NewBuyer;350858 Wrote:
Been there, done that - oddly enough, while both sound good, the optical
sounds slightly better to us in our system. Hence my wondering about
this! :)It's -your -pleasure after all. If optical sounds better to you,
that's
all what matters.
At this level of
Themis;350878 Wrote:
...I advise you to stick with your own ears' verdict. ;)
Methinks this be sound advice.
I do hope science will someday catch up with our ears! :)
--
NewBuyer
NewBuyer's Profile:
DeVerm;349257 Wrote:
...many people believe they hear a difference in sound when they compare
coax to toslink. So, why don't you try it, you only need 1 extra cable
;-)
cheers,
Nick.
Been there, done that - oddly enough, while both sound good, the
optical sounds slightly better to us in
NewBuyer;348923 Wrote:
Thanks for the link - that is interesting. I wonder what practical
advantage isolating the RCA body from the chassis would bring - it
seems like directly bonding them to chassis ground would certainly
provide the least-resistance path to ground for any cable shield
DeVerm;348901 Wrote:
Those are it's advantages over coax, but you have to look at it's
disadvantages too: limited cable length (say 5 meters), no tight radius
in bending allowed, and most important: you convert from electrical to
light and back. Every conversion has it's problems.
Earlier
NewBuyer;348859 Wrote:
Understood. And actual listening must always be the final judge. :)
However with your caveats above and with a really good modern
resampling/reclocking DAC design (like the Benchmark DAC1 PRE): Is it
not at least theoretically possible then, that toslink's *total*
NewBuyer;348549 Wrote:
When a DAC utilizes a pulse-transformer on the coax input (like the
Benchmark DAC1 PRE for instance), how much isolation does this actually
provide in practice - does it block *all* possible intercomponent
undesirables from riding the coax interconnect, or just
DeVerm;348553 Wrote:
What you can be sure of is:
1. perfect galvanic isolation. No DC will pass and thus no ground
loops. This assumes that the input-connector is isolated from ground
too.
2. if done right, and we must assume they did it right, the transformer
will present a perfect 75
DeVerm;348553 Wrote:
What you can be sure of is:
1. perfect galvanic isolation. No DC will pass and thus no ground
loops. This assumes that the input-connector is isolated from ground
too.
2. if done right, and we must assume they did it right, the transformer
will present a perfect 75
NewBuyer;348558 Wrote:
Thank you very much Nick for your reply and information. So is it
correct then to conclude, that when connecting an SB3 to a modern
jitter-controlled D/A unit like the Benchmark DAC1 PRE: A well-made
toslink interconnect should always be *at least as good* as coax?
NewBuyer;348558 Wrote:
Thank you very much Nick for your reply and information. So is it
correct then to conclude, that when connecting an SB3 to a modern
jitter-controlled D/A unit like the Benchmark DAC1 PRE: A well-made
toslink interconnect should always be *at least as good* as coax?
Phil Leigh;348562 Wrote:
using a coax connection with an rca/phono will guarantee that the
grounds are connected on most European equipment! So no - there will be
no Galvanic isolation in these cases. Using AES/EBU might provide
galvanic isolation if wired properly (ie hot/cold go to the
I just checked the benchmarks manual and it says:
The coaxial inputs use female RCA connectors
that are securely mounted directly to the rear
panel. The input impedance is 75 Ohms.
Maximum word length is 24-bits. All sample
rates between 28 and 195 kHz are supported.
The Coax inputs are DC
DeVerm;348761 Wrote:
If all toslink parts (transmitter, connectors, cable, receiver) are well
made and you compare it to a well made coax (with well made parts again:
transformers, transmitter, connectors, cable, receiver) than there
should be no difference when the two devices are the same.
ar-t;348180 Wrote:
I ought to have better sense and stay out of yet -another- thread on
glass vs plastic.coax vs TOSLINK, blah, blah.
TOSLINK is a joke, period. Glass (single-mode) fibre systems were never
intended to work at lengths less than 1 km. Sure, they do, but weren't
ar-t;348181 Wrote:
This has absolutely *nothing* to do with jitter.
Correct. We were discussing the size of an input-buffer on a S/PDIF of
a DAC and someone mentioned it better be big to cope with clock
differences... so I did some calc on worst best case scenarios.
ciao!
