Lankhoss Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 I was always under the impression that the optical output was a better digital connection than coaxial. I don't know anyone that's really that hardcore into HT, but one of my friends is very interested in speakers and amps, and has an extremely loud system. He had always told me that his music sounded better (mostly the lows) using an optical cable rather than a coaxial. I work in people's houses for a living, and ANYONE who has a HT setup that uses digital audio uses an optical. Well, yesterday I went and bought a bunch of Monster Cable from a true audiophile (I am just guessing here, but I think he had about 40k invested in his system, not including speakers). He was telling me that coaxial is ALWAYS better than optical. He claimed that nearly every optical output on any DVD or CD player was a cheap $.30 LED, whereas the coaxial circuit was always built much better. Does anyone else have any opinion on this? This is the first time I've ever heard anything like this....but the guy I was talking to seemed to really know his business. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j-malotky Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 In theory, they should sound the same, since they are just 1's and 0's going to your DAC's. I stick with COAX SPDIF connections on my HT. Since I run components and try to stick with best of bread, I have found far less timing issues with COAX compared to TOSLINK. My problems were a few years ago, so it is possible things have gotten better. Personally, IMHO, I would only run TOSLINK if I had the same brand name on both ends of the optical cable. JM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Another fun subject with a bunch of opinions. My take: A bit is a bit is a bit. If a bit can transport unmangled then you get what you need. Period. Coax has been around for quite some time and the argument can be made that quality control is up there. So the odds of getting a cable that works well is up there. Fiber can, theoretically, handle greater bandwidth (although not really needed in our applications). This technology has been around now for quite sometime and you should expect excellent quality here as well. You could spout many things from the change from light back to electrons (not a big issue - a codec type function is needed for both) and that light doesn;t take 90 degree turns very well (the odd case where it may be required). From my perspective the only real issue would be that coax connectivity hax been around much longer and could possibly have addressed most of the 'gotchas' that could happen. Even that is a very weak logic that may be more emotional than real. Cleared that up a bunch didn't I... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougdrake Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Tomato, tomatoe. Both are probably right. I think for most of us it comes down to practicality. Coax will be sturdier and less prone to breakage. Most fiber cables, unless you spend some real flow, are plastic not glass, and both can be broken if bent too much. Also, most receivers have more fiber than electrical digital inputs (probably because they are less expensive to build?), so that sometimes forces a fiber connection. I've used both in my setup and can't hear a difference, so I went with coax for reliability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 I had always used Optical, and just bought a Coaxel to test the difference myself. This comparison may not be fair - it was an average monster cable optical and I went to a $130 silver coaxel. Anyway, I definitely noticed a difference - more lows with a fuller sound with the coaxel. When I went back to the optical, it sounded a little more "thin" if that makes any sense. Again, probably comparing a $35 cable with a $130 cable - may have nothing to do with the Optical / Coaxel argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strabo Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 Not all ones and zeros are the same. Using the TOSLink introduces another conversion into the signal chain, a different language, which is why you want to have components made by the same company on either end of the connection. TOSLink, even though is fiber optic and should have huge bandwidth, is limited by the LED on the output to 24/96. Digital cable can easily do 24/192. Either one should be more than adequate for CD listening. The drawback for digital coax cable is the possibility of grounding problems. I'd stick with coax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 I second Strabo,grounding/shielding has the potential to be a problem w/coax,not possible w/optical.The best thing about optical is it eliminates possible ground issues on at least one cable.That said they sound the same to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dantfmly Posted July 25, 2004 Share Posted July 25, 2004 i Have never tried coax, but i have been running toslink conection for 7 years now without any reliabilty issues. Still sounds just like the day i bought it (outstanding). I have a monster cable intelink 200 optical cable. I have it between two different brands (pioneer/HK) with no timing issues either. i only use it for movies. I do not have any audio optical or coax inputs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilMays Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 I will add that I use TOSLINK. I tried both Kimber Kable and regular over the counter cable and found no difference, so I returned the Kimber. As for the COAX, I'm not sure if I can tell a difference. Perhaps it's time to do an AB test again. BTW, I use Denon, Yamaha & Sony on either side of the connection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewishAMerPrince Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 