Sound quality of digital coaxial vs. optical

[Paul L]

My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical
jacks. Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are
they all equal?

[Pooh Bear]

Paul L wrote:

> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical
> jacks. Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are
> they all equal?

They should give identical results.

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Paul L wrote:
>
>> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical
>> jacks. Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are
>> they all equal?
>
> They should give identical results.
>

As will two tin cups connected by a string.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Laurence Payne]

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 08:15:30 GMT, Paul L > wrote:

>My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical
>jacks. Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are
>they all equal?

The optical signal has to be converted from/to an electrical signal.
So theoretically I suppose the coax connection might be cleaner. But
there's no practical difference. On domestic gear both systems use
components costing a few pennies. Which work fine :-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Paul L" > wrote in message
om

> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial
> and optical jacks. Which connection should I use to get
> better sound quality or are they all equal?

The coax connection can create a ground loop, and cause hum. Or it may not,
depending on the rest of your system.

Coax is better for long runs, such as 30 feet or more.

In typical use, there's no practical difference.

"Paul L" > wrote in message
om...
> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical jacks.
> Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are they all
> equal?

They are equal.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" > wrote in message

> "Pooh Bear" >
> wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Paul L wrote:
>>
>>> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial
>>> and optical jacks. Which connection should I use to get
>>> better sound quality or are they all equal?

>> They should give identical results.

> As will two tin cups connected by a string.

On the face of it, this appears to be total nonsense.

[Robert Morein]

"Paul L" > wrote in message
om...
> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical jacks.
> Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are they all
> equal?

The coaxial connection is superior, although modern digital receiver chips
have narrowed the difference.

In the service manuals for certain digital preamps, Sony instructs that the
adjustment for harmonic distortion must be performed with a signal source
delivered by the coaxial input. This shows that in some cases, the digital
input receiver can suffer with an optical connection, in a measurable way.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message

> "Paul L" > wrote in message
> om...
>> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial
>> and optical jacks. Which connection should I use to get
>> better sound quality or are they all equal?
>
> The coaxial connection is superior, although modern
> digital receiver chips have narrowed the difference.
>
> In the service manuals for certain digital preamps, Sony
> instructs that the adjustment for harmonic distortion
> must be performed with a signal source delivered by the
> coaxial input. This shows that in some cases, the digital
> input receiver can suffer with an optical connection, in
> a measurable way.

No excuse for this kind of flaw at all.

Indeed, because of the elimination of EMI with optical, if anything Sony
should be recommending the use of the optical input for critical
adjustments.

I'm surprised that Sony is admitting to building such flawed equipment. I'm
surprised that they are building such flawed equipment.

[Tomi Holger Engdahl]

Laurence Payne > writes:

> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 08:15:30 GMT, Paul L > wrote:
>
> >My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical
> >jacks. Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are
> >they all equal?
>
> The optical signal has to be converted from/to an electrical signal.
> So theoretically I suppose the coax connection might be cleaner.

That's one theory.

Other thing to consider with coax connection is that the coaxial
connection can more easily be interfered by electrical signal
and carry noise to your equipment...

In very ideal system coax might be threoretically sliglty better.
In real-life situations it is pretty impossible to say which one
of the potential problems of the coax system or the optical
system cause more problems to the sound...

> But there's no practical difference. On domestic gear both systems use
> components costing a few pennies. Which work fine :-)

You are right on this.

--
Tomi Engdahl (http://www.iki.fi/then/)
Take a look at my electronics web links and documents at
http://www.epanorama.net/

[SimonLW]

"Paul L" > wrote in message
om...
> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical jacks.
> Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are they all
> equal?

Its all digital right? Unless there is a design flaw, I would think all the
digital 1s and 0s would arrive in the same order either way. I don't know
the protocol in these, but on a computer network, the protocol checks to be
sure the data arrives exactly as it was sent for if a single bit got
changed, the data or program could be trashed.
-S

[George M. Middius]

SimonLW said:

> Its all digital right? Unless there is a design flaw, I would think all the
> digital 1s and 0s would arrive in the same order either way. I don't know
> the protocol in these, but on a computer network, the protocol checks to be
> sure the data arrives exactly as it was sent for if a single bit got
> changed, the data or program could be trashed.

You sound a bit addled. Have you tried inserting a flash card into your
ear? That might clear up your fogginess.

[mc]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...

>> In the service manuals for certain digital preamps, Sony
>> instructs that the adjustment for harmonic distortion
>> must be performed with a signal source delivered by the
>> coaxial input. This shows that in some cases, the digital
>> input receiver can suffer with an optical connection, in
>> a measurable way.
>
> No excuse for this kind of flaw at all.
>
> Indeed, because of the elimination of EMI with optical, if anything Sony
> should be recommending the use of the optical input for critical
> adjustments.

I was wondering the same thing. If it's digital, why isn't it absolutely
bit-for-bit identical both ways? The optical input would be immune to
electromagnetic noise, and that should be the only difference. Normally
they should be indistinguishable because electromagnetic noise strong enough
to disrupt a digital signal is rare.

[AZ Nomad]

On 10 Jan 2006 14:17:38 +0200, Tomi Holger Engdahl > wrote:


>Laurence Payne > writes:

>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 08:15:30 GMT, Paul L > wrote:
>>
>> >My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical
>> >jacks. Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are
>> >they all equal?
>>
>> The optical signal has to be converted from/to an electrical signal.
>> So theoretically I suppose the coax connection might be cleaner.

>That's one theory.

>Other thing to consider with coax connection is that the coaxial
>connection can more easily be interfered by electrical signal
>and carry noise to your equipment...

>In very ideal system coax might be threoretically sliglty better.
>In real-life situations it is pretty impossible to say which one
>of the potential problems of the coax system or the optical
>system cause more problems to the sound...

In real life systems, the data is digital and unless there are errors,
"slightly better" makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

[ScottW]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>
> > "Paul L" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial
> >> and optical jacks. Which connection should I use to get
> >> better sound quality or are they all equal?
> >
> > The coaxial connection is superior, although modern
> > digital receiver chips have narrowed the difference.
> >
> > In the service manuals for certain digital preamps, Sony
> > instructs that the adjustment for harmonic distortion
> > must be performed with a signal source delivered by the
> > coaxial input. This shows that in some cases, the digital
> > input receiver can suffer with an optical connection, in
> > a measurable way.
>
> No excuse for this kind of flaw at all.
>
> Indeed, because of the elimination of EMI with optical, if anything Sony
> should be recommending the use of the optical input for critical
> adjustments.
>
> I'm surprised that Sony is admitting to building such flawed equipment. I'm
> surprised that they are building such flawed equipment.

I'll bet this issue is as simple as the input test point for the THD
distortion adjusment is simply tied to the coax digitial in in some way
and not to the optical. Maybe they put the test point in front of a
source selector relay matrix but chose to include only tap. Once again
Morein shows his propensity to leap to conclusions wholly unsupported
by the available facts.

ScottW

[Pooh Bear]

mc wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >> In the service manuals for certain digital preamps, Sony
> >> instructs that the adjustment for harmonic distortion
> >> must be performed with a signal source delivered by the
> >> coaxial input. This shows that in some cases, the digital
> >> input receiver can suffer with an optical connection, in
> >> a measurable way.
> >
> > No excuse for this kind of flaw at all.
> >
> > Indeed, because of the elimination of EMI with optical, if anything Sony
> > should be recommending the use of the optical input for critical
> > adjustments.
>
> I was wondering the same thing. If it's digital, why isn't it absolutely
> bit-for-bit identical both ways? The optical input would be immune to
> electromagnetic noise, and that should be the only difference. Normally
> they should be indistinguishable because electromagnetic noise strong enough
> to disrupt a digital signal is rare.

And if the digital signal *does* get disrupted the effect is sudden, huge and
very evident..