Nick.
--
DeVerm
ar-t;348183 Wrote:
BTW..XLR connectorsthey -really- are 110 ohms. But, like he
said..they don't stay that way. (Hint: look at how far apart
the pins are, and how long they are. Look at a BNC. See why now?)
It looks like I can't agree with a lot you write tonight so sorry
DeVerm;348240 Wrote:
It looks like I can't agree with a lot you write tonight so sorry but
no, I don't see it.
cheers,
Nick.
Fine. Suit yourself. Go get a TDR and measure one. Or ask someone who
has done this the last 40 years to do it for you. I have, so you have
your answer.
Pat
--
DeVerm;348240 Wrote:
It looks like I can't agree with a lot you write tonight so sorry but
no, I don't see it.
cheers,
Nick.
Fine. Suit yourself. Go get a TDR and measure one. Or ask someone who
has done this the last 40 years to do it for you. I have, so you have
your answer.
As for
ar-t;348326 Wrote:
The non-tech types don't. And a lot of them think that going from
plastic to glass on a LED-based TX is going to fix it. But, I have
people ask me that such-and-such makes a glass fibre for TOSLINK. I
don't know if they claim that, and don't care. Yet, the questions
I did not say that it can't be fixed. You assume that all D/A boxes are
made that way. (They aren't.) Most of the ones who attempt to do that
use a SRC, and usually the worst one that they can find. Which is a
whole new set of problems.
Pat
--
ar-t
http://www.analogresearch-technology.net
ar-t;348180 Wrote:
TOSLINK is a joke, period. Glass (single-mode) fibre systems were never
intended to work at lengths less than 1 km. Sure, they do, but weren't
designed to.I don't understand. I've always thought (because I must have read
it
somewhere) that Toslink was multi-mode and that
Regardless of the science, I've yet to hear any difference between
expensive glass and really, really cheap plastic Toslink in 1m lengths
(which is all I use these days). Also, I've heard some systems sound
very slightly better/different with coax and some with Toslink.
I've also yet to hear any
You are right about TOSLINK. It is some cheap, plastic fat fibre
multimode LED crap. Really horrible and asymmetrical rise/fall times.
The 1 km and above refers to single-mode laser systems. The lasers do
not want to have all that light bouncing back at them from very close
ranges.
Lead to lots
ar-t wrote:
Big difference between works and works really good!
This is a key concept, altho it has to be adjusted. For once it works
good enough to be inaudible, there is no point in caring how close to
the theoretical maximum number of angels that can dance on the head of
the fiber.
There is
So, I guess we all agree that toslink is okay but that some (not all)
manufacturers' implementation of it is a joke.
Probably coax works better in problem toslink boxes because it's
cheaper to build it to a more acceptable level of quality.
a-rt, when you state toslink is a joke I read it like
Thank you Pat for your patient (with simple words) reply : I understand
better now.
Oh, well, and I agree with you pat(farrell): on hifi audio, my own
experience shows exactly what you have mentioned.
In fact, I noticed that measurements are often valid when comparing the
same kind of gear
pfarrell;348438 Wrote:
We really don't know what makes something sound good. There are a
few measurements that clearly correlate with bad sound.
I believe that the engineers don't have the tools to measure what
counts.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
Careful. You are
Greetings!
ar-t;348327 Wrote:
Fine. Suit yourself. Go get a TDR and measure one. Or ask someone who
has done this the last 40 years to do it for you. I have, so you have
your answer.
But you wrote this:
XLR connectorsthey really are 110 ohms. But, like he
said..they don't
Well, you concluded that I was a non-techie, so see what happens when
you draw the wrong conclusion.
OK, I have more time now, so I will try to explain in terms that a
non-native English speaker can understand.
Look at how a BNC, TNC, Type-N, of even Type-F are made. -The physical
dimensions-
ar-t;348478 Wrote:
Well, you concluded that I was a non-techie, so see what happens when
you draw the wrong conclusion.
OK, I have more time now, so I will try to explain in terms that a
non-native English speaker can understand.
[...]
