone use, especially when USB peripherals are connected there as well. I have looked at such a problematic case, and the multimeter showed that both USB and audio ground were tied to the case, hard, even with all cables unplugged. In the past, people have resorted to cutting up the ground plane on the front panel circuit board with a sharp knife so that audio ground would only be connected via the ground wire in the HDA cable - and what do you know, suddenly there'd be silence and pristine audio quality.

DAC choice help

Reply #5 –
Quote from: KozmoNaut on
I'm using a FiiO D3, which probably isn't 100% what you want. It's got TOSLINK and coax input, and no USB, but it's only $30 for a really nice piece of hardware. FiiO makes a couple of other DACs that have USB input as well if you need that.

The motherboard on my desktop has a S/PDIF out but my netbook has neither toslink nor coaxial out so I think I need USB input on the DAC. This doesn't rule out the other FiiO models you mentioned though.

Quote from: stephan_g on
Incidentally, I would check what sort of sound chips the respective computers employ. There really is nothing much wrong with e.g. the Realteks of the better kind when implemented well.

According to the motherboard spec the chip on my desktop computer is an "ALC887" which I assume is this. Here are the specs for the notebook; can't spot any mention of sound chips though.

Quote from: freezingcold on
DAC output: Given that the inputs on the speakers are XLR or TRS, how important is it to get a DAC that has XLR outputs? Is it foolish to get a DAC that only has 3.5mm out?

I realise I need to do some reading to get a better grasp of balanced and unbalanced audio. But for now I thought it might help to rephrase this question: would there be advantages to buying a DAC that had XLR or TRS outputs?

DAC choice help

Reply #6 –
Quote from: freezingcold on
would there be advantages to buying a DAC that had XLR or TRS outputs?

It occurred to me that stephan_g offered one answer to this question...
Quote from: stephan_g on
BTW, going unbalanced to balanced isn't always all that trouble-free. You can usually turn down monitor input gain far enough to make ground loop noises disappear though.

I suppose I skimmed over that a little as I don't understand the process you're describing. Would you be able to elaborate for me?
I also found this short thread on the benefits of a balanced output on a DAC, though opinion there was (gently) divided between someone arguing:
Quote
usually going balanced means better stereo separation since each channel has a dedicated ground to eliminate crosstalk and outside interference

and someone else claiming
Quote
In personal audio, my experience is that balanced components do little to improve the sound quality due to the short path between components

Any thoughts on this?

At something of a tangent, the former poster mentioned:

Quote
i just think it'll be much better for people if wanting a balanced source and high quality DAC to look into getting an audio interface

...and recommends this E-MU 0404 on the basis of the transparency of the DAC (though I'm not sure that's a current product). My (entirely non-technical) reservation about solutions like this is that I might be paying for a lot of functionality that I don't use. I suppose transparency is what I'm looking for, but can I take from this...
Quote from: stephan_g on
Incidentally, I would check what sort of sound chips the respective computers employ. There really is nothing much wrong with e.g. the Realteks of the better kind when implemented well

that you can argue that some chips perform the digital to analogue conversion as well as any external DAC component?

DAC choice help

Reply #7 –
OK, let's start with sound chips:
The ALC887 actually looks quite good on paper. 97 dB(A) SNR DAC wise isn't spectacular but usable, no complaints about -92 dB of THD+N, and digital filter passband ripple is very low at +/-0.0005 dB. The ADC isn't so hot SNR wise, effectively giving only 16-bit performance.
Some RMAA results for a board using this chip. Looks like analog supply may not have been as clean as desirable, or ground loops were designed into the board, but aside from the low-level noises seen, performance looks decent. Ought to be plenty usable as a line-out (as in generally indistinguishable from any other decent DAC output in a level-matched comparison). If the front headphone out follows datasheet suggestions, headphone loads of 80 ohms or higher are recommended to keep bass rolloff at bay.

My Google-Fu says that the NB550-10G uses an ALC269. One of their standard notebook chips. Only has standard issue passband ripple of +/- 0.02 dB (supposedly the pre-echo from 0.1 dB of periodic passband ripple is audible, but has anyone ever established where the limit is, other than the static hearing threshold?), but on the upside offers a low-impedance DC-coupled headphone output (though whether it is actually implemented like that is up to the system OEM - my work notebook uses a cap-coupled output with about 47 ohms of series resistance). When using the same headphone amp and comparing sound of ALC269 and Audigy FX (ALC898 + headphone driver), the differences are very subtle.

