One thing we can all agree about: the title of this thread is nonsensical.

wst3
...I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on the cable thing, but some last minute thoughts are interspersed...

 
I agree!

wst3
...Agreed, it is all about language, and words (who knew) do matter<G>!..

 
Hey Bill, we're agreeing!!! 
 
 

wst3
So what would you call a cable of shielded twisted pair construction when used to connect a single-ended source to a single-ended input?

 
A balanced cable used incorrectly (or in the wrong application). One of the twisted wires carries a single ended signal while the other wire along with the shield are grounded.
 

wst3
How about a single-ended source to a balanced input?

 
Same as above.
 

wst3
My point, which may be nothing more than semantics, is that the cable does not posses the characteristic of being balanced or not. It depends entirely on how it is used.
 

 
 
Maybe I should call my sales guy at Sweetwater and demand that they stop calling "Balanced" cables, "Balanced Cables. http://www.sweetwater.com/c807--Balanced_Cables_TRS_to_TRS?adpos=1t1&creative=105744826921&device=c&matchtype=b&network=g&gclid=CjwKEAiAjIbBBRCitNvJ1o257WESJADpoUt0abPCJ0DCj79Jw1KgCZ2A4PCYKJ3xaiDkfUEndeEEShoCwjLw_wcB 
 
Once again I agree with you that we can agree to disagree. Have a Happy Election night. I'm going to open up a bottle of wine later to ether celebrate or get real drunk...
 
Best regards,
 
Walt
 
 
 

I may be guilty of just repeating something I "learned" long ago (and therefore must be right), but I always thought the term "balanced" (insofar as it applies to transmission lines) came from the simple idea that both conductors had the same impedance, that send and return were equal in amplitude with respect to a common reference, and that they were opposite in polarity. Equal but opposite = Balanced.
 
If that's true, couldn't a cable still be called "balanced" even if it was used improperly (e.g. pins 1 and 2 shorted on a microphone connector)? IOW, is the cable called "balanced" because of its design, or because it's normally used in a balanced circuit?
 
It seems to me that the term "balanced" does not explicitly imply twisted pairs, either. A length of Romex coming off an isolation transformer could be called a balanced circuit. Equal impedance, equal amplitude with respect to ground.
 
At the end of the day, all that matters is that the salesman at Guitar Center will not know what the heck you want unless you say "TRS to TRS" or "XLR" or just "microphone cable". He can then figure out what to sell you by reading the packaging on the Monster Cable rack.
 

bitflipper
 
... IOW, is the cable called "balanced" because of its design, or because it's normally used in a balanced circuit?...
 

 
Hi Bit Flipper,
 
I agree with everything you stated except I would change the above to "IOW, is the cable called "balanced" because of its design, AND because it's normally used in a balanced circuit?" (Of course it can also be used as a stereo cable, but that's another application of the cable)
 
Walt
 

bitflipper
I may be guilty of just repeating something I "learned" long ago (and therefore must be right), but I always thought the term "balanced" (insofar as it applies to transmission lines) came from the simple idea that both conductors had the same impedance, that send and return were equal in amplitude with respect to a common reference, and that they were opposite in polarity. Equal but opposite = Balanced. <snip>

Actually, if you check your favorite electronics textbook (and you should probably check at least three<G>), balanced refers to impedance  balance between conductors. It has nothing to do with signal symmetry.

It probably doesn't matter in the real world, but you can call me Quixote...

If it's any consolation, Wikipedia agrees it's about impedance balancing. Which assists in removing interference via common-mode rejection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_circuit

And I can't even balance my bank account these days! 
 
And then there was this Mackie Mixer I installed at the school CR 1604 ( first gen)   back in 1996 that sounded very boring until we discovered they reversed  the Tip as - and ring as + for some strange reason. It was out of Phase. You had to use a custom "balanced" cable to connect without the phase reversal. How stupid was that? It was even stated in the owners manual that " This is not a typo" Note that the next generation the VL? they put things right. 

The EHX nano-Muff, a reissue of their first Muff Fuzz has (or had, I think they may have fixed it eventually) a dc socket wired backwards to the tip+ centre - convention for reasons quite unknown to anyone or even mentioned on the pedal or the instruction leaflet.

They tended to burn out important components if connected to a standard, conventional pedal power supply.

The original BMP was wired that way - not really backwards, as it didn't matter much back then<G>. It was done that way to make switching the battery off with the input jack a little easier. Of course back then there was no power jack, so it was a non-issue!

And a personal gripe - for the cost of a simple bridge rectifier (one part, less than $.20 in quantities of 1) these manufacturers risk their products. Heck the bridge lets the pedal work no matter the polarity of the power source, if that's too much a single diode (less than $0.10/pc, qty = 1) they could at least protect the pedal! I simply don't understand why so few do something like this!

Tell me about it, I blew up a Korg Poly 800 because it used a reversed polarity connector and was not protected. $1,200 poof! 
Since then I'm very careful and I label all my wall warts the minute I get them. I label both the wart and the end of the cable.