There's no 'gradual degradation' with digital signals like losing some HF or
adding a bit of hum. Either it works or it doesn't. Therefore comparisons about
quality are *almost* entirely bogus from first principles.

The exception as I understand it is jitter on the digital signal. If the clock
recovery is poorly implemented, I believe this can degrade the audio a bit.

Graham

[AZ Nomad]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:33:44 -0500, SimonLW > wrote:


>"Paul L" > wrote in message
om...
>> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical jacks.
>> Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are they all
>> equal?

>Its all digital right? Unless there is a design flaw, I would think all the
>digital 1s and 0s would arrive in the same order either way. I don't know
>the protocol in these, but on a computer network, the protocol checks to be
>sure the data arrives exactly as it was sent for if a single bit got
>changed, the data or program could be trashed.

Of course, but audio bits are *magic* and magic bits always sound better
when passed through expensive cables. Everybody knows this.

It doesn't matter if the cables are so electrically medciore that the
receiver can barely differentiate a zero from a one. It doesn't matter if
the cables are designed without the slightest attention paid to sound
engineering principles. Cables made from iguana spit will sound better than
cables made from plain ordinary copper, but only if they're expensive as
hell.

[Sander deWaal]

"mc" > said:

>> Indeed, because of the elimination of EMI with optical, if anything Sony
>> should be recommending the use of the optical input for critical
>> adjustments.


>I was wondering the same thing. If it's digital, why isn't it absolutely
>bit-for-bit identical both ways? The optical input would be immune to
>electromagnetic noise, and that should be the only difference. Normally
>they should be indistinguishable because electromagnetic noise strong enough
>to disrupt a digital signal is rare.


A common mistake.
The S/PDIF signal is analog in nature.
Just as with RF signals, an incorrect termination might cause
reflections ( "a bad SWR") which, in turn, are said to cause jitter.

Jitter doesn't have to be a problem per se.
When the incoming signal in e.g.a DAC is reclocked for instance, the
jitter must be very extreme to have any effect at all.
If that extreme is reached (not likely), the result will be silence,
not degraded audio.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[AZ Nomad]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:48:01 +0100, Sander deWaal > wrote:


>"mc" > said:

>>> Indeed, because of the elimination of EMI with optical, if anything Sony
>>> should be recommending the use of the optical input for critical
>>> adjustments.


>>I was wondering the same thing. If it's digital, why isn't it absolutely
>>bit-for-bit identical both ways? The optical input would be immune to
>>electromagnetic noise, and that should be the only difference. Normally
>>they should be indistinguishable because electromagnetic noise strong enough
>>to disrupt a digital signal is rare.


>A common mistake.
>The S/PDIF signal is analog in nature.
By that definitions, there are no digital signals. All signals are
analog in nature. What makes a signal "digital" is the fact that it can
only be in a very limited number of states, for example positive being a 1
and negative being a zero. It doesn't matter that signal is analog and that
there's an infinite number of values that translate to a 1.


>Just as with RF signals, an incorrect termination might cause
>reflections ( "a bad SWR") which, in turn, are said to cause jitter.

>Jitter doesn't have to be a problem per se.
>When the incoming signal in e.g.a DAC is reclocked for instance, the
>jitter must be very extreme to have any effect at all.
>If that extreme is reached (not likely), the result will be silence,
>not degraded audio.

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:25:50 +0000, Signal > wrote:

>>In real life systems, the data is digital and unless there are errors,
>>"slightly better" makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
>
>You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.

If you'd said "data" I'd have let you get away with that one :-) But
"datastream" includes the timing.

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:25:50 +0000, Signal > wrote:

>"AZ Nomad" emitted :
>
>>>> >My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical
>>>> >jacks. Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are
>>>> >they all equal?
>>>>
>>>> The optical signal has to be converted from/to an electrical signal.
>>>> So theoretically I suppose the coax connection might be cleaner.
>>
>>>That's one theory.
>>
>>>Other thing to consider with coax connection is that the coaxial
>>>connection can more easily be interfered by electrical signal
>>>and carry noise to your equipment...
>>
>>>In very ideal system coax might be threoretically sliglty better.
>>>In real-life situations it is pretty impossible to say which one
>>>of the potential problems of the coax system or the optical
>>>system cause more problems to the sound...
>>
>>In real life systems, the data is digital and unless there are errors,
>>"slightly better" makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
>
>You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.

No, you can't.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[AZ Nomad]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:25:50 +0000, Signal > wrote:


>"AZ Nomad" emitted :

>>>> >My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical
>>>> >jacks. Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are
>>>> >they all equal?
>>>>
>>>> The optical signal has to be converted from/to an electrical signal.
>>>> So theoretically I suppose the coax connection might be cleaner.
>>
>>>That's one theory.
>>
>>>Other thing to consider with coax connection is that the coaxial
>>>connection can more easily be interfered by electrical signal
>>>and carry noise to your equipment...
>>
>>>In very ideal system coax might be threoretically sliglty better.
>>>In real-life situations it is pretty impossible to say which one
>>>of the potential problems of the coax system or the optical
>>>system cause more problems to the sound...
>>
>>In real life systems, the data is digital and unless there are errors,
>>"slightly better" makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

>You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.

Yeah. Your equipment can be such a piece of crap that it hasn't
a stable local clock.

Usually you have to go out of your way to find such garbage.

Oh wait, I almost forgot. If you pay big bucks for such garbage,
its "better".

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 19:17:59 GMT, AZ Nomad >
wrote:

>>You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.
>
>Yeah. Your equipment can be such a piece of crap that it hasn't
>a stable local clock.

Nope. If the timing's off it isn't the same datastream. He made a
point of saying "datastream" instead of just "data".

[Richard Crowley]

"Signal" wrote ...
> Yes, a stream of data. You seem to be insisting that the term "data
> stream" invariably also describes the timing of the data therein. Can
> you provide an authoritative definition that confirms this?

Can YOU provide "authoritative definition" of your particular
notion of what "data stream" means? Certainly "data stream"
implies the broader context of timing, encoding, modulation,
etc. which "data" does not, at least IMHO.

[Geoff@work]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Pooh Bear" >
>> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul L wrote:
>>>
>>>> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial
>>>> and optical jacks. Which connection should I use to get
>>>> better sound quality or are they all equal?
>
>>> They should give identical results.
>
>> As will two tin cups connected by a string.
>
> On the face of it, this appears to be total nonsense.
>

[Geoff@work]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
>> "Pooh Bear" >
>> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul L wrote:
>>>
>>>> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial
>>>> and optical jacks. Which connection should I use to get
>>>> better sound quality or are they all equal?
>
>>> They should give identical results.
>
>> As will two tin cups connected by a string.
>
> On the face of it, this appears to be total nonsense.

Depends if string is wet.

geoff

[Geoff@work]

"Tomi Holger Engdahl" > wrote in message

> Other thing to consider with coax connection is that the coaxial
> connection can more easily be interfered by electrical signal
> and carry noise to your equipment...


And ground-loops. But there has to be a very crass interference of any sort
to causre one single bit error, or induce jitter that would cause a bit
error.

geoff

[Geoff@work]

"Signal" > wrote in message

> You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.

Please explain how.

geoff

[Geoff@work]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul L" > wrote in message
> om...
>> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical
>> jacks. Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are
>> they all equal?
>
> The coaxial connection is superior, although modern digital receiver chips
> have narrowed the difference.
>
> In the service manuals for certain digital preamps, Sony instructs that
> the adjustment for harmonic distortion must be performed with a signal
> source delivered by the coaxial input. This shows that in some cases, the
> digital input receiver can suffer with an optical connection, in a
> measurable way.


