I bought a new Sony receiver recently, the instructions recommend using coax
over optical connections, and the only reason it gives is "it is better."

Sony BS? Or is there an advantage of coax over optical, other than the
cables are less fragile?
--
Joe Salerno
Video Works! Is it working for you?
PO Box 273405 - Houston TX 77277-3405
http://joe.salerno.com

Golden Ears claim coax sounds better.

" wrote in message
ink.net...
I bought a new Sony receiver recently, the instructions recommend using coax
over optical connections, and the only reason it gives is "it is better."

Sony BS? Or is there an advantage of coax over optical, other than the
cables are less fragile?
--
Joe Salerno
Video Works! Is it working for you?
PO Box 273405 - Houston TX 77277-3405
http://joe.salerno.com

Golden Ears claim coax sounds better.

" wrote in message
ink.net...
I bought a new Sony receiver recently, the instructions recommend using coax
over optical connections, and the only reason it gives is "it is better."

Sony BS? Or is there an advantage of coax over optical, other than the
cables are less fragile?
--
Joe Salerno
Video Works! Is it working for you?
PO Box 273405 - Houston TX 77277-3405
http://joe.salerno.com

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...
Golden Ears claim coax sounds better.

WARNING: Possibly stupid question. Are both not supposed to be bit accurate
and if so (and they are working correctly) why would they sound any
different? Jitter?

"Charles Tomaras" wrote in message
...
Golden Ears claim coax sounds better.

WARNING: Possibly stupid question. Are both not supposed to be bit accurate
and if so (and they are working correctly) why would they sound any
different? Jitter?

WARNING: Possibly stupid question. Are both not supposed to be bit accurate
and if so (and they are working correctly) why would they sound any
different? Jitter? BRBR

Yeah. Who knows. I think the bandwidth can be higher on the DTS stuff from a
dvd player, but I don't know exactly why Sony advises to use the coax port.

Clock recovery is probably better on coax.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

WARNING: Possibly stupid question. Are both not supposed to be bit accurate
and if so (and they are working correctly) why would they sound any
different? Jitter? BRBR

Yeah. Who knows. I think the bandwidth can be higher on the DTS stuff from a
dvd player, but I don't know exactly why Sony advises to use the coax port.

Clock recovery is probably better on coax.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

In article %ccdb.596787$Ho3.115671@sccrnsc03 writes:

Golden Ears claim coax sounds better.

WARNING: Possibly stupid question. Are both not supposed to be bit accurate
and if so (and they are working correctly) why would they sound any
different? Jitter?

There are two things to consider:

- There isn't always a detectable differnce in sound, but sometimes
there might be - depends on conditions. Coax holds up better as
the cables get longer.

- Bit accuracy isn't the whole story. There's loss to the outside,
reflections inside the fiber optic pipe that affect timing
accuracy, and in extreme cases, can act as interference. Also the
connectors for TOSLink cables are more likely to fall out,
causing errors on the receiving side.

Glass fiber is better than plastic, but that's not normally used for
S/PDIF connections.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article %ccdb.596787$Ho3.115671@sccrnsc03 writes:

Golden Ears claim coax sounds better.

WARNING: Possibly stupid question. Are both not supposed to be bit accurate
and if so (and they are working correctly) why would they sound any
different? Jitter?

There are two things to consider:

- There isn't always a detectable differnce in sound, but sometimes
there might be - depends on conditions. Coax holds up better as
the cables get longer.

- Bit accuracy isn't the whole story. There's loss to the outside,
reflections inside the fiber optic pipe that affect timing
accuracy, and in extreme cases, can act as interference. Also the
connectors for TOSLink cables are more likely to fall out,
causing errors on the receiving side.

Glass fiber is better than plastic, but that's not normally used for
S/PDIF connections.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1064660616k@trad...

Also the
connectors for TOSLink cables are more likely to fall out,
causing errors on the receiving side.

I often find the TOSLink connectors difficult to pull out on
purpose. It's hard for me to imagine one falling out by
accident.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1064660616k@trad...

Also the
connectors for TOSLink cables are more likely to fall out,
causing errors on the receiving side.

I often find the TOSLink connectors difficult to pull out on
purpose. It's hard for me to imagine one falling out by
accident.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

In Article znr1064660616k@trad, (Mike Rivers) wrote:

In article %ccdb.596787$Ho3.115671@sccrnsc03 writes:

Golden Ears claim coax sounds better.

WARNING: Possibly stupid question. Are both not supposed to be bit accurate
and if so (and they are working correctly) why would they sound any
different? Jitter?

There are two things to consider:

- There isn't always a detectable differnce in sound, but sometimes
there might be - depends on conditions. Coax holds up better as
the cables get longer.

