DIN vs RCA

I simply stick with Din>Din because the equipment is designed for.that configuration.  The only obvious deviations are the TT arm lead Phonos  into the Superline and the XLR on the 250.  

Regards,

Lindsay

I'm using din din for CDX2 to SN. I've tried a few RCAs and din has always sounded better 

Bear in mind RCA was originally for DC power, not audio. 

And RCA splits the negative in the signal - why? Stick with DIN.

feeling_zen posted:

Bear in mind RCA was originally for DC power, not audio. 

Interesting,......that seems to be contrary to that "fount of all truths and knowledge", Wikipedia, is saying.

It's just too bad that DIN limits you to NAIM equipment, including inferior NAIM DACs. This is one reason why I'll probably jump off the NAIM train in 2017 and buy a balanced XLR setup with a different brand. Pretty much everyone else like Hegel, Accuphase, Schiit, etc. all offer an IA (or Pre) with balanced XLR inputs. Not NAIM (except the Statement S1).

Suzy Wong posted:

feeling_zen posted:

Bear in mind RCA was originally for DC power, not audio. 

Interesting,......that seems to be contrary to that "fount of all truths and knowledge", Wikipedia, is saying.

The first use of RCA was to connect an RCA add on turntable to thier wireless radio. But the RCA connector itself was just used to take power from the wireless to power the motor on the turntable. 

The simplicity and the fact that everything was mono at the time made it catch on immediately for other applications.

Not looked at Wikipedia but I assure you that was the first use of RCA.

How do you like your Japanese seafood ? Straight up sushi with rice or sashimi without ?

TOBYJUG posted:

---

How do you like your Japanese seafood ? Straight up sushi with rice or sashimi without ?

I've never thought about it. Both I guess. By definition, sushi always has rice but not necessarily any seafood.

feeling_zen posted:

Suzy Wong posted:

feeling_zen posted:

Bear in mind RCA was originally for DC power, not audio. 

Interesting,......that seems to be contrary to that "fount of all truths and knowledge", Wikipedia, is saying.

The first use of RCA was to connect an RCA add on turntable to thier wireless radio. But the RCA connector itself was just used to take power from the wireless to power the motor on the turntable. 

The simplicity and the fact that everything was mono at the time made it catch on immediately for other applications.

Not looked at Wikipedia but I assure you that was the first use of RCA.

The Wikipedia page does have a nice photograph of the back of an RCA wireless set showing the single RCA connector with the legend "An inexpensive RCA Victor record player will make a fine Victrola of this radio. Plug here."

So I n the resulting "Victrola" configuration,  would the record player send its audio to the radio or handle it itself?

Suzy Wong posted:

feeling_zen posted:

Suzy Wong posted:

feeling_zen posted:

Bear in mind RCA was originally for DC power, not audio. 

Interesting,......that seems to be contrary to that "fount of all truths and knowledge", Wikipedia, is saying.

The first use of RCA was to connect an RCA add on turntable to thier wireless radio. But the RCA connector itself was just used to take power from the wireless to power the motor on the turntable. 

The simplicity and the fact that everything was mono at the time made it catch on immediately for other applications.

Not looked at Wikipedia but I assure you that was the first use of RCA.

The Wikipedia page does have a nice photograph of the back of an RCA wireless set showing the single RCA connector with the legend "An inexpensive RCA Victor record player will make a fine Victrola of this radio. Plug here."

So I n the resulting "Victrola" configuration,  would the record player send its audio to the radio or handle it itself?

 

 

I the documentary I've seen about RCA (company in general), the wireless and the turntable were effectively seperate audio systems.

There was a thread not too long ago about the same thing, I was also of the opinion that I preferred the RCA to RCA version to the Din version .

badlands posted:

There was a thread not too long ago about the same thing, I was also of the opinion that I preferred the RCA to RCA version to the Din version .

Badlands, what did you liked better about RCA-RCA vs Din?

For the exact same reason as you, a cleaner, clearer, and more open sounding, more transparent sound than the DIN to DIN cables I have tried. The HiLine being one that was tried, among a few others.

Chord Co, Atlas and Nordost  RCA to RCA cables all sounding better to my ears.

You can reference the previous thread here. Re: RCA or Snac 5

Din stands for "Deutsches Institut für Normung" so it's German enginering, so should be good

RCA stands for "Record Company of America" and the connector was introduced in the early 1940's. Draw your own conclusions based on an acronym, or listen and decide for yourself. The quality and construction of the cable itself, as well as the listener's preferences will probably play a larger role than the connection type.

Robiwan posted:

Din stands for "Deutsches Institut für Normung" so it's German enginering, so should be good

You mean standards rather than engineering... but yes the DIN plugs are/were usually wired in a way that matches Naim's approach on common grounding.

Phono or what is sometimes called RCA, is well suited for audio frequency, but ideally for mono, its with stereo audio use with the split grounds that arguably some compromises arise.

So the main advantage for DIN 5 pin connectors is that left and right audio paths can have a common ground, shield can be seperates from ground, though I don't think Naim do this, and for a given stereo connection one less physical contact is required compared to Phono so contact and microphony issues are potentially reduced... by 25%.... but such issues can also add low level distortion or 'treble bite' so might be prefereable..