No it doesn't. I shows Sony have more faith in the integrity of any form of
coax over the variable quality of (potentially cheap-and-nasty) optical.

geoff

[Pooh Bear]

AZ Nomad wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 18:25:50 +0000, Signal > wrote:
>
> >"AZ Nomad" emitted :
>
> >>>> >My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical
> >>>> >jacks. Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are
> >>>> >they all equal?
> >>>>
> >>>> The optical signal has to be converted from/to an electrical signal.
> >>>> So theoretically I suppose the coax connection might be cleaner.
> >>
> >>>That's one theory.
> >>
> >>>Other thing to consider with coax connection is that the coaxial
> >>>connection can more easily be interfered by electrical signal
> >>>and carry noise to your equipment...
> >>
> >>>In very ideal system coax might be threoretically sliglty better.
> >>>In real-life situations it is pretty impossible to say which one
> >>>of the potential problems of the coax system or the optical
> >>>system cause more problems to the sound...
> >>
> >>In real life systems, the data is digital and unless there are errors,
> >>"slightly better" makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
>
> >You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.
>
> Yeah. Your equipment can be such a piece of crap that it hasn't
> a stable local clock.
>
> Usually you have to go out of your way to find such garbage.
>
> Oh wait, I almost forgot. If you pay big bucks for such garbage,
> its "better".

Because it's purer it picks up the timing 'imperfections' ! ;-)

Graham

[mc]

> You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.

What is the cause of the differences, then?

That's like saying, "You can hit the exact same keys and not type the same
words."

[mc]

"mc" > wrote in message
. ..

>> Indeed, because of the elimination of EMI with optical, if anything Sony
>> should be recommending the use of the optical input for critical
>> adjustments.
>
> I was wondering the same thing. If it's digital, why isn't it absolutely
> bit-for-bit identical both ways? The optical input would be immune to
> electromagnetic noise, and that should be the only difference. Normally
> they should be indistinguishable because electromagnetic noise strong
> enough to disrupt a digital signal is rare.

I was thinking - and someone else pointed out - that it may simply have to
do with their testing logic. There may be some small part of the circuitry
that they want to include or omit from the test procedure at this step.

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...

> AZ Nomad wrote:


>> Yeah. Your equipment can be such a piece of crap that it hasn't
>> a stable local clock.
>>
>> Usually you have to go out of your way to find such garbage.
>>
>> Oh wait, I almost forgot. If you pay big bucks for such garbage,
>> its "better".
>
> Because it's purer it picks up the timing 'imperfections' ! ;-)

In fact there is a marketing strategy buried in this. If a piece of
equipment is excessively sensitive to odd variations in its associated
components, then it is perceived by some as being "more revealing".

Thus a power amp that can't handle some speaker loads is "More revealing of
differences in speakers"

A speaker that is poorly designed and has a very low and/or reactive
impedance curve is "More revealing of differences in amplifiers"

A DAC that is unduly sensitive to RF, and grounding situations is "More
revealing of digital sources"

...and so on.

[Arny Krueger]

"mc" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> In the service manuals for certain digital preamps, Sony
>>> instructs that the adjustment for harmonic distortion
>>> must be performed with a signal source delivered by the
>>> coaxial input. This shows that in some cases, the digital
>>> input receiver can suffer with an optical connection, in
>>> a measurable way.
>>
>> No excuse for this kind of flaw at all.
>>
>> Indeed, because of the elimination of EMI with optical, if anything Sony
>> should be recommending the use of the optical input for critical
>> adjustments.
>
> I was wondering the same thing. If it's digital, why isn't it absolutely
> bit-for-bit identical both ways?

Every digital signal is received as an analog signal. The conversion to
digital can be a point where difficulties arise. An ideal digital receiver
is immune to noise and timing problems with its input signals, but nothing's
perfect.

> The optical input would be immune to electromagnetic noise, and that
> should be the only difference.

Agreed. In fact any grounding problems that may exist can be exagerated by
common kinds of tests that are done on power amps.

> Normally they should be indistinguishable because electromagnetic noise
> strong enough to disrupt a digital signal is rare.

The digital signal in question is not as robust as it might be. It's in the
1-2 volt peak-to-peak range. Really bad grounding problems can add noise in
the same voltage range.

[Clyde Slick]

"mc" > wrote in message
...
>> You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.
>
> What is the cause of the differences, then?
>
> That's like saying, "You can hit the exact same keys and not type the same
> words."
>
>

I ddo that alle the time!



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Pooh Bear]

mc wrote:

> > You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.
>
> What is the cause of the differences, then?

The timing of the edges of the data. As a coax cable gets longer, the edges
'slow down' and the consequence of this is slightly 'mistimed' data. If the
receiveing equipment doesn't have a good phase locked loop for bitclock
recovery, that timing error - ( equivalent to jitter ) may impose a
consequence on the recovered audio.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > AZ Nomad wrote:
>
> >> Yeah. Your equipment can be such a piece of crap that it hasn't
> >> a stable local clock.
> >>
> >> Usually you have to go out of your way to find such garbage.
> >>
> >> Oh wait, I almost forgot. If you pay big bucks for such garbage,
> >> its "better".
> >
> > Because it's purer it picks up the timing 'imperfections' ! ;-)
>
> In fact there is a marketing strategy buried in this. If a piece of
> equipment is excessively sensitive to odd variations in its associated
> components, then it is perceived by some as being "more revealing".
>
> Thus a power amp that can't handle some speaker loads is "More revealing of
> differences in speakers"
>
> A speaker that is poorly designed and has a very low and/or reactive
> impedance curve is "More revealing of differences in amplifiers"
>
> A DAC that is unduly sensitive to RF, and grounding situations is "More
> revealing of digital sources"
>
> ..and so on.

Neatly put.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

mc wrote:

> > You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.
>
> What is the cause of the differences, then?
>
> That's like saying, "You can hit the exact same keys and not type the same
> words."

I always though that it was a missed marketing opputunity that disk drive
manufacturers didn't claim that *their* magnetic coatings could make your
letters read better.

Graham

[mc]

>> That's like saying, "You can hit the exact same keys and not type the
>> same
>> words."
>
> I always though that it was a missed marketing opputunity that disk drive
> manufacturers didn't claim that *their* magnetic coatings could make your
> letters read better.

Most office workers aren't audiophiles.

[Pooh Bear]

mc wrote:

> >> That's like saying, "You can hit the exact same keys and not type the
> >> same
> >> words."
> >
> > I always though that it was a missed marketing opputunity that disk drive
> > manufacturers didn't claim that *their* magnetic coatings could make your
> > letters read better.
>
> Most office workers aren't audiophiles.

You mean audiophools surely ? ;-)

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie gurgled:

> You mean audiophools surely

Does this count as an "audio post", Poopie?

[Pooh Bear]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie gurgled:
>
> > You mean audiophools surely
>
> Does this count as an "audio post", Poopie?

Yup !

Graham

[Matt Silberstein]

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:33:44 -0500, in rec.audio.tech , "SimonLW"
> in > wrote:

>"Paul L" > wrote in message
om...
>> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical jacks.
>> Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are they all
>> equal?
>
>Its all digital right? Unless there is a design flaw, I would think all the
>digital 1s and 0s would arrive in the same order either way. I don't know
>the protocol in these, but on a computer network, the protocol checks to be
>sure the data arrives exactly as it was sent for if a single bit got
>changed, the data or program could be trashed.

Network transmissions allow for re-send of packets, audio does not.


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

[Pooh Bear]

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:33:44 -0500, in rec.audio.tech , "SimonLW"
> > in > wrote:
>
> >"Paul L" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical jacks.
> >> Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are they all
> >> equal?
> >
> >Its all digital right? Unless there is a design flaw, I would think all the
> >digital 1s and 0s would arrive in the same order either way. I don't know
> >the protocol in these, but on a computer network, the protocol checks to be
> >sure the data arrives exactly as it was sent for if a single bit got
> >changed, the data or program could be trashed.
>
> Network transmissions allow for re-send of packets, audio does not.

I think spdif has a parity bit - but that's your lot !

Graham

[Colin B.]