In any case make sure you're using halfway current drivers (from last year or so). For example, 24/44 output used to be broken, setting up hardware sample rate wrong and invoking resampling of uninspiring quality (as in IMD = 0.1% @10 kHz). Choose the most-used sample rate for the output device. If you're tired of switching sample rates by hand, use sound output via WASAPI in exclusive mode (available for Foobar2000, for example).

In case I forgot anything, here's the "tweak your onboard audio" blurb that I wrote recently.

Connecting to studio gear: 3.5 mm plug to 2x TS plug cable --> hum destroyer (which contains an isolation transformer) --> 2x TS plug to TS plug balanced cable (not instrument cable)

To be continued...

DAC choice help

Reply #8 –
Quote
To be continued...


Keenly anticipated. Thanks for taking the trouble.

I think what stephan is trying to tell us freezing is that the two specific requirements you requested in the OP, audio quality indistinguishable from the best and sufficient power to drive 36 Ohm headphones, you might well have already.

That doesn't mean an interface/DAC isn't a good idea. Rather that it's worth considering what other features you might find useful. Like better inputs, or galvanic isolation, or more channels, or separate volume controls for phones and system, balanced outs, or loads of stuff really. I like lots of channels but that's my thing. Everyone will have a personal choice. If we set to debating which was superior it might make the place look undignified.

DAC choice help

Reply #9 –
On to balanced vs. unbalanced connections:

They are working on premises that could be called virtually opposite.
The unbalanced connection relies on having a very low-impedance ground available, which is used to sink external electromagnetic fields by e.g. connecting a coaxial cable shield to it (Faraday cage).
The balanced connection, by contrast, is a differential affair (IOW, it's the voltage difference between two conductors that counts) and relies on symmetry in impedances and cabling. External electromagnetic fields ideally influence both conductors in the same way, resulting in a common-mode component - which promptly cancels as we're interested in differential mode. (Same goes for ground loop noise.) Practical common-mode rejection is not generally infinite but tends to be quite high especially in the lower-frequency regions.
You can also combine a balanced connection with a shield connected to low-impedance ground. This is commonly done in microphone cables, as they can be very long in practice and carry low-level signals. Hence why balanced cabling commonly uses 3-pin XLR or TRS connectors.

Pro audio (like the telephone system) traditionally uses balanced interconnects because they have loads of very long cables running around, and that would be a mess of ground loops when going unbalanced, with hum everywhere. Nominal signal levels are higher as well - +4 dBu (1.23 V) balanced vs. -10 dBV (0.316 V). So a pro DAC would be expected to output about 8 Vrms balanced for 0 dBFS, vs. the CD player level of 2 Vrms. Onboard audio tends to be at 1..1.5 V, so another 3-6 dB less.

Balanced connections are not, generally, lower in noise, actually quite the contrary in most cases (always depends on how fancy you want to get with the balanced line receiver circuitry). They're just more robust. That being said, some soundcards and interfaces do have higher dynamic range in balanced operation, since signal levels are quite a bit higher after all.

Bringing balanced and unbalanced together is a bit of a mess (article well worth reading).

Your options are numerous. You could get a pro audio interface, or a DAC with balanced outputs, or adapt as shown in my last post. Just beware that not all of these options may have a hardware volume control, potentially necessitating much better DAC performance than required otherwise. For example, pro gear may be built with an external mixer in mind. Cost varies significantly, too. The cheapest option would probably be getting another 3.5 mm to 2x TS cable for the netbook and plugging the device in at the hum destroyer that you want to use. Active speakers usually have more than sufficient gain even for onboard audio.

Or do you have a WLAN? You could set up a UPnP/DLNA streaming client and have it play stuff from either computer. The almighty foo_upnp can do that, too (via the "UPnP Controller"). Like I said, loads of options.

DAC choice help

Reply #10 –
Thanks a lot for the responses. It might take me a while to the homework necessary to digest them; in the interim I wonder if someone could clarify a couple of basic things.

Quote from: stephan_g on
Balanced connections are not, generally, lower in noise, actually quite the contrary in most cases (always depends on how fancy you want to get with the balanced line receiver circuitry). They're just more robust. That being said, some soundcards and interfaces do have higher dynamic range in balanced operation, since signal levels are quite a bit higher after all.