- Bit accuracy isn't the whole story. There's loss to the outside,
reflections inside the fiber optic pipe that affect timing
accuracy, and in extreme cases, can act as interference. Also the
connectors for TOSLink cables are more likely to fall out,
causing errors on the receiving side.


Crazy Glue!

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

In Article znr1064660616k@trad, (Mike Rivers) wrote:

In article %ccdb.596787$Ho3.115671@sccrnsc03 writes:

Golden Ears claim coax sounds better.

WARNING: Possibly stupid question. Are both not supposed to be bit accurate
and if so (and they are working correctly) why would they sound any
different? Jitter?

There are two things to consider:

- There isn't always a detectable differnce in sound, but sometimes
there might be - depends on conditions. Coax holds up better as
the cables get longer.

- Bit accuracy isn't the whole story. There's loss to the outside,
reflections inside the fiber optic pipe that affect timing
accuracy, and in extreme cases, can act as interference. Also the
connectors for TOSLink cables are more likely to fall out,
causing errors on the receiving side.


Crazy Glue!

Regards,

Ty Ford

**Until the worm goes away, I have put "not" in front of my email address.
Please remove it if you want to email me directly.
For Ty Ford V/O demos, audio services and equipment reviews,
click on http://www.jagunet.com/~tford

In article znr1064660616k@trad, says...
Also the
connectors for TOSLink cables are more likely to fall out,
causing errors on the receiving side.

And I thought it was just me... every time I get behind my console, I
manage to pull out at least one TOSLink cable.

In repeated, double-blind, ABX tests, I have shown a 100% ability to
hear the difference between a connected coax cable and a disconnected
TOSLink cable. Golden ears, here I come!

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

In article znr1064660616k@trad, says...
Also the
connectors for TOSLink cables are more likely to fall out,
causing errors on the receiving side.

And I thought it was just me... every time I get behind my console, I
manage to pull out at least one TOSLink cable.

In repeated, double-blind, ABX tests, I have shown a 100% ability to
hear the difference between a connected coax cable and a disconnected
TOSLink cable. Golden ears, here I come!

--
Jay Levitt |
Wellesley, MA | Hi!
Faster: jay at jay dot eff-em | Where are we going?
http://www.jay.fm | Why am I in this handbasket?

In article writes:

I often find the TOSLink connectors difficult to pull out on
purpose. It's hard for me to imagine one falling out by
accident.

Just smack one sideways. If it doesn't fall out, it'll break.
Accidents happen.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

In article writes:

I often find the TOSLink connectors difficult to pull out on
purpose. It's hard for me to imagine one falling out by
accident.

Just smack one sideways. If it doesn't fall out, it'll break.
Accidents happen.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1064677740k@trad...

In article writes:

I often find the TOSLink connectors difficult to pull out on
purpose. It's hard for me to imagine one falling out by
accident.

Just smack one sideways. If it doesn't fall out, it'll break.
Accidents happen.

Weird, it sounds like I'm not talking about the same connectors
you are. TOSLink connectors are the plastic optical connectors
used for optical S/PDIF and ADAT Lightpipe, right?

I wonder if the Hosa optical cables I use have oversized plugs
or something.

Hal Laurent, scratching his head in Baltimore

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1064677740k@trad...

In article writes:

I often find the TOSLink connectors difficult to pull out on
purpose. It's hard for me to imagine one falling out by
accident.

Just smack one sideways. If it doesn't fall out, it'll break.
Accidents happen.

Weird, it sounds like I'm not talking about the same connectors
you are. TOSLink connectors are the plastic optical connectors
used for optical S/PDIF and ADAT Lightpipe, right?

I wonder if the Hosa optical cables I use have oversized plugs
or something.

Hal Laurent, scratching his head in Baltimore

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:51:52 GMT, "
wrote:

Sony BS?

I'd say so.
On another hand, optical doesn't go past 48K, but that's hardly of
your concern.
Vladan
www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l
www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2
www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 02:51:52 GMT, "
wrote:

Sony BS?

I'd say so.
On another hand, optical doesn't go past 48K, but that's hardly of
your concern.
Vladan
www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l
www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2
www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm

Vladan wrote:


optical doesn't go past 48K

???

RME and others regularly do 96k over both optical S/PDIF and ADAT
Lightpipe connections.

Vladan wrote:


optical doesn't go past 48K

???

RME and others regularly do 96k over both optical S/PDIF and ADAT
Lightpipe connections.

RME and others regularly do 96k over both optical S/PDIF and ADAT
Lightpipe connections.