In rec.audio.tech Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
>
> mc wrote:
>
>> > You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.
>>
>> What is the cause of the differences, then?
>>
>> That's like saying, "You can hit the exact same keys and not type the same
>> words."
>
> I always though that it was a missed marketing opputunity that disk drive
> manufacturers didn't claim that *their* magnetic coatings could make your
> letters read better.

Nah. The drive manufacturers have other ways of lying to the public. How much
is a megabyte again? And how big is the cache on the drive?

Colin

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 07:33:44 -0500, in rec.audio.tech , "SimonLW"
>> > in > wrote:
>>
>> >"Paul L" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >> My DVD player and my digital reciever have both coaxial and optical
>> >> jacks.
>> >> Which connection should I use to get better sound quality or are they
>> >> all
>> >> equal?
>> >
>> >Its all digital right? Unless there is a design flaw, I would think all
>> >the
>> >digital 1s and 0s would arrive in the same order either way. I don't
>> >know
>> >the protocol in these, but on a computer network, the protocol checks to
>> >be
>> >sure the data arrives exactly as it was sent for if a single bit got
>> >changed, the data or program could be trashed.
>>
>> Network transmissions allow for re-send of packets, audio does not.
>
> I think spdif has a parity bit - but that's your lot !

Yes SP/DIF supports parity, but if the parity is wrong, there are few
alternatives but to mute or conceal the erroneous data.

Matt is correct as far as SP/DIf goes - if an error is detected the only
alternative would be to try to conceal the error as is done with CDs, since
SP/DIF and AES-3 have no protocol and lack a bi-directional connection for
retries.

One major difference between ripping a CD on a computer, and playing it on a
CD player, is that most ripping software supports retries.

When digital audio data is encapsulated in other protocols, such as the
protocols between a computer and its disk drives, then the protocol
encapsulating the transfer can and often does support retries.

[AZ Nomad]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:34:54 GMT, Colin B. > wrote:


>In rec.audio.tech Pooh Bear > wrote:
>>
>>
>> mc wrote:
>>
>>> > You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.
>>>
>>> What is the cause of the differences, then?
>>>
>>> That's like saying, "You can hit the exact same keys and not type the same
>>> words."
>>
>> I always though that it was a missed marketing opputunity that disk drive
>> manufacturers didn't claim that *their* magnetic coatings could make your
>> letters read better.

>Nah. The drive manufacturers have other ways of lying to the public. How much
>is a megabyte again? And how big is the cache on the drive?

You think calling 1000000000 (10^9) bytes a gig is a form of lying?

Never ascribe malice to what can be just a easily explained by ignorance and
stupidity.

Disk drive makers call 1000000 a million. Imagine that! Not 1024*1024.
They also call 1000000000 a gig, not 1024^3.

[Ruud Broens]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
:
: "mc" > wrote in message
: . ..
: >
: > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >
: >>> In the service manuals for certain digital preamps, Sony
: >>> instructs that the adjustment for harmonic distortion
: >>> must be performed with a signal source delivered by the
: >>> coaxial input. This shows that in some cases, the digital
: >>> input receiver can suffer with an optical connection, in
: >>> a measurable way.
: >>
: >> No excuse for this kind of flaw at all.
: >>
: >> Indeed, because of the elimination of EMI with optical, if anything Sony
: >> should be recommending the use of the optical input for critical
: >> adjustments.
: >
: > I was wondering the same thing. If it's digital, why isn't it absolutely
: > bit-for-bit identical both ways?
:
: Every digital signal is received as an analog signal. The conversion to
: digital can be a point where difficulties arise. An ideal digital receiver
: is immune to noise and timing problems with its input signals, but nothing's
: perfect.
:
: > The optical input would be immune to electromagnetic noise, and that
: > should be the only difference.
:
: Agreed. In fact any grounding problems that may exist can be exagerated by
: common kinds of tests that are done on power amps. *A*
:
: > Normally they should be indistinguishable because electromagnetic noise
: > strong enough to disrupt a digital signal is rare.
:
: The digital signal in question is not as robust as it might be. It's in the
: 1-2 volt peak-to-peak range. Really bad grounding problems can add noise in
: the same voltage range. *B*
:
Elsewhere in this thread, you recommend coax for longer (>30 ft.) stretches,
that is inconsistent with A and B, Arny :-)

With respect to welldefined edges, optical is clearly superior - even the
plastic 850 nm home variety - to coax.

Rudy

[Arny Krueger]

"Ruud Broens" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...
> :
> : "mc" > wrote in message
> : . ..
> : >
> : > "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> : > ...
> : >
> : >>> In the service manuals for certain digital preamps, Sony
> : >>> instructs that the adjustment for harmonic distortion
> : >>> must be performed with a signal source delivered by the
> : >>> coaxial input. This shows that in some cases, the digital
> : >>> input receiver can suffer with an optical connection, in
> : >>> a measurable way.
> : >>
> : >> No excuse for this kind of flaw at all.
> : >>
> : >> Indeed, because of the elimination of EMI with optical, if anything
> Sony
> : >> should be recommending the use of the optical input for critical
> : >> adjustments.
> : >
> : > I was wondering the same thing. If it's digital, why isn't it
> absolutely
> : > bit-for-bit identical both ways?
> :
> : Every digital signal is received as an analog signal. The conversion to
> : digital can be a point where difficulties arise. An ideal digital
> receiver
> : is immune to noise and timing problems with its input signals, but
> nothing's
> : perfect.
> :
> : > The optical input would be immune to electromagnetic noise, and that
> : > should be the only difference.
> :
> : Agreed. In fact any grounding problems that may exist can be exagerated
> by
> : common kinds of tests that are done on power amps. *A*
> :
> : > Normally they should be indistinguishable because electromagnetic
> noise
> : > strong enough to disrupt a digital signal is rare.
> :
> : The digital signal in question is not as robust as it might be. It's in
> the
> : 1-2 volt peak-to-peak range. Really bad grounding problems can add noise
> in
> : the same voltage range. *B*
> :
> Elsewhere in this thread, you recommend coax for longer (>30 ft.)
> stretches,
> that is inconsistent with A and B, Arny :-)

Not at all. The usual spec'd limit for consumer Toslink is 10 meters. That
means that it can turn into a pumpkin about 30 feet out and you have nobody
to blame but yourself. Thus for runs longer than about 30 feet, your choices
are coax and oh by the way, coax. Either that or do something exotic to
stretch Toslink beyond its usual limit. Exotic would be signal boosters and
esoteric optical interconnect.

OTOH good solid copper core coax can take SP/DIF past 100 feet, quite
easily. However, watch that grounding!

> With respect to welldefined edges, optical is clearly superior - even the
> plastic 850 nm home variety - to coax.

It turns out that the bandwidth of coax inputs and particularly outputs is
limited inside the box so that FCC Part 15 limits are not violated. Usually
a little transformer is used that limits the bandwidth to from 8 to 15 MHz.
That helps keep the nasties out of TV-Land. Thus the bandwidth of the
cable, which is usually far greater, isn't the limiting factor.

[Richard Crowley]

"Ruud Broens" wrote ...
> With respect to welldefined edges, optical is clearly
> superior - even the plastic 850 nm home variety - to coax.

For 2-3 feet, maybe. But for long distances, not clear whether
any light at all makes it through those cheap plastic extruded
"lightpipe"?

OTOH, if you're talking about proper glass fibre, yes
indeed, it beats coaxial cable over long distances. But
the OP was asking about cheap plastic Toslink.

[Jeff Findley]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not at all. The usual spec'd limit for consumer Toslink is 10 meters.
That
> means that it can turn into a pumpkin about 30 feet out and you have
nobody
> to blame but yourself. Thus for runs longer than about 30 feet, your
choices
> are coax and oh by the way, coax. Either that or do something exotic to
> stretch Toslink beyond its usual limit. Exotic would be signal boosters
and
> esoteric optical interconnect.