Bringing balanced and unbalanced together is a bit of a mess

stephan_g: It sounds from that like in a relatively simple home audio context (i.e. without huge lengths of cable etc.) balanced connections are potentially problematic with rather limited advantages, so - and here's where I can't really hide the extent of my ignorance (given that the documentation for the speaker says that they "accept balanced or unbalanced signals") does this mean I could consider not take an unbalanced connection from the motherboard/DAC to the speakers and not look for a component with a balanced output. Or is that a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire subject?

Quote from: stephan_g on
Just beware that not all of these options may have a hardware volume control, potentially necessitating much better DAC performance than required otherwise. For example, pro gear may be built with an external mixer in mind

Sorry I can't follow this. Why would the lack of volume control necessitate higher DAC performance?

DAC choice help

Reply #11 –
Quote from: freezingcold on
stephan_g: It sounds from that like in a relatively simple home audio context (i.e. without huge lengths of cable etc.) balanced connections are potentially problematic with rather limited advantages, so - and here's where I can't really hide the extent of my ignorance (given that the documentation for the speaker says that they "accept balanced or unbalanced signals") does this mean I could consider not take an unbalanced connection from the motherboard/DAC to the speakers and not look for a component with a balanced output. Or is that a fundamental misunderstanding of the entire subject?


That's pretty much exactly the point I was making in my first post. For home usage, unless you're running a line from one end of the house to the other, balanced lines are unnecessary and not worth it. In fact, if you do need to run something from one end of the house to the other, ethernet/WLAN and a simple playback device at the destination is a much better option for a home user.

Go for a DAC with unbalanced outputs, it'll be less expensive and you'll have a lot more options. Stuff like the Cambridge DACMagic Plus or the FiiO Olympos E10 has a volume control, you need one since your speakers are studio monitors designed to be controlled from a mixing desk. There are various dedicated volume controls available at affordable prices, such as the Fostex PC-1, if you want to use a DAC that doesn't have a volume control. But then you lose the headphone output and will need a dedicated headphone amp.

Considering everything that's been discussed in this thread, and your requirements, I say go for something like for instance the FiiO Olympos E10 or the Cambridge DACMagic Plus if you can find one at a reasonable price (they're upwards of $250 new). Then you'll have a quality DAC with USB input, headphone output and a volume control. Throw in a couple of XLR->RCA or TRS->RCA converters so you can attach your speakers, and you're set.

DAC choice help

Reply #12 –
Quote from: freezingcold on
Quote
In personal audio, my experience is that balanced components do little to improve the sound quality due to the short path between components

Any thoughts on this?



The idea that balanced I/O is only or primarily of benefit for long lines is an audiophile fallacy.  Ground loops and other grounding problems can and often do take place with minimal length cables. Balanced inputs can, but don't necessarily have to address them.  Simply having analog audio go from one chassis to the next can cause audible problems  due to grounding and power issues.

DAC choice help

Reply #13 –
Arnold: Your sentence can be contradictory depending on how one reads it. I assume you won't argue that balanced I/O is usually implemented in professional (and some prosumer) equipment, intended to connect multiple components. So, fallacy or not, the user case is already defined by the components being used.

As you correctly point out, ground loops can happen as soon as you have two components, but that does not make balancing I/O more or less necessary. For quite some time, I used to have a cable connected from one screw of my desktop tower to the ground screw of the integrated amplifier to which i connected the soundcard. (Since the amplifier had a phono input, that screw was intended for grounding it to the phono player).

DAC choice help

Reply #14 –
RME Adi-2 has everything you'd expect from a DAC

DAC choice help

Reply #15 –
What is it exactly that makes PC audio incompatible with hi-fi audio? (and video come to think of it)

You can usually plug in hi-fi components to one another all day without ground issues. PCs usually work on their own.

Why when you combine the two do you get such a high chance of a ground loop?

DAC choice help

Reply #16 –
2x post. Sorry

DAC choice help

Reply #18 –
Quote from: [JAZ] on

Arnold: Your sentence can be contradictory depending on how one reads it.


I don't think it is possible to write something that can't be interpreted more than one wy. Got questions? ;-)

Quote
I assume you won't argue that balanced I/O is usually implemented in professional (and some prosumer) equipment, intended to connect multiple components. So, fallacy or not, the user case is already defined by the components being used.