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Robiwan posted:

Din stands for "Deutsches Institut für Normung" so it's German enginering, so should be good

You mean standards rather than engineering... but yes the DIN plugs are/were usually wired in a way that matches Naim's approach on common grounding.

Phono or what is sometimes called RCA, is well suited for audio frequency, but ideally for mono, its with stereo audio use with the split grounds that arguably some compromises arise.

So the main advantage for DIN 5 pin connectors is that left and right audio paths can have a common ground, shield can be seperates from ground, though I don't think Naim do this, and for a given stereo connection one less physical contact is required compared to Phono so contact and microphony issues are potentially reduced... by 25%.... but such issues can also add low level distortion or 'treble bite' so might be prefereable..

 

One thing Naim is good at is it's sensitivity for microphony 

DynFan160 posted:

It's just too bad that DIN limits you to NAIM equipment, including inferior NAIM DACs. This is one reason why I'll probably jump off the NAIM train in 2017 and buy a balanced XLR setup with a different brand. Pretty much everyone else like Hegel, Accuphase, Schiit, etc. all offer an IA (or Pre) with balanced XLR inputs. Not NAIM (except the Statement S1).

There is practically no advantqge to balanced connections in a domestic environment. Primarily use is on stages and in recording studios, where cable runs tend to be long (between 3 and 100 meters) and interference can play real havoc.

Of course if you don't like NAIM by all means sell it. But using DIN as an argument is a bit shallow in my opinion.

badlands posted:

For the exact same reason as you, a cleaner, clearer, and more open sounding, more transparent sound than the DIN to DIN cables I have tried. The HiLine being one that was tried, among a few others.

Chord Co, Atlas and Nordost  RCA to RCA cables all sounding better to my ears.

You can reference the previous thread here. Re: RCA or Snac 5

From the thred I seem to recall you did not compare the same make and model of RCA-RCA vs DIN-DIN... or am I mistaken?

Robiwan posted:

One thing Naim is good at is it's sensitivity for microphony 

To be fair, this applies to all hifi - and valves in particular - but at least It's something Naim have taken steps to address with formed-leg components, compliant boards, suspension systems, and decoupling wherever possible. Naim is as much about mechanical engineering as it is about electronics.

Naim Dacs aren't inferior... 

and for better sound quality single ended is better than balanced XLR

Rob Watts of Chord had always said this, and naim figured this out 40 years ago.

but whatever makes you happy .... enjoy the music that's what's this is all about 

Adam Zielinski posted:

badlands posted:

For the exact same reason as you, a cleaner, clearer, and more open sounding, more transparent sound than the DIN to DIN cables I have tried. The HiLine being one that was tried, among a few others.

Chord Co, Atlas and Nordost  RCA to RCA cables all sounding better to my ears.

You can reference the previous thread here. Re: RCA or Snac 5

From the thred I seem to recall you did not compare the same make and model of RCA-RCA vs DIN-DIN... or am I mistaken?

Yes, you are correct Adam, but I would like to point out that the $1400.00 Hiline DIN to DIN sounded inferior to my ears than the much less expensive Chord and Atlas, RCA to RCA cables.

In other words, if the DIN to DIN HiLine sounded inferior to the less expensive RCA to RCA cables, why would the comparison to a Hiline RCA to RCA really matter?

Adam Meredith posted:

badlands posted:

For the exact same reason as you, a cleaner, clearer, and more open sounding, more transparent sound than the DIN to DIN cables I have tried. The HiLine being one that was tried, among a few others.

Chord Co, Atlas and Nordost  RCA to RCA cables all sounding better to my ears.

You can reference the previous thread here. Re: RCA or Snac 5

For this to be at all 'meaningful' can it be presumed that you've compared DIN versions of each of these cables against their exact Phono variants?

(Including the HiLine (DIN) against HiLine (RCA Phono).)

You've been very dedicated (more than I) to determining your preference. I applaud your rigour - while wondering at your enthusiasm for comparison of potentially minor connector differences.

That said: all your work is, as for all of us, only successful in determining your preference.

If the comparison was not like for like (apart from DIN/Phono terminations) then it's not relevant to a discussion of DIN v. Phono.

See my response to the other Adam.

badlands posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

badlands posted:

For the exact same reason as you, a cleaner, clearer, and more open sounding, more transparent sound than the DIN to DIN cables I have tried. The HiLine being one that was tried, among a few others.

Chord Co, Atlas and Nordost  RCA to RCA cables all sounding better to my ears.

You can reference the previous thread here. Re: RCA or Snac 5

From the thred I seem to recall you did not compare the same make and model of RCA-RCA vs DIN-DIN... or am I mistaken?

Yes, you are correct Adam, but I would like to point out that the $1400.00 Hiline DIN to DIN sounded inferior to my ears than the much less expensive Chord and Atlas, RCA to RCA cables.

In other words, if the DIN to DIN HiLine sounded inferior to the less expensive RCA to RCA cables, why would the comparison to a Hiline RCA to RCA really matter?

 

Well... generally tests, to be valid, involve comparing like for like products....