On 1 channel, or split?
Vladan
www.geocities.com/vla_dan_l
www.mp3.com/lesly , www.mp3.com/shook , www.mp3.com/lesly2
www.kunsttick.com/artists/vuskovic/indexdat.htm

" wrote in message
ink.net

I bought a new Sony receiver recently, the instructions recommend
using coax over optical connections, and the only reason it gives is
"it is better."

Sony BS? Or is there an advantage of coax over optical, other than the
cables are less fragile?

The undeniable advantages of optical relate to EMI and ground loops.

Optical can't create or pick up electrical noise, and it can't create or be
affected by ground loops. Coax can do both and IME will give you a demo of
this fact if you work with it often enough. None of these are unmanageable
problems to technical folks, but for home audio consumers, it is IME
actually a pretty big advantage.

BTW, I can also confirm the comments about the questionable quality of
consumer optical connectors, inflexibility of the lines, length limitations,
etc. But they are also generally pretty moot in a consumer environment. You
said "Sony receiver", right? Consumer audio for sure...

And for the record, I use both coax and consumer optical and perceive and
measure no sound quality advantage for either, when it's working *right*.

I don't know exactly why Sony advises to use the coax port.

The "S" in "SP/DIF" stands for SONY.

Of course they want to propigate the format they invented (along with
Phillips, the "P" in SP/DIF).



JT

jt wrote:
I don't know exactly why Sony advises to use the coax port.

The "S" in "SP/DIF" stands for SONY.
Of course they want to propigate the format they invented.

That doesn't explain why they recommend coax.
The exact same S/PDIF protocol is used both on coax and optical.

Sander

Sander wrote:
jt wrote:
I don't know exactly why Sony advises to use the coax port.

The "S" in "SP/DIF" stands for SONY.
Of course they want to propigate the format they invented.

That doesn't explain why they recommend coax.
The exact same S/PDIF protocol is used both on coax and optical.

In general, the whole TOSLINK interface is pretty crappy. It was designed
to be cheap and easy to mass-produce, and to be an easy way for manufacturers
to cut costs and still get FCC Part 15 compliance. It's MUCH less expensive
to just drop a TOSLINK tranciever in there and get an optical output than
to drop a pulse transformer and proper shielding in there to get an FCC-
compliant S-PDIF interface.

The error rates on the TOSLINK interface are pretty high, but the thing was
not designed to be robust and reliable, it was designed to reduce costs.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:

In general, the whole TOSLINK interface is pretty crappy. It was designed
to be cheap and easy to mass-produce, and to be an easy way for manufacturers
to cut costs and still get FCC Part 15 compliance. It's MUCH less expensive
to just drop a TOSLINK tranciever in there and get an optical output than
to drop a pulse transformer and proper shielding in there to get an FCC-
compliant S-PDIF interface.

The error rates on the TOSLINK interface are pretty high, but the thing was
not designed to be robust and reliable, it was designed to reduce costs.

And then Alesis came along and used the exact same crappy parts to
transport 8 channels instead of 2 using their ADAT protocol.
How does that affect error rates?

Sander

"Sander" wrote in message
news:0g0eb.7648$P51.16803@amstwist00...
Scott Dorsey wrote:

In general, the whole TOSLINK interface is pretty crappy. It was
designed
to be cheap and easy to mass-produce, and to be an easy way for
manufacturers
to cut costs and still get FCC Part 15 compliance. It's MUCH less
expensive
to just drop a TOSLINK transceiver in there and get an optical output
than
to drop a pulse transformer and proper shielding in there to get an FCC-
compliant S-PDIF interface.

The error rates on the TOSLINK interface are pretty high, but the thing
was
not designed to be robust and reliable, it was designed to reduce costs.

Exactly. It's a cheap solution to a consumer problem. For consumers with
short runs that they install and forget, its not a bad solution. It does
away with ground loops in many cases.

And then Alesis came along and used the exact same crappy parts to
transport 8 channels instead of 2 using their ADAT protocol.
How does that affect error rates?

Generally interfaces like this don't have much of a transition range where
they have high error rates. They work or they don't. Even with minimal
error-checking, they generally either work nearly perfectly or just don't
work at all. Therefore, we mostly see complaints about them not working at
all.

Sander wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

In general, the whole TOSLINK interface is pretty crappy. It was designed
to be cheap and easy to mass-produce, and to be an easy way for manufacturers
to cut costs and still get FCC Part 15 compliance. It's MUCH less expensive
to just drop a TOSLINK tranciever in there and get an optical output than
to drop a pulse transformer and proper shielding in there to get an FCC-
compliant S-PDIF interface.

The error rates on the TOSLINK interface are pretty high, but the thing was
not designed to be robust and reliable, it was designed to reduce costs.

