BTW, many of the Canon movie cameras of that era had model numbers with the preface “XL” such as the Canon XL-1014s.
The ‘Balanced’ XLR cables are what I was after. There is an option on the pre-amp to power amp linkage for balanced links instead of RCA connectors, the use of a ground + 2 signal leads uses some electonic jiggery-pokery to cancel out any distortion. There is also an option for a CD input using XLR connects but my CD doesn’t have XLR-out.
Link to Electrocompaniet explanation. (* my amps are Electrocompaniet*)
Warning - PDF
Crap, forgot to put the link in:-
http://www.electrocompaniet.com/nyweb2/pdf/whitepaper/Why%20balanced%2002.pdf
The ground is connected only to the shielding around the signal wire pair, and is not part of the actual circuit. The two signal wires, S+ and S- are twisted around each other, in such a manner as to cause any external signal to be rejected, and also minimizing losses due to signal radiation. This twisted pair technique is also used in telephone wiring, CAT-5 ethernet cabling, S-video cables and lots of other applications.
I’m still trying to understand all this myself so please correct me where I’m wrong but from my understanding the twist is not the reason the noise is rejected.
The reason the noise is rejected is because the balanced setup, the twist just aids in making sure whatever EMI exists affects both the + and - equally, keeping the difference in the two the same. Since the amp/pre-amp/whatever looks at the difference in the + and - the net effect on the difference is zero. The twist itself is not necessary for noise reduction but helpful.
Is this correct or is there something else going on here? I know there is a lot of right hand rule stuff for me to learn.
Sorry, NoClueBoy, I think you’re off the mark here. I have seen XLR jacks on professional 16mm news cameras, like CP-16s and Arris, but I’ve never seen one on a consumer product. It would be a pretty bulky thing to build into an 8mm camera that’s supposed to be as small as possible. Mike connectors on those are almost always 1/8" mini jacks, or sometimes 1/4" phone jacks, both of which are unbalanced. The simple reason for this is that virtually all consumer mikes are high impedance and don’t have a balanced output.
Also, 8mm and Super8 sound cameras were very rare, and came along late in the life cycle of the format, long after, I suspect, the introduction of the XLR standard. (Not to be too nitpicky, but I’m also be inclined to question your assertion that Canon was “a leader in 8mm, Super 8, and 16mm movie cameras during the 60s and 70s.” In the U.S., at least, Bell & Howell, Kodak, and others were at least as popular as Canon, if not more so.)
Hey, that’s why I posted it as a WAG, not as canon. Your point makes sense.
And, on that last point, I did say “a” leader, which they certainly were. For those who could afford it.
That’s a bit oversimplified. Without the twist, there would almost always be some difference in the common mode induced signal from external sources of EMI. resulting in normal mode noise, which the input amplifier happily amplifies along with the desired signal. As you correctly state, the twist ensures that the common mode signal is equal on both wires, and can therefore be rejected by the amplifier.
Good one!
I thought this was a question about the Cadillac XLR, in which case it stands for “eXtremely Large Ripoff”.
Thank you, thank you! I’m here all week…
No, really. I’m here all week! :dubious:
Out of curiosity, does anyone know Canon’s first application for this? I mean, the actual device(s) using this?
A possible explanation for the letters “XLR”?
Interesting, if possibly apocryphal.
The Cannon company which invented the XLR connector is not the same as the Canon company which sells cameras, copiers, etc.
From the ITT/Cannon web site.
Damn! I really am getting senile. I knew about ITT/Cannon (years ago), and just forgot. Then I thought it was a revelation that Canon invented cannon connectors. D’oh!
Thanks Fat Bald Guy.
Woo Hoo! This is great! 
I always knew my Canon rep was full of shit. In general, anyways. Or, maybe he really thought they were Canon and not Cannon connectors. I can’t believe I fell for it all these years. (I sold cameras when the A-1 was new.)
Thank you guys ever so for clearing up over 20 years of false knowledge. I feel much better now.
Did someone here send a correction about ITT Cannon/Canon to Wikipedia, which is the original source of Q.E.D.'s thefreedictionary.com link? Because the latter is a verbatim copy of the former, except that the Wikipedia article has “ITT Cannon” everywhere that thefreedictionary.com article has “Canon.”
Please note that I am resisting the temptation to gloat over the fact that the otherwise omnipotent and perfect Q.E.D. made a mistake!. Mainly because I was taken in by his link, when I might have provided the correct information myself, if my decrepit old brain had been working properly.
Of course, there was a time when I was right and Q.E.D. was wrong. My finest hour!
Hey, I didn’t make the error, I just repeated it! 
XLR? I thought that was a name for men that were just released from prison
XLR = Xtra Large Rectum :eek: :dubious:
The only XLR connectors used for stereo I’ve ever seen were of the five, not three, pin variety. They’re fairly common for pro-level stereo microphones.
XLR connectors come in 2 to 7-pin models (I’ve never seen anything other than 3 and 5-pin versions.)
Even though I’m guilty of having taught ground-left-right as a mnemonic, the etymology doesn’t hold. Not only can there be more or less than 3 pins, but ITT Cannon also manufactures XLA, XLB, XLG, and XLM connectors. All of those are interchangeable and have only minor differences, such as latch design.
Some WAGs: XLA and XLB and low-cost models so they have been given “lower” letters. The M in XLM could either stand for “PCB mount”, which is the product’s main feature. The G in XLG might be for gold as the connectors are made of LC-OFC (linear crystal oxygen-free copper) which is gold in colour. The best bet for the R in XLR would be rigid, a reference to the metal shell. Or maybe, QED’s cite is right and it’s resilient rubber.
See this catalogue. (Warning, PDF!)
But then again, these kinds of product codes are always pretty damn arcane and arbitrary and probably few people at ITT Cannon even know what those letters stand for.
So Xylophone-Laden Rodent is right out, then?