That would be a fallacious argument since regressing a balanced interface to an unbalanced interface is usually trivial.

Quote
As you correctly point out, ground loops can happen as soon as you have two components, but that does not make balancing I/O more or less necessary.


Well not to quibble, but the fact that balanced I/O can often vastly reduce the impact of the  ground loops and other grounding problems that natrually occur when you connect two components makes it a potentially useful tool.

Quote
For quite some time, I used to have a cable connected from one screw of my desktop tower to the ground screw of the integrated amplifier to which i connected the soundcard. (Since the amplifier had a phono input, that screw was intended for grounding it to the phono player).


Something I've done many times with mixed results. IME Balanced I/O has a better batting average than ground wires. When grounding wires help, but do not fully alleviate the problem, balanced I/O can often a useful improvement as an adjunct.

DAC choice help

Reply #19 –
Quote from: RonaldDumsfeld on
What is it exactly that makes PC audio incompatible with hi-fi audio? (and video come to think of it)


The PC's 3 wire power cord is a ground loop waiting to happen.  Almost all consumer hi fi gear has 2 wire power cords.

Quote
You can usually plug in hi-fi components to one another all day without ground issues. PCs usually work on their own.

Why when you combine the two do you get such a high chance of a ground loop?


Almost all pro and semi-pro audio gear has an IEC power cord, which also has a safety ground connection. The near-universal inclusion of balanced I/O helps mitigate this exposure.

DAC choice help

Reply #20 –
Thanks for trying Arny but I'm afraid I'm still unsure if I really understand.

Are you saying that in a PC both the signal ground and chassis ground are shared but on hi-fi gear they are not?

If so how is a ground loop formed in the first place?

Apologies for being slow. I do want to understand.

DAC choice help

Reply #21 –
If the HiFi gear has no safety ground (which most of them don't) then a small amount of current is capacitively coupled into its chasis. As soon as you connect a shielded cable from there to something that DOES have a safety ground (such as a computer), this current is now conducted through the shield. This can then cause a small AC voltage in the signal.

Notice that when you connect a turntable to your HiFi, there is a separate ground wire that connects the two together. This is to eliminate or minimize any AC current flow in the signal shield.

This a a somewhat oversimplified view of a fairly complicated subject.

DAC choice help

Reply #22 –
Quote from: RonaldDumsfeld on
Thanks for trying Arny but I'm afraid I'm still unsure if I really understand.

Are you saying that in a PC both the signal ground and chassis ground are shared but on hi-fi gear they are not?


In the interest of simplicity I'm ignore that additional area of potential screw ups. Suffice it to say there is almost always some kind of connection between signal ground and chassis ground.  It might be a dead short, it might be a capacitor or it might be a resistor or both.

Quote
If so how is a ground loop formed in the first place?


A ground loop is formed when there are two or more parallel paths for grounding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_loop_(electricity)



If you have two pieces of equipment that have safety grounds, then the usual signal ground plus the safety ground forms a ground loop.

In most home stereos the first safety ground is provided by the antenna or cable system.  The PC's safety ground provides the second safety ground, and voila you have a ground loop.

DAC choice help

Reply #23 –
But the hi-fi stuff only has 2 pin power plugs.

Quote
If the HiFi gear has no safety ground (which most of them don't) then a small amount of current is capacitively coupled into its chasis.


I think I got it after pdq posted. I wanted to know what made the PC different to the amplifier etc. Thanks both.

With apologies to the OP for the digression.................

DAC choice help

Reply #24 –
Quote from: Arnold B. Krueger on
Quote
I assume you won't argue that balanced I/O is usually implemented in professional (and some prosumer) equipment, intended to connect multiple components. So, fallacy or not, the user case is already defined by the components being used.


That would be a fallacious argument since regressing a balanced interface to an unbalanced interface is usually trivial.


What I mean is that if you want to use balanced outputs, you need equipment that has such connectors. And the equipment that has those connectors is not the usual PC soundcard, or the usual integrated amplifier. Thus, going from non-balanced to balanced is a much harder decision than going the other way around, and because of that, at home, it is unusual to have balanced IO. 

In a studio, even if it is a small one, it won't be strange to have the rack of audio components a bit far from the mixer table, from which microphones and other sources will be connected with cables or several meters. It clearly is not the same scenario than a computer connected to an amplifier.