Toslink signal boosters aren't "exotic". They're a Toslink receiver and a
high output LED with very little inbetween. I picked up one of these on
clearance at Radio Shack for $3.99. At full price, you should pay under
$30.

> OTOH good solid copper core coax can take SP/DIF past 100 feet, quite
> easily. However, watch that grounding!

With optical, no worries about grounding or electrical interferance by doing
something like running the cable in parallel with other electric cables.

Digital is digital. Either you get a good signal, or you get garbage than
even the tone deaf can identify (but I've found that usually the receiving
end will indicate loss of digital signal).

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

[Jeff Findley]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes SP/DIF supports parity, but if the parity is wrong, there are few
> alternatives but to mute or conceal the erroneous data.
>
> Matt is correct as far as SP/DIf goes - if an error is detected the only
> alternative would be to try to conceal the error as is done with CDs,
since
> SP/DIF and AES-3 have no protocol and lack a bi-directional connection for
> retries.
>
> One major difference between ripping a CD on a computer, and playing it on
a
> CD player, is that most ripping software supports retries.
>
> When digital audio data is encapsulated in other protocols, such as the
> protocols between a computer and its disk drives, then the protocol
> encapsulating the transfer can and often does support retries.

While this is true, you're likely to need retries reading data from the
media (i.e. CD). Error detection and correction are done in the CD player.
That's why you have players running the CD's at a higher speed than 1X, so
the data can be read many times to support error detection and correction.

By the time the digital data leaves the CD player through a digital coax or
optical digital connection, the likelihood that you're going to need error
detection and correction is very small. Your digital connection between the
player and the receiver will either work, or it won't.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

[Ruud Broens]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" wrote ...
: > With respect to welldefined edges, optical is clearly
: > superior - even the plastic 850 nm home variety - to coax.
:
: For 2-3 feet, maybe. But for long distances, not clear whether
: any light at all makes it through those cheap plastic extruded
: "lightpipe"?

Heh. I know, attenuation is measured in meters as opposed to
miles in proper fiberoptics. Attenuation is gross, but constant
over the frequencies we're talking about here, so waveform is
preserved pretty well.
:
: OTOH, if you're talking about proper glass fibre, yes
: indeed, it beats coaxial cable over long distances.

yep, eg. synchronous 40Gb is considered so-so if more than a handful
of biterrors occur in 24 hours over a 100 km distance - usually the result
of 'seismic' activity, as in _construction work_

: But the OP was asking about cheap plastic Toslink.

Rudy

[Arny Krueger]

"Jeff Findley" > wrote in
message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> Not at all. The usual spec'd limit for consumer Toslink
>> is 10 meters. That means that it can turn into a pumpkin
>> about 30 feet out and you have nobody to blame but
>> yourself. Thus for runs longer than about 30 feet, your
>> choices are coax and oh by the way, coax. Either that or
>> do something exotic to stretch Toslink beyond its usual
>> limit. Exotic would be signal boosters and esoteric
>> optical interconnect.

> Toslink signal boosters aren't "exotic". They're a
> Toslink receiver and a high output LED with very little
> inbetween. I picked up one of these on clearance at
> Radio Shack for $3.99. At full price, you should pay
> under $30.

I saw said signal booster at the local RS for $3.99 a couple of weeks ago
and picked one up.

>> OTOH good solid copper core coax can take SP/DIF past
>> 100 feet, quite easily. However, watch that grounding!

> With optical, no worries about grounding or electrical
> interferance by doing something like running the cable in
> parallel with other electric cables.

I agree that optical solves a lot of common problems. The length issue
rarely comes up in consumer systems.

My main system has 12' of toslink between the DVD player and the digital
processor. This eliminates the possibility of all kinds of noise and
grounding problems with the audio system. In essence there is no electrical
connection between the audio and video domains.

> Digital is digital. Either you get a good signal, or you
> get garbage than even the tone deaf can identify (but
> I've found that usually the receiving end will indicate
> loss of digital signal).

Well in times of old when dinosaurs roamed the earth and I was young and
handsome, not every digital receiver was as good as so many of the ones we
see today. ;-)

For example, I have an Denon DA500 DAC which I use mostly as test equipment.
I've been able to make the thing give music a delightful vibrato effect by
mixing an appropriate interfering signal with inbound digital data. In
contrast, the same data played perfectly with a Technics SHAC-500.

DACs sold as high end products in the 1990s have an especially checkered
reutation for technically incompetent digital receivers.

[Colin B.]

In rec.audio.tech AZ Nomad > wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:34:54 GMT, Colin B. > wrote:
>
>
>>In rec.audio.tech Pooh Bear > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> mc wrote:
>>>
>>>> > You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.
>>>>
>>>> What is the cause of the differences, then?
>>>>
>>>> That's like saying, "You can hit the exact same keys and not type the same
>>>> words."
>>>
>>> I always though that it was a missed marketing opputunity that disk drive
>>> manufacturers didn't claim that *their* magnetic coatings could make your
>>> letters read better.
>
>>Nah. The drive manufacturers have other ways of lying to the public. How much
>>is a megabyte again? And how big is the cache on the drive?
>
> You think calling 1000000000 (10^9) bytes a gig is a form of lying?
>
> Never ascribe malice to what can be just a easily explained by ignorance and
> stupidity.
>
> Disk drive makers call 1000000 a million. Imagine that! Not 1024*1024.
> They also call 1000000000 a gig, not 1024^3.

I do call that lying, given the context. Maybe you weren't paying attention
when they made the change.

For some decades, _all_ manufactures of computer equipment used kilo and mega
to refer to intervals of 2^10. That was a de-facto standard before 8-bit
words were standard. Hard drives were sold in megabytes, where 1MB=2^20B.
Then when people were buying hard drives based on MB/$ and availability, one
manufacturer changed their definition of a MB--I think it was Western
Digital, but I'm not sure--to mean 1000000 bytes. Suddenly, they were selling
drives that were about 5-7% bigger than the competitors, for the same price!
Who wouldn't want free space? They didn't advertise it, but if you read the
spec sheets you discovered the truth. The computer media went after them to
find out, and they said that the marketing department recommended the idea,
to 'avoid confusing the consumer' (by using the same units as everyone else?
Sure!). Of course sales went up for them and down for the rest, so almost
overnight, the switch was made.

It's not ignorance or stupidity, it was clear and deliberate malice. In the
context of the computer industry at the time, I still say it was lying.

Colin

[Robert Morein]

"Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
...
> "mc" > said:
>
>>> Indeed, because of the elimination of EMI with optical, if anything Sony
>>> should be recommending the use of the optical input for critical
>>> adjustments.
>
>
>>I was wondering the same thing. If it's digital, why isn't it absolutely
>>bit-for-bit identical both ways? The optical input would be immune to
>>electromagnetic noise, and that should be the only difference. Normally
>>they should be indistinguishable because electromagnetic noise strong
>>enough
>>to disrupt a digital signal is rare.
>
>
> A common mistake.
> The S/PDIF signal is analog in nature.
> Just as with RF signals, an incorrect termination might cause
> reflections ( "a bad SWR") which, in turn, are said to cause jitter.

SP/DIF is an early, optical method, using a crude plastic fiber, that
actually has limited bandwidth. The resulting fuzziness of the transitions
creates more uncertainty for the input receiver chip. In the case of a
typical input receiver, using a single phase locked loop, the additional
uncertainty causes additional jitter, over the jitter inherent in recovering
the clock from a NRZ encoding scheme.

Because the plastic fiber is a large diameter multimode, the path length
actually is sensitive to distortion of the fiber by mechanical vibration. No
such artifact occurs with coaxial cable, which is modeless at the
frequencies under consideration.
>
> Jitter doesn't have to be a problem per se.
> When the incoming signal in e.g.a DAC is reclocked for instance, the
> jitter must be very extreme to have any effect at all.