One point that is rarely brought up about this subject is the potential for a coax to create a ground loop, especially from a satelite receiver or cable tv box. There is no electrical pathway in a toslink cable for the possibility of a ground loop to occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 Most of the arguments that Coax sounds better go back to the earlier days of digital audio. When separate DACs were introduced, and for the first few generations, the jitter rejection was not always very well implemented. The TOSLINK optical connector, particularly if cheaply implemented, can introduce large® amounts of jitter into the interface. If that jitter is not properly rejected (double phase lock loops, for example) it can cause jitter-related "sidebands" that are similar to typical harmonic distortion components. Coax in the early days, largely as a result of its inherently wider bandwidth compared to TOSLINK, typically introduced less jitter. Note that the other optical interface, usually called something like "AT&T optical", and very uncommon nowadays, has a much, much higher bandwidth and is generally thought to be the "best" digital connect. I don't know anyone outside of Mark Levinson and other "ultra high end" manufacturers that use that interface today. Nowadays, most properly designed DACs will not be adversely affected by external jitter, or at least not nearly so much. If you search throught the Stereophile archives, you'll find a very, very large body of articles discussing this topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 I have used TOS-LINK for over 13 years. No reliability problems. I like the fact that the optical connection eliminates any grounding issues that can arrise with an electrical connect. I can't say I have ever heard any difference in the two, but then again, I can't say I've ever tried to hear one either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 ---------------- On 7/26/2004 12:07:08 PM Ray Garrison wrote: Note that the other optical interface, usually called something like "AT&T optical", and very uncommon nowadays, has a much, much higher bandwidth and is generally thought to be the "best" digital connect. ---------------- Are you perchance referring to ADAT optical? This is the professional standard - 8 channel 24/48 or 4 channel 24/96 uncompressed audio stream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 ---------------- On 7/26/2004 12:07:08 PM Ray Garrison wrote: Note that the other optical interface, usually called something like "AT&T optical", and very uncommon nowadays, has a much, much higher bandwidth and is generally thought to be the "best" digital connect. ---------------- Are you perchance referring to ADAT optical? This is the professional standard - 8 channel 24/48 or 4 channel 24/96 uncompressed audio stream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Garrison Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Griffinator, Don't think so. Can't find a lot of info (unusual...) on the AT&T ST optical connector, but found this on an Audioquest catalog... "Toslink or EIA-J, is the most common fiber optic system. Toslink cable usually contains a synthetic (plastic) light conducting fiber, though the best Toslink cables use quartz fiber (glass). "ST" is the highest quality fiber optic system used in audio. As the specifications for this system were set by AT&T, it is most often called AT&T or "glass". However, neither term actually defines the system. ST is just one of many fiber optic standards set by AT&T, and many companies besides AT&T make parts that conform to the "ST" standards. ST systems operate at seven to fourteen times the frequency bandwidth of the Toslink system." That's about all I could find, but I don't think it has anything to do with the standard you referred to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lankhoss Posted July 27, 2004 Author Share Posted July 27, 2004 Let me now add to this conversation. First off, thankyou all for the responses. I find this all very interesting. Unfortunately, after I posted.......I discovered my DVD player only has an optical out lol Anyway....I was wondering which is a better connection from a DVD player to a receiver: The digital output (either optical or coaxial) or the 6 channel analog out, if equipped. I heard that analog cables had far superior bandwidth characteristics, and the channel separation was much more defined using the 6 analog outputs, as opposed to a digital cable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougdrake Posted July 27, 2004 Share Posted July 27, 2004 Well, lank, it's a function of the quality of the DACs in your DVD player compared to those in your preamp/receiver. Analog outputs will use the DACs in your DVD player, and your preamp/receiver will just pass those through, untouched save for volume attenuation, to the amplifier stage. Bear in mind also that the bass management will be done in your DVD player if you use analog outputs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lankhoss Posted July 28, 2004 Author Share Posted July 28, 2004 Thanks Doug. Think I'll stick with my digital out ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie Klipsch Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 No one has mentioned reflectivity of optical yet. It can have a most dramatic effect on the data path of a cable. Dull the edges of a cheap optical cable and watch what happens. Cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Posted July 28, 2004 Share Posted July 28, 2004 "Thanks Doug. Think I'll stick with my digital out ;-)" Does your DVD player also player SACD? If so, you'll need the analog connections for that. You may need both connections Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.