Thinking about the "pickup wiring" thread, and after a couple of stream of consciousness jumps, I was asking myself...

Why do we use unbalanced signals between the bass and amplifier? I can't see any good reason for this low-tech standard. I seems like, especially for unbuffered signals, we apparently just don't care about signal quality. What's up with that?

The amount of current necessary to drive a balanced output is impractical for an instrument and what is the real gain? (pun intended). Of course, Alembic has been doing this for decades. I think current pickup design and electronics (preamps) are good enough to get a nice clean output. Plus, thousands of amps are already made to accept a high impedance instrument ...you will need to haul around your outboard preamp (here's alembic again) in order to use these amps. That's my thought on the subject, anyway.

The amount of current necessary to drive a balanced output is impractical for an instrument and what is the real gain? (pun intended). Of course, Alembic has been doing this for decades. I think current pickup design and electronics (preamps) are good enough to get a nice clean output. Plus, thousands of amps are already made to accept a high impedance instrument ...you will need to haul around your outboard preamp (here's alembic again) in order to use these amps. That's my thought on the subject, anyway.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we use balanced signals for microphones *because* they are low current / high impedance?

I agree that you would want an amp with a balanced input, or maybe use a microphone preamp :) Just because the amps conform the the problem doesn't mean they're right...

You use the phrase "good enough", Telegrams were good enough too once, right?

I would love to use balanced connections throughout my entire set up. But the equipment builders do not seem to agree with me :crying:. I think it is the cost to benefit ratio isn't high enough for companies to do it

To further your analagy going from unbalanced to balanced is not like going from telegram to email.

It's telegram to slightly improved telegram. That pretty much does the same job as before.

Are signals going to amps suffering so badly that it's worth over hauling an entire industrial standard and basically making any amps made before the overhaul useless without extra equipment.

if it was THAT much better it would have been changed a long time ago. It's not like the balanced technology is NEW.

To me, the real issue is not going from instrument to amp with an unbalanced connection. The noise in a live environment is insignificant. But when you are recording it's a whole new ball game and noise becomes a problem. That's where I want a balanced signal.

If I understand correctly, and IMO, there are a few main reasons.

1. Cost. Creating a balanced signal (from any conventional pickup) requires either active circuitry or a balancing transformer, therefore it involves cost, (therefore Fender wouldn't do it,) therefore it is not done.

As had been said, Alembic has done it forever, but nearly no one else is interested.

2. Compatibility. Standard amps aren't built to accept the signal, standard cables aren't built to carry the signal.

3. History. People generally do not want change in certain areas. This includes probably most of musical instrument design. Think of all those standard Fenders and Fender-alikes, that vary little from the 50-year-old designs; the "vintage design" replicas, that mimic them as exactly as possible; the "vintage" pups that try to duplicate outdated methods and materials (scatter winding; "authentic" cloth braid over output wires; who cares what varnish is on the magnet wire, it's a damned dialectric!); the "vintaging" of brand new guitars.

4. Motivation. People expect guitars to buzz live, so there is no impetus for change. The Fender J bass could have been switched long ago to a pair of stacked humbuckers that sounded close enough to the original single coils allowing buzz-free use of a single pickup.

2. Compatibility. Standard amps aren't built to accept the signal, standard cables aren't built to carry the signal.

3. History. People generally do not want change in certain areas. This includes probably most of musical instrument design. Think of all those standard Fenders and Fender-alikes, that vary little from the 50-year-old designs; the "vintage design" replicas, that mimic them as exactly as possible; the "vintage" pups that try to duplicate outdated methods and materials (scatter winding; "authentic" cloth braid over output wires; who cares what varnish is on the magnet wire, it's a damned dialectric!); the "vintaging" of brand new guitars.

#2 and #3 are the real reasons.

Remember that the electric guitar was invented in an era when tubes were the only amplifying device available. A high impedance pickup could drive a tube stage directly, without a transformer in between. An unbalanced coaxial cable was just adequate to carry the signal between the guitar and amp.