Yes, but reclocking is still not done as a matter of course.

> If that extreme is reached (not likely), the result will be silence,
> not degraded audio.
>
Yes, and with any input receiver consisting of a single PLL, the designer
must choose a time constant that is a compromise between low jitter, and the
possible failure to lock.

[Robert Morein]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Ruud Broens" wrote ...
>> With respect to welldefined edges, optical is clearly superior - even the
>> plastic 850 nm home variety - to coax.
>
> For 2-3 feet, maybe. But for long distances, not clear whether
> any light at all makes it through those cheap plastic extruded
> "lightpipe"?
>
> OTOH, if you're talking about proper glass fibre, yes
> indeed, it beats coaxial cable over long distances. But
> the OP was asking about cheap plastic Toslink.

I believe that he was. Toslink has nothing in common with the performance of
glass fiber.

[Arny Krueger]

"Colin B." > wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.tech AZ Nomad > wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:34:54 GMT, Colin B.
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In rec.audio.tech Pooh Bear >
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the cause of the differences, then?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's like saying, "You can hit the exact same keys and not type the
>>>>> same
>>>>> words."
>>>>
>>>> I always though that it was a missed marketing opputunity that disk
>>>> drive
>>>> manufacturers didn't claim that *their* magnetic coatings could make
>>>> your
>>>> letters read better.
>>
>>>Nah. The drive manufacturers have other ways of lying to the public. How
>>>much
>>>is a megabyte again? And how big is the cache on the drive?
>>
>> You think calling 1000000000 (10^9) bytes a gig is a form of lying?
>>
>> Never ascribe malice to what can be just a easily explained by ignorance
>> and
>> stupidity.
>>
>> Disk drive makers call 1000000 a million. Imagine that! Not 1024*1024.
>> They also call 1000000000 a gig, not 1024^3.
>
> I do call that lying, given the context. Maybe you weren't paying
> attention
> when they made the change.
>
> For some decades, _all_ manufactures of computer equipment used kilo and
> mega
> to refer to intervals of 2^10. That was a de-facto standard before 8-bit
> words were standard. Hard drives were sold in megabytes, where 1MB=2^20B.
> Then when people were buying hard drives based on MB/$ and availability,
> one
> manufacturer changed their definition of a MB--I think it was Western
> Digital, but I'm not sure--to mean 1000000 bytes. Suddenly, they were
> selling
> drives that were about 5-7% bigger than the competitors, for the same
> price!
> Who wouldn't want free space? They didn't advertise it, but if you read
> the
> spec sheets you discovered the truth. The computer media went after them
> to
> find out, and they said that the marketing department recommended the
> idea,
> to 'avoid confusing the consumer' (by using the same units as everyone
> else?
> Sure!). Of course sales went up for them and down for the rest, so almost
> overnight, the switch was made.
>
> It's not ignorance or stupidity, it was clear and deliberate malice. In
> the
> context of the computer industry at the time, I still say it was lying.

Grab lance, mount horse, tilt at windmills.

It ain't a lie when the facts are well-known and readily knowable for
everybody who cares to find out the accepted conventions.

[Arny Krueger]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "mc" > said:

>> Jitter doesn't have to be a problem per se.
>> When the incoming signal in e.g.a DAC is reclocked for instance, the
>> jitter must be very extreme to have any effect at all.

> Yes, but reclocking is still not done as a matter of course.

Reclocking is done as a matter of course, for example in sub-$200 appliance
store stereo receivers. Reclocking is done in every CD player, even the
$39.95 boom boxes, $19.95 portables and CDROM drives. Every MP3 player, even
the $39.95 cheapies that run on a single AAA battery reclock the audio data
as a matter of course.

[Pooh Bear]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "mc" > said:
>
> >> Jitter doesn't have to be a problem per se.
> >> When the incoming signal in e.g.a DAC is reclocked for instance, the
> >> jitter must be very extreme to have any effect at all.
>
> > Yes, but reclocking is still not done as a matter of course.
>
> Reclocking is done as a matter of course, for example in sub-$200 appliance
> store stereo receivers. Reclocking is done in every CD player, even the
> $39.95 boom boxes, $19.95 portables and CDROM drives. Every MP3 player, even
> the $39.95 cheapies that run on a single AAA battery reclock the audio data
> as a matter of course.

I just noticed this Cirrus receiver chip that rather neatly avoids the
data-dependent clock recovery jitter issue too.

" In addition, the PLL has been designed to only use the preambles of the AES3
stream to provide lock update information to the
PLL. This results in the PLL being immune to data dependent jitter affects
because the AES3 preambles do not vary with the data."

http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDatasheet/CS8427_F3.pdf page 54

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Sander deWaal" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> "mc" > said:
>>
>> >> Jitter doesn't have to be a problem per se.
>> >> When the incoming signal in e.g.a DAC is reclocked for instance, the
>> >> jitter must be very extreme to have any effect at all.
>>
>> > Yes, but reclocking is still not done as a matter of course.
>>
>> Reclocking is done as a matter of course, for example in sub-$200
>> appliance
>> store stereo receivers. Reclocking is done in every CD player, even the
>> $39.95 boom boxes, $19.95 portables and CDROM drives. Every MP3 player,
>> even
>> the $39.95 cheapies that run on a single AAA battery reclock the audio
>> data
>> as a matter of course.

> I just noticed this Cirrus receiver chip that rather neatly avoids the
> data-dependent clock recovery jitter issue too.

> " In addition, the PLL has been designed to only use the preambles of the
> AES3
> stream to provide lock update information to the
> PLL. This results in the PLL being immune to data dependent jitter affects
> because the AES3 preambles do not vary with the data."
>
> http://www.cirrus.com/en/pubs/proDatasheet/CS8427_F3.pdf page 54

Neat! Patented?

Of course, we'll never know how many times this IP from the 8427 shows up in
other chips that receive digital audio data.

[AZ Nomad]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 02:29:19 GMT, Colin B. > wrote:


>In rec.audio.tech AZ Nomad > wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:34:54 GMT, Colin B. > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In rec.audio.tech Pooh Bear > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> mc wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> > You *can* have the exact same datastream with audible differences.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the cause of the differences, then?
>>>>>
>>>>> That's like saying, "You can hit the exact same keys and not type the same
>>>>> words."
>>>>
>>>> I always though that it was a missed marketing opputunity that disk drive
>>>> manufacturers didn't claim that *their* magnetic coatings could make your
>>>> letters read better.
>>
>>>Nah. The drive manufacturers have other ways of lying to the public. How much
>>>is a megabyte again? And how big is the cache on the drive?
>>
>> You think calling 1000000000 (10^9) bytes a gig is a form of lying?
>>
>> Never ascribe malice to what can be just a easily explained by ignorance and
>> stupidity.
>>
>> Disk drive makers call 1000000 a million. Imagine that! Not 1024*1024.
>> They also call 1000000000 a gig, not 1024^3.

>I do call that lying, given the context. Maybe you weren't paying attention
>when they made the change.

>For some decades, _all_ manufactures of computer equipment used kilo and mega
>to refer to intervals of 2^10. That was a de-facto standard before 8-bit
>words were standard. Hard drives were sold in megabytes, where 1MB=2^20B.
>Then when people were buying hard drives based on MB/$ and availability, one
>manufacturer changed their definition of a MB--I think it was Western
>Digital, but I'm not sure--to mean 1000000 bytes. Suddenly, they were selling
>drives that were about 5-7% bigger than the competitors, for the same price!
>Who wouldn't want free space? They didn't advertise it, but if you read the
>spec sheets you discovered the truth. The computer media went after them to
>find out, and they said that the marketing department recommended the idea,
>to 'avoid confusing the consumer' (by using the same units as everyone else?
>Sure!). Of course sales went up for them and down for the rest, so almost
>overnight, the switch was made.

>It's not ignorance or stupidity, it was clear and deliberate malice. In the
>context of the computer industry at the time, I still say it was lying.