This odd thing may indeed measure 75 ohms all by
Yes, they make TDRs for coax and optical systems. It was 25 years ago
when I did fibre, so getting an optical TDR to work was a pain. The
centre core was so far off of centre that it made getting a good
coupling very difficult. (Obviously, they eventually figured out how to
pull fibre, and it is
When a DAC utilizes a pulse-transformer on the coax input (like the
Benchmark DAC1 PRE for instance), how much isolation does this actually
provide in practice - does it block *all* possible intercomponent
undesirables from riding the coax interconnect, or just some/most? Is
it still
DeVerm;344567 Wrote:
Sure we can suppose things but it isn't even close to reality. A bad
crystal oscillator (let's suppose this is what's in there as it's
dirt-cheap) is 100 ppm accurate. This translates to 0.001% so that's
1000 times as good as your assumption and the minute-buffer-time
DCtoDaylight;343875 Wrote:
Perfectly true, but I'd just like to add that reflections are not purely
a problem of optical cable. You will also get reflections in a coax
cable, at every change in characteristic impedance. For example, that
budget RCA connector on the spdif output of the SB3
jhm731;345249 Wrote:
I modified my SMPS and have also tried the Aberdeen and a linear. They
all sound better than the stock PSU using the digital outputs, which
have also been upgraded in my 2.2XP. Upgrading the digital inputs also
helps.
I forgot to mention that I have the 12V lines from
jhm731;343907 Wrote:
If you're listening to a stock PSU in your TacT RCS, you have no clue
how good it can sound.
On the subject of glass vs plastic Toslink see:
www.lifatec.com/toslink4.html
JHM - is this a reference to the Aberdeen replacement PSU?
I can imagine a replacement PSU
Guys,
I've been reading some on the web and understand that good modern DAC's
will buffer incoming S/PDIF and re-clock it eliminating any all
jitter that was caused by the S/PDIF transmission. This is what I
expected they would do because it's not very difficult to implement.
Also, any
Nick, how about a brand new 2258-page topic on fiber and coax
differences ? :D
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
Themis's Profile:
DeVerm;344795 Wrote:
Guys,
I've been reading some on the web and understand that good modern DAC's
will buffer incoming S/PDIF and re-clock it eliminating any all
jitter that was caused by the S/PDIF transmission. This is what I
expected they would do because it's not very difficult
opaqueice;344553 Wrote:
The problem is average clock speed mismatch. Suppose your local clock
is 1% faster. Then you better wait a minute or so before you start
playing on a gapless 100 minute series of tracks...
Sure we can suppose things but it isn't even close to reality. A bad
crystal
DeVerm;344537 Wrote:
You receive SPDIF synchronously and it's easy to do that without
bit-errors. The clock that you can retrieve from the datastream is only
used for receiving that stream, and examined on it's -intended- rate,
like 44.1 or 48 kHz. That's where this clock ends, it's
Themis;344556 Wrote:
Because there'IS jitter already inside any player. Connecting an SB/TP
to an external DAC doesn't necessarily add more jitter to the overall
signal than the one obtained by listening to the analog outputs of the
SB/TP.
Let's put it this way: the jitter at the internal
DeVerm;344567 Wrote:
Sure we can suppose things but it isn't even close to reality. A bad
crystal oscillator (let's suppose this is what's in there as it's
dirt-cheap) is 100 ppm accurate.
I think you're looking at the wrong figure. Those are timing
variations in a given oscillator over
opaqueice;344643 Wrote:
Let's put it this way: the jitter at the internal DAC of the SB/TP must
be lower than the jitter at the DAC of a device connected to the SB via
S/PDIF (either coax or optical).I don't see why it should be this way. It's
just an assumption. You seem
to believe that
Themis;344651 Wrote:
I don't see why it should be this way. It's just an assumption. You seem
to believe that only the clock generates jitter, which is not true..
Any synchronous component generates jitter, even simple cables. So, I
don't see why the internals of SB/TP should generate less
opaqueice;344658 Wrote:
I want to make clear that I am very skeptical whether any of this is
severe enough to cause any audible problems, but it's fun playing
devil's advocate :-).Ok, I get it. I agree with you on that. ;)
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber
Why would anyone prefer plastic over glass when glass cables are readily
available inexpensively? Is anyone arguing that plastic is actually a
better transmission medium than glass?