And then Alesis came along and used the exact same crappy parts to
transport 8 channels instead of 2 using their ADAT protocol.
How does that affect error rates?

It's fine if you use short cables and don't bend them and don't touch them
and hold your hand RIGHT here....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

The rise and fall times of optical are tremendously slow compared to the
electrical connection. So, the crux of the whole affair is jitter.
" wrote in message
ink.net...
I bought a new Sony receiver recently, the instructions recommend using
coax
over optical connections, and the only reason it gives is "it is better."

Sony BS? Or is there an advantage of coax over optical, other than the
cables are less fragile?
--
Joe Salerno
Video Works! Is it working for you?
PO Box 273405 - Houston TX 77277-3405
http://joe.salerno.com

Recently, Bruno Putzeys posted:

The rise and fall times of optical are tremendously slow compared to
the electrical connection. So, the crux of the whole affair is jitter.

Electricity is now faster than light? Please explain?

Having done UHF work with opto-isolators, I find it difficult to believe
that the rise times of LEDs, which are quite easily multiplexed in the MHz
range, would be a technical limitation to the quality of the system data
transfer. If you are experiencing jitter (which I have not in using
TOSLINK over the last 12 or so years), it's likely due to some other
factor.

Regards,

Neil

"Bruno Putzeys" wrote in message


The rise and fall times of optical are tremendously slow compared to
the electrical connection. So, the crux of the whole affair is jitter.

I've measured jitter both ways many times for equipment that hooks up both
ways, and in practice jitter is most dependent on the quality of the DAC,
not small differences in interconnnects or even larger issues like optical
versus coax.

While the bandwidth of coax is wonderful, it's a simple fact that most
digital audio gear intentionally restricts the bandwidth of coax line
drivers and receivers due to issues with EMI. The better gear drives coax
and twinax with transformers that are designed to have low pass filter
effects that are significant above anywhere from 8 to 15 MHz. This gets them
past FCC part 15 rules. Well-known high quality digital chip houses like
Crystal Semiconductor specify things like this. I think they still have an
Application Note that mentions this specifically.

On the input side low-pass filtering is not uncommon, this time to improve
system reliability in electrically noisy environments.

Finally, a well-known design parameter for digital gear is that it should be
effective at transforming less-than-perfect digital input signals back into
clean audio. IME well-designed gear can handle noise and jittery input
signals well. Crap can't. That includes high-priced crap that is highly
reviewed.

Bruno Putzeys wrote:

The rise and fall times of optical are tremendously slow compared to the
electrical connection. So, the crux of the whole affair is jitter.
" wrote in message
ink.net...
I bought a new Sony receiver recently, the instructions recommend using
coax
over optical connections, and the only reason it gives is "it is better."

Sony BS? Or is there an advantage of coax over optical, other than the
cables are less fragile?
--
Joe Salerno
Video Works! Is it working for you?
PO Box 273405 - Houston TX 77277-3405
http://joe.salerno.com



If that was true, an OC-48 interface wouldn't work. I don't think much
optical uses AM/telegraph type modulation.

--
Les Cargill

Bruno Putzeys wrote:

The rise and fall times of optical are tremendously slow compared to the
electrical connection. So, the crux of the whole affair is jitter.
" wrote in message
ink.net...
I bought a new Sony receiver recently, the instructions recommend using
coax
over optical connections, and the only reason it gives is "it is better."

Sony BS? Or is there an advantage of coax over optical, other than the
cables are less fragile?
--
Joe Salerno
Video Works! Is it working for you?
PO Box 273405 - Houston TX 77277-3405
http://joe.salerno.com



If that was true, an OC-48 interface wouldn't work. I don't think much
optical uses AM/telegraph type modulation.

--
Les Cargill

Sony BS? Or is there an advantage of coax over optical, other than the
cables are less fragile?

Coax is better, but it's pretty much moot nowadays. Virtually all DAC's
have buffering to eliminate jitter, and any errors from cable-borne issues
are negligible. I've sent an hour of audio through a good coax cable, a
cheap coax/optical converter, and a cheap plastic optical cable, and after
alignment and cancellation the errors were never more than 1 sample,
averaged under 5 per second. I can live with -90dB of pink noise averaging
5Hz...

Sony BS? Or is there an advantage of coax over optical, other than the
cables are less fragile?

Coax is better, but it's pretty much moot nowadays. Virtually all DAC's
have buffering to eliminate jitter, and any errors from cable-borne issues
are negligible. I've sent an hour of audio through a good coax cable, a
cheap coax/optical converter, and a cheap plastic optical cable, and after
alignment and cancellation the errors were never more than 1 sample,
averaged under 5 per second. I can live with -90dB of pink noise averaging
5Hz...