Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Cables => Topic started by: Scooter on September 28, 2004, 12:45:28 PM

Title: Balanced cable wiring descrepancies??
Post by: Scooter on September 28, 2004, 12:45:28 PM
I've seen multiple ways to wire balanced to unbalanced.  Some have it going pin1 & 3 jumpered>sleeve, then pin2>tip w/ screen unused.  I've also seen just pin1>sleeve, and pin2>tip, pin 3 blank w/ screen unused.  Then i've seen pin1>sleeve, pin2>tip, pin3 blank, w/ the screen wired to the case of the XLR, but unconnected on the other end.  Once and for all, which is the correct way??
Title: Re: Balanced cable wiring descrepancies??
Post by: leegeddy on September 29, 2004, 12:25:53 PM
I've seen multiple ways to wire balanced to unbalanced.  Some have it going pin1 & 3 jumpered>sleeve, then pin2>tip w/ screen unused.  I've also seen just pin1>sleeve, and pin2>tip, pin 3 blank w/ screen unused.  Then i've seen pin1>sleeve, pin2>tip, pin3 blank, w/ the screen wired to the case of the XLR, but unconnected on the other end.  Once and for all, which is the correct way??

the correct way that i've been taught is:

Pin 2 > Tip (+)
Pin 3 > Shield
Pin 1 > Sheild

never leave Pin 3 open "floating" and never use the shell.

marc
Title: Re: Balanced cable wiring descrepancies??
Post by: Scooter on September 29, 2004, 12:48:16 PM
ya, i figured leaving pin 3 floating was a bad idea...  Thanks for the info ;)
Title: Re: Balanced cable wiring descrepancies??
Post by: hexyjones on September 29, 2004, 01:18:15 PM
I think the British have a different arrangement for wiring for XLRs??? Anyone confirm....?
Title: Re: Balanced cable wiring descrepancies??
Post by: ethan on September 29, 2004, 01:19:36 PM
I've seen multiple ways to wire balanced to unbalanced.  Some have it going pin1 & 3 jumpered>sleeve, then pin2>tip w/ screen unused.  I've also seen just pin1>sleeve, and pin2>tip, pin 3 blank w/ screen unused.  Then i've seen pin1>sleeve, pin2>tip, pin3 blank, w/ the screen wired to the case of the XLR, but unconnected on the other end.  Once and for all, which is the correct way??

the correct way that i've been taught is:

Pin 2 > Tip (+)
Pin 3 > Shield
Pin 1 > Sheild

never leave Pin 3 open "floating" and never use the shell.

marc


The above is for unbalanced. Balanced has a + and a -.

-e
Title: Re: Balanced cable wiring descrepancies??
Post by: leegeddy on September 29, 2004, 01:30:51 PM
I think the British have a different arrangement for wiring for XLRs??? Anyone confirm....?

....those damn Brits!!

jk;

marc
Title: Re: Balanced cable wiring descrepancies??
Post by: JAH on September 30, 2004, 09:31:10 AM
There are basically 2 ways... one is tying PIN 2 and 3 together and the other is an audiofiles approach
XLR      RCA
 
Pin 2      TIP
Pin 3      Sleeve
Pin 1      N/C
both work.

jah
Title: Re: Balanced cable wiring descrepancies??
Post by: Marc Nutter on October 02, 2004, 06:35:53 PM
Hey Guys,

While there is certainly a lot of dispute on right and wrong ways to handle a balanced to unbalanced connection, the common versions I see are:

Pin 2 >center of RCA or tip of 1/4"
Pin 1 >shield (shell of RCA or Sleeve of 1/4")
Pin 3 >shield (shell of RCA or Sleeve of 1/4")

When taking a transformer isolated output (ex: EAA PSP-2 pre-amp) to an RCA, it is common to float Pin 3 on the XLR end.

I have never seen a case where pin 2 and 3 were shorted (ie. connected to the hot center pin together).  Remember, they are out of polarity with each other and would cancel to near silence.

In installed sound systems, landing shield to pin 1 on xlr and to shell on the RCA is a point on unending argument.  Some like to land it on both ends, others argue vehemently that it should only be landed on one side or the other.  This is equally true in XLR>XLR balanced connections as it is here. 

The papers of Bill Whitlock, Jensen Transformers, provide fantastic insight.  They are available at www.jensentransformers.com

I hope this helps.

Marc


Title: Re: Balanced cable wiring descrepancies??
Post by: Scooter on October 03, 2004, 04:36:35 PM
good food for thought Marc, thanks.