There's no real reason other than tradition and backward compatibility that you couldn't wind low-impedance pickups and send the signal passively through shielded twisted pair (microphone) cable. You'd need a mic preamp or a step-up transformer at the receiving end. The real problem would be the extended treble response - few bassists would be comfortable with that tone.

If I understand correctly, and IMO, there are a few main reasons...

iow, people are lazy and cheap ;)

iow, people are lazy and cheap ;)

Efficiency and cost effectiveness drive the worlds economy.

that is fine for the masses. but there needs to be at least a small niche that are quality oriented instead of price driven.

that is fine for the masses. but there needs to be at least a small niche that are quality oriented instead of price driven.

Which brings us nicely back to alembic

And custom basses, which I am guessing is partially why you guys are luthiers... i know that is why i am getting into customs and luthiery

How about you install a passive DI on your bass, there is your low impedance output, and in place of a bass preamp get a Channel Strip, like one of those Universal Audio LA-601's for your preamp?

I've seen basses with balanced outputs... years ago, the bassist in my band had a "Heartfield" (imported by Fender/made in Japan) 5-string with an XLR out. He rarely used it because it had a static problem, but it was there...

Of course, it DID have an active preamp

Right. A passive DI is the balancing transformer I mentioned earlier, usually with a ground lift switch, a a filter switch with a cap, and an aux output that's a simple parallel with the input. If you have a DI that you like (there are individual tastes involved, just like with pickups) you can strip out the important bits and mount them onboard.

Manne also offers a bass with a balanced XLR out standard.

the big drawback to all of this is if you want to use pedals.

the big drawback to all of this is if you want to use pedals.
Yes, that's one more aspect of the "everything else is made for unbalanced" area.

I think it would make everything just to complicated(unless they started with this from the beginning)

as mentioned before...
pedals don't have them, amps don't have them, rack tuners don't, other rack gear(well some do, but effects made for guitars/basses usually don't), basses don't....

so if you have all of the above, changing to a balanced signal would require A) a new setup or B) a complete rebuild of your setup... both will result in an unhappy bassplayer I think...

My friend that I mentioned earlier didn't use effects at all, he just ran straight into the amp. Sometimes when recording, he would send a signal to his amp, and also a completely dry signal directly to the board from the balanced XLR output that was built into the bass. He seemed to like that option a lot.

Of course, he later traded the bass for a Warwick Corvette Standard, which didn't have that option... lol

Please excuse a mechanist, but can somebody explain the meaning of "balanced" and "unbalanced"?

I find this thread very interesting, even though I know little of these words. I have often wondered why the industry haven't left the inferior telejack connections, which is a side note on this track I believe.

If the balanced line is better (enough to be audible for the audience of a not loud concert), then all we need is a manufacturer that has the guts to deal with the whole line (pup-(wireless)-effects etc-amp), the dough to market it and the capacity to flood the market when it realizes the availability.
The metal scene and similar is not a market for balanced gear. At that noise level, nobody hears the difference.

Please excuse a mechanist, but can somebody explain the meaning of "balanced" and "unbalanced"?A conventional guitar signal, or a standard analog home stereo "line" signal that runs over cable with RCA jacks, is unbalanced. There are two conductors; one is held at ground potential, and the other is "hot", and is the signal voltage. Another conductor can be added to the cable for shielding, but is not part of the signal path.

A conventional microphone signal is balanced. There are two signal conductors; one is is "hot", and is the signal voltage, generally labelled "+", while the other is aalso "hot and is a negative or inverse of the signal, generally labelled "-". Another conductor is usually added at ground potential, although this may be disconnected at at least one end; likewise, a fourth is usually added at ground potential as a shield, although this generally should be disconnected at at least one end.

A balanced signal is generally eventually resolved to a hot and a ground at some point in the circuit (even if it's at the speakers); to do this the - signal is inverted and added to the + signal. Because any EMI noise that added itself to the signal along the way should have been added equally to the + and the - lines, this results in the two EMI signals cancelling each other out when they are combined. This is one of the reasons mic cables can be run hundreds of feet, while guitar and "line" signals cannot.