No. It is using english definitions of the words million and billion.
It sucks that operating system makers took the lazy approach of reporting
a thousand as 2^10 so that they could just to a shift operation instead of
a divide.

[Ruud Broens]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
:
: "Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
: ...
: > "Ruud Broens" wrote ...
: >> With respect to welldefined edges, optical is clearly superior - even the
: >> plastic 850 nm home variety - to coax.
: >
: > For 2-3 feet, maybe. But for long distances, not clear whether
: > any light at all makes it through those cheap plastic extruded
: > "lightpipe"?
: >
: > OTOH, if you're talking about proper glass fibre, yes
: > indeed, it beats coaxial cable over long distances. But
: > the OP was asking about cheap plastic Toslink.
:
: I believe that he was. Toslink has nothing in common with the performance of
: glass fiber.

no. you'd be surprised what is out there, eg.:
http://www.semicon.toshiba.co.jp/eng/prd/pdf_presen/opto_TOSLINK_200502_e.pdf

note the TODX2402(F), for instance, Toslink for AV Network ,
250 Mbs 20m, 125 Mbs 50 meter range

;-)
Rudy

[Mr.T]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> > It's not ignorance or stupidity, it was clear and deliberate malice. In
> > the context of the computer industry at the time, I still say it was
lying.
>
> Grab lance, mount horse, tilt at windmills.
>
> It ain't a lie when the facts are well-known and readily knowable for
> everybody who cares to find out the accepted conventions.

Of course it was a *LIE* at the time! They chose to disregard long standing
conventions and create their own, simply for a marketing advantage.
Just because this is common business practice in the world of corporate
greed, does not make it right.

The fact that it is *NOW* standard convention, because other companies were
forced to follow suit, is a good example of why the world is going to hell
because of greedy corporations with no ethics or morals.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
...
> No. It is using english definitions of the words million and billion.
> It sucks that operating system makers took the lazy approach of reporting
> a thousand as 2^10 so that they could just to a shift operation instead of
> a divide.

What crap, I have never seen a computer that calculates a thousand as 2^10.
Even a cheap calculator knows the difference between Binary, Octal,
Hexadecimal and Decimal, but naturally you could never expect the same from
a marketing executive.

MrT.

[Pooh Bear]

"Mr.T" wrote:

> "AZ Nomad" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No. It is using english definitions of the words million and billion.
> > It sucks that operating system makers took the lazy approach of reporting
> > a thousand as 2^10 so that they could just to a shift operation instead of
> > a divide.
>
> What crap, I have never seen a computer that calculates a thousand as 2^10.
> Even a cheap calculator knows the difference between Binary, Octal,
> Hexadecimal and Decimal, but naturally you could never expect the same from
> a marketing executive.

If this is to be a marketing and executive bashing thread may I join in ? They
should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes !

Graham

[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:03:38 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:

>What crap, I have never seen a computer that calculates a thousand as 2^10.

Your computer however calculates a "K" as 1024. Hence the
discrepancy between advertised hard drive size and reported size.

[Sander deWaal]

Pooh Bear > said:

>If this is to be a marketing and executive bashing thread may I join in ? They
>should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes !


You're forgetting the lawyers.

--

"Audio as a serious hobby is going down the tubes."
- Howard Ferstler, 25/4/2005

[Colin B.]

In rec.audio.tech Arny Krueger > wrote:
>
> "Colin B." > wrote in message
> ...
>> In rec.audio.tech AZ Nomad > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:34:54 GMT, Colin B.
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In rec.audio.tech Pooh Bear >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I always though that it was a missed marketing opputunity that disk
>>>>> drive
>>>>> manufacturers didn't claim that *their* magnetic coatings could make
>>>>> your
>>>>> letters read better.
>>>
>>>>Nah. The drive manufacturers have other ways of lying to the public. How
>>>>much
>>>>is a megabyte again? And how big is the cache on the drive?
>>>
>>> You think calling 1000000000 (10^9) bytes a gig is a form of lying?
>>>
>>> Never ascribe malice to what can be just a easily explained by ignorance
>>> and
>>> stupidity.
>>>
>>> Disk drive makers call 1000000 a million. Imagine that! Not 1024*1024.
>>> They also call 1000000000 a gig, not 1024^3.
>>
>> I do call that lying, given the context. Maybe you weren't paying
>> attention
>> when they made the change.
>>
>> For some decades, _all_ manufactures of computer equipment used kilo and
>> mega
>> to refer to intervals of 2^10. That was a de-facto standard before 8-bit
>> words were standard. Hard drives were sold in megabytes, where 1MB=2^20B.
>> Then when people were buying hard drives based on MB/$ and availability,
>> one
>> manufacturer changed their definition of a MB--I think it was Western
>> Digital, but I'm not sure--to mean 1000000 bytes. Suddenly, they were
>> selling
>> drives that were about 5-7% bigger than the competitors, for the same
>> price!
>> Who wouldn't want free space? They didn't advertise it, but if you read
>> the
>> spec sheets you discovered the truth. The computer media went after them
>> to
>> find out, and they said that the marketing department recommended the
>> idea,
>> to 'avoid confusing the consumer' (by using the same units as everyone
>> else?
>> Sure!). Of course sales went up for them and down for the rest, so almost
>> overnight, the switch was made.
>>
>> It's not ignorance or stupidity, it was clear and deliberate malice. In
>> the
>> context of the computer industry at the time, I still say it was lying.
>
> Grab lance, mount horse, tilt at windmills.

Oh, I never claimed I was doing anything else. :-) However, Pooh Bear was
suggesting BS that the storage industry could use for marketing, and I just
wanted to point out that they already have.

> It ain't a lie when the facts are well-known and readily knowable for
> everybody who cares to find out the accepted conventions.

Well it's not a lie now that the conventions have changed. It was clearly a
lie when the marketing division of one company violated decades of convention
to gain an advertising advantage--especially when they expoloited it in their
sales pitch. (5% more space than competitors!)

Colin

[George M. Middius]

Sander deWaal said:

> >If this is to be a marketing and executive bashing thread may I join in ? They
> >should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes !

> You're forgetting the lawyers.

Only one breed of "professional" would make a statement like the one
Poopie made.

[Colin B.]

In rec.audio.tech Sander deWaal > wrote:
> Pooh Bear > said:
>
>>If this is to be a marketing and executive bashing thread may I join in ? They
>>should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes !
>
> You're forgetting the lawyers.

Nah. Lawyers, at least in theory, have a useful role. They'll make the top
ten, though.

[Matt Silberstein]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 18:47:10 +0100, in rec.audio.tech , Sander deWaal
> in >
wrote:

>Pooh Bear > said:
>
>>If this is to be a marketing and executive bashing thread may I join in ? They
>>should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes !
>
>
>You're forgetting the lawyers.

What do you think we are going to make the walls from?


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

[Pooh Bear]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Sander deWaal said:
>
> > >If this is to be a marketing and executive bashing thread may I join in ? They
> > >should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes !
>
> > You're forgetting the lawyers.
>
> Only one breed of "professional" would make a statement like the one
> Poopie made.

It's a quote from the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy you doofus !

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie squalled:

> > > You're forgetting the lawyers.
> >
> > Only one breed of "professional" would make a statement like the one
> > Poopie made.
>
> It's a quote from the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy you doofus !

Oh, of course. And here I thought you were alluding to Shakespeare. My
mistake.

[Matt Silberstein]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:11:47 -0500, in rec.audio.tech , George M.
Middius <cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> in
> wrote:

>
>
>Poopie squalled:
>
>> > > You're forgetting the lawyers.
>> >
>> > Only one breed of "professional" would make a statement like the one
>> > Poopie made.
>>
>> It's a quote from the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy you doofus !
>
>Oh, of course. And here I thought you were alluding to Shakespeare. My
>mistake.

Just once removed.


