Honestly folks..what's the difference in the sound quality of balanced vs. RCA outputs?

Some of you have probably noticed that I've been beating the boards to death about amps ever since I got my 990...but I just want to make sure I get the right amp!

The 7125 meets my power, channel, and budget needs perfectly. Of course it does not have balanced inputs. It also does not have level adjust but I'm hoping I can live without it.

But since I have the 990 I'm worried that I'll be missing something by not using the balanced outputs. Any thoughts on this? And this would only be for the center and surrounds..the fronts ARE running off the balanced outputs.

Its been discussed all over the boards but to help make your decision easy it breaks down to this. Are you going to run long distances? In a electrically noisy environment? If yes, go with balanced. If not, then unbalanced is fine. You won't miss a thing.
My 2 cents.
Greg

No it will just be running from the 990 to the amp which is 4 feet down.

But like I said I am using the balanced output for my front speakers (because they are self amplified) which is about a 25' run for the far one so I've got the best case there I think.

I'm just trying to see what features I can live without..I can't find a 7 channel amp with balanced inputs, level control, and auto turn-on. The 7125 has two of those four

What about the 7700 which has 3 of the 4?

I was going to say something about the 7700 but took it out of my post. At $2000, it just ain't gonna happen. If it had level controls it would happen...but for me it's not worth $1000 extra just for balanced inputs. I'm stretching it to get the 7125 considering similar used amps are in the $600 neighborhood.

Just asking, but what's important about having level controls?

I want to run a bi-amp setup. My fronts are already bi-amped, so I just need to do my center and surrounds. Three tweeters and three sets of mids...hence the need for a 7 (actually only need 6) channel amp. Having seperate level controls for each is the whole point of bi-amping. It's nice being able to turn down just the tweets a hair if needed.

Gotcha! Thanks. never tried bi-amping. No go with Rockets.

Based on your comments about how the Carver amp performed it sounded like much of your earlier trouble with a non-biamped configuration had to do with the influence of the other amp you'd been using, not any deficiency in the speaker or the amount of power being provided to it. Your fronts are active speakers - it's a very different design than the typical speaker, with the crossovers located before the amps that power each driver. The approach used with your mains is also called active bi-amping, and it's the most effective way to bi-amp. It's also the most difficult to implement, best performed by the original designer (as was the case with your Active 40's) or someone with a great deal of knowledge about crossover circuit designs and the specific speakers in question (as was the case with the past forum regular soundhound, who I believe actually tri-amped his horn speakers with an array of tube amps). It's not essential to bi-amp the other speakers (Paradigm designed them assuming that the vast majority of users wouldn't, and any time you tweak the input level to half of the speaker it could be considered distorting the original design). Passive bi-amping (the approach you are planning on using, in which the crossovers remain in place downstream of the amps) is mainly a method of providing more power than a single amp could produce; introducing the ability to adjust high freq and low freq levels independently is more of a side-effect. That means that you could have the equivalent of a 400W amp driving your Studio CC by using two 200W amp channels, and along the way you may happen to have the ability to adjust the tweeter separately from the woofer. The level controls are often used in that case to help balance things, but you really do start messing with the designer's intent at some point.

I guess I'm just trying to help justifying getting a new Outlaw amp

I have level adjustments now and I've grown used to them (both being able to adjust tweeter levels and 'bass shaker' levels..which brings up another question which I am going to post about in a minute). If the 7125 had them, it would sure help matters whether I use them or not...they are there if I do decide to configure my setup with them passively bi-amped.

Like I said, I have them now, but it's with two amps and neither have auto-on. I'd like to do this all with one nice auto-on package. And it's not like I'm continuously adjusting them.

gonk,

I sent you a PM!

If you are using bi-amplification without active crossovers ahead of the amplifier and are still relying on the internal speaker crossovers, then any attenuation that the loudspeaker manufacturer built in to the crossovers, in order affect the ratio of signal sent to each driver, still remains in the signal path. Sending one amplifier channel to the woofer and another amplifier channel to the mid and/or high frequency drivers through the original crossovers merely requires that both channels have the same amount of gain/output – unless you are using channel gain as a substitute ‘tone control’ in order to create a different ratio than the manufacturer intended.

While idealistically I prefer active crossovers ahead of each amplifier channel and the elimination of the passive crossovers, the implementation of such a system is much more involved, technically and financially.

I use unbalanced runs, generally of 2m or less, without problems. I use longer unbalanced runs, about 5m, to powered subs without problems as well. Most of the interconnects are constructed of a rather high-quality commercial cable, Belden 1694A. A few cables, for the rarely used VCR, are RS next-to-best grade.

What is a "long distance" that would justify balanced cables? 7 feet? 15? 20?

Speaking of Soundhound, I think he used to consistently argue against the use of balanced cicuits except in very long runs (> 50').

It depends on who you ask, and on the environment. I wouldn't consider 7 feet of interconnect particularly long (that could just be from top to bottom of an equipment rack).
Soundhound had some very reasonable and sound (no pun intended) arguments against balanced connections outside of the harsh environment of a recording studio (the type of space for which balanced connections were developed in the first place). This arguments can still be seen in a couple of old threads (start somewhere near the bottom of this page for the most lengthy debate and then move on to this thread as well). He runs unbalanced from his equipment rack to his amp closet, which would likely equate to cable runs of 20' or 25'.

I do some small sound work for bands, musicals, etc. as a hobby and have run unbalanced in some instances as long as 100 ft without any problems. But balanced is better in that instance because it would reduce any common mode noise. Depending on how it is designed, balanced also gives an instant 3db increase in signal to noise ratio just because it is balanced regardless of cable run.
My system is all unbalanced at home, and balanced for my sound work.
The one exception is all my sound restoration work is done with equipment all balanced (where possible) up to the time it is digitized. I want that extra noise reduction.