--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"

[Mr.T]

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 16:03:38 +1100, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>
> >What crap, I have never seen a computer that calculates a thousand as
2^10.
>
> Your computer however calculates a "K" as 1024.

A Kilo bit, yes. Please read what I wrote re: binary, octal, decimal,
hexadecimal.

>Hence the
> discrepancy between advertised hard drive size and reported size.

The marketing reason has already been well explained by myself and others.
Try Google if you came in late.

MrT.

[Mr.T]

"Colin B." > wrote in message
...
> In rec.audio.tech Sander deWaal > wrote:
> > Pooh Bear > said:
> >
> >>If this is to be a marketing and executive bashing thread may I join in
? They
> >>should be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes !
> >
> > You're forgetting the lawyers.

Yep, I'd put them up first with the politicians. Most politicians are ex
lawyers anyway (which is part of the problem)

> Nah. Lawyers, at least in theory, have a useful role.

Very funny!

MrT.

[Richard Crowley]

"Signal" wrote ...
> "Arny Krueger" emitted :
>>Every digital signal is received as an analog signal.
>
> Hmmm... that doesn't sound right. Digital is, like, the opposite of
> analogue, man. A signal cannot simply be "received" from an analogue
> signal, it has to be converted. The analogue signal is a continuously
> variable quantity, y'see, whereas digital is finite.

It may not sound right to you, but Arny is correct.

The most complex digital chips on the planet are made
in the factory next door to my office. You can be sure
that while the chips may appear to function as digital/
binary on the outside, the device physicists and circuit
designers and process integration engineers spend most
of their time designing and testing in the analog domain.

Perhaps you are not aware that the operating voltage of
complex digital chips has dropped from 5 volts a decade
ago down to 3.3 and 1.9 and even 1.3 volts today. The
prime reason is that it takes a "long time" (many nSec!)
to pull a "long" (several microns!) circuit line all the way
from logic "0" (0 volts) to logic "1" (5 volts). All the time
the chip spends transitioning between zero and one, it is in
the analog/linear domain and that is there where all the
power is expended (and the heat is generated). So anything
we can do to minimize the amount of time we spend in the
analog zone, we can both get the speed faster AND the
heat lower.

In fact, it was only recently that we started designing
fab processes (all the details of how the IC layers are
made, and the dimensions of the transistors, lines and
spaces, etc. etc. etc.) that were optimized (and, indeed
even specified) for both analog and digital use. Because
of the big demand for more and more large-scale
integration of products like cell-phones and pagers, etc.
For all I know, they have an entire cell phone on a single
chip. Maybe that's what is in my new Razr?

[mc]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Signal" wrote ...
>> "Arny Krueger" emitted :
>>>Every digital signal is received as an analog signal.
>>
>> Hmmm... that doesn't sound right. Digital is, like, the opposite of
>> analogue, man. A signal cannot simply be "received" from an analogue
>
> It may not sound right to you, but Arny is correct.

He is correct, but he was deliberately misleading in order to get people to
think.

Naturally, the signal going down a digital wire is not "analog" in the same
sense as an analog audio signal. It is not a voltage that is supposed to be
proportional to the displacement of a speaker cone.

But (and this is Arny's point) electricity does not consist of ones and
zeroes. (Well, there are individual electrons, but that's not what we're
dealing with here.) Voltage levels are on a continuum. If you decide that
1 volt is 1 and 0 volts is 0, then what do you do when the actual cable,
with its resistance, capacitance, and inductance, delivers you 0.8 volt, or
0.5 volt? And there are no instantaneous transitions; if you switch
suddenly between 0 V and 1 V at the input, you will see a much less sudden
transition at the end of a long cable.

[Richard Crowley]

"mc" wrote...
> And there are no instantaneous transitions; if you switch suddenly
> between 0 V and 1 V at the input, you will see a much less sudden
> transition at the end of a long cable.

Or at the end of a 120 µm IC "line". :-)

[Pooh Bear]

Signal wrote:

> "Arny Krueger" emitted :
>
> >Every digital signal is received as an analog signal.
>
> Hmmm... that doesn't sound right. Digital is, like, the opposite of
> analogue, man. A signal cannot simply be "received" from an analogue
> signal, it has to be converted. The analogue signal is a continuously
> variable quantity, y'see, whereas digital is finite.

And if you understood the first thing about signal transmission you'd
understand why a digital signal is subject to 'analogue limitations'.
Like bandwidth for example.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"mc" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Signal" wrote ...
>>> "Arny Krueger" emitted :

>>>>Every digital signal is received as an analog signal.
>
>>> Hmmm... that doesn't sound right. Digital is, like, the opposite of
>>> analogue, man. A signal cannot simply be "received" from an analogue

>> It may not sound right to you, but Arny is correct.

> He is correct, but he was deliberately misleading in order to get people
> to think.

Yeah, its nice when people think and I try to stimulate it, but there is no
intentional missstatement or misapprehesnion.

> Naturally, the signal going down a digital wire is not "analog" in the
> same sense as an analog audio signal. It is not a voltage that is
> supposed to be proportional to the displacement of a speaker cone.

Right, but a so-called digital signal on a line is a continuously-varying
signal with a lot more than just two different states.

> But (and this is Arny's point) electricity does not consist of ones and
> zeroes. (Well, there are individual electrons, but that's not what we're
> dealing with here.) Voltage levels are on a continuum. If you decide
> that 1 volt is 1 and 0 volts is 0, then what do you do when the actual
> cable, with its resistance, capacitance, and inductance, delivers you 0.8
> volt, or 0.5 volt? And there are no instantaneous transitions; if you
> switch suddenly between 0 V and 1 V at the input, you will see a much less
> sudden transition at the end of a long cable.

More specifically, a TTL signal in the real world is not just 0 volts or 5
volts and nothing in-between. The zeroes are usually some place between 0
and 1.x volts, and the ones are between 3.x and 5.x volts. Or it's the exact
opposite since a lot of logic signals are negative logic.

Furthermore, the transitions aren't instantaneous. Sometimes the transitions
can take seconds, but mostly they take nanoseconds or less. But even
nanoseconds can be "a long time" for modern digital logic.

[Arny Krueger]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Signal" wrote ...
>> "Arny Krueger" emitted :
>>>Every digital signal is received as an analog signal.
>>
>> Hmmm... that doesn't sound right. Digital is, like, the opposite of
>> analogue, man. A signal cannot simply be "received" from an analogue
>> signal, it has to be converted. The analogue signal is a continuously
>> variable quantity, y'see, whereas digital is finite.
>
> It may not sound right to you, but Arny is correct.

This is a remarkable event. For the longest time Paul Dormer (who is posting
here as "Signal") has been able to say the weirdest things imaginable about
stuff I've posted on RAO, and even been reinforced by others who purported
to be superior authorities. Finally, he gets his comeuppance at the hands of
any number of people who have orthodox ideas about electronics and don't
have a stated agenda of humiliating and embarrassing me.

Thanks, guys - maybe Dormer will finally learn something useful about
electronics.

[Laurence Payne]

Mere wordplay. A digital signal exists in a physical world, hence is
analogue in one manner if speaking. So let's ban the term "digital
signal"? No, that would be silly.

[Pooh Bear]

Just found this sitting in my Drafts folder. Here goes anyway.


Ruud Broens wrote:

> Elsewhere in this thread, you recommend coax for longer (>30 ft.) stretches,
> that is inconsistent with A and B, Arny :-)

Optical's a problem for longer runs because of the optical loss caused by the
cheap fibre not being optically 100% transparent. Not to do with signal
'degradation', just attenuation.

> With respect to welldefined edges, optical is clearly superior - even the
> plastic 850 nm home variety - to coax.

I don't think so. The edges are 'rounded off' by the opto coupler response
bandwidth. The early Toslink devices had only around 6 MHz to begin with IIRC
which made them only just suitable. They seem to have improved recently though.

Graham