--
TiredLegs
TiredLegs's Profile:
DeVerm;344210 Wrote:
What I meant by that is the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph in this
link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_sound_vs._digital_sound#Main_differences
It says: As of 2008, all audiophile and consumer grade digital
systems now encode the clock (which if independent
DeVerm;344210 Wrote:
What I meant by that is the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph in this
link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_sound_vs._digital_sound#Main_differences
It says: As of 2008, all audiophile and consumer grade digital
systems now encode the clock (which if independent
DCtoDaylight;344532 Wrote:
Unfortunately, this looks like an example of a wiki that is wrong and
needs editing
The SPDIF and AES/EBU interfaces have -always- encoded the clock into
the bit stream.
It's also wrong in the underlying premise. Jitter is always present,
both in
TiredLegs;344270 Wrote:
Why would anyone prefer plastic over glass when glass cables are readily
available inexpensively? Is anyone arguing that plastic is actually a
better transmission medium than glass?
Okay, I'll try again: glass is a better medium for optical transmission
than plastic.
DeVerm;344537 Wrote:
Next, you can generate your own clock with your own/local oscillator
and re-clock the data with that before sending it into the DAC chip.
This would eliminate the problem, won't it? I don't know what they do,
maybe they don't believe anyone can hear the jitter?
The
Phil Leigh;342152 Wrote:
glass v plastic is one of the enduring audiophile truism myths...like
switched v linear power supplies.
Life isn't full of absolutes. I think you should just buy a good
quality plastic and enjoy it.
Of coure we all know that coax is better anyway ;)
If you're
opaqueice;343819 Wrote:
I might be misunderstanding you, but it sounds like you're missing the
point. The issue isn't missed or false triggers - those basically
never happen under reasonable (audio) circumstances. S/PDIF is easily
capable of transmitting bit-perfect information; that's
opaqueice;343024 Wrote:
The timing -is- an issue, in principle, because it's reproduced at the
DAC end using the incoming waveform itself as a clock. That is, the
DAC clocks its output using the rising edges (or something) of the
incoming signal as the clock. When those edges get smeared,
You mean this?
+---+
|Filename: 856a2324f586134441ef9c6f6e262101.jpg |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=5914|
DeVerm;343599 Wrote:
Ah, it's called edge triggering. Edge triggered synchronous
transmission through fiber is a very solid mechanism and all that
distortion on scopes I saw in an earlier thread isn't gonna fool it. If
triggered on the rising flank, a spike/surge just before the real flank
opaqueice;343024 Wrote:
the DAC clocks its output using the rising edges (or something) of the
incoming signal as the clock. When those edges get smeared, as they do
from reflections in the optical cable, errors in the timing (otherwise
known as jitter) will be larger.
Perfectly true, but
DCtoDaylight;343875 Wrote:
I can't say which interface is best or worst, I don't have nearly
enough measured data, but there seems to be a lot of anti toslink
comments on the web, without much supporting data.
I agree about reflections in coax. About the difference between the
two, here
I've asked this before and not gotten much response, but the technically
inclined seem to have gathered here so...
From what has been said it would apprear that an optical cable can be
(or should be?) as short as possible. Yes/no?
Is there a minimum radius for a bend in the cable? Would that
gsawdy;342938 Wrote:
From what has been said it would apprear that an optical cable can be
(or should be?) as short as possible. Yes/no?
Is there a minimum radius for a bend in the cable? Would that affect
the choice between glass and plastic?
You seem to be looking for a yes/no only
gsawdy;342938 Wrote:
I've asked this before and not gotten much response, but the technically
inclined seem to have gathered here so...
From what has been said it would apprear that an optical cable can be
(or should be?) as short as possible. Yes/no?
Is there a minimum radius for a
pfarrell;342374 Wrote:
Phil Leigh wrote:
pfarrell Wrote:
Phil Leigh wrote:
I really can't help thinking that a lot of these debates are
driven
rational thinking overtaking practical reality. We know that the
transmission qualities of glass can exceed those of plastic so we
assume
DeVerm;342830 Wrote:
Timing should not be an issue anymore since they started encoding the
timing into the digital signal... (correct me if I'm wrong there).
The timing -is- an issue, in principle, because it's reproduced at the
DAC end using the incoming waveform itself as a clock. That
Well, since I started this thread I should let you all know: I went the
XLR route. I picked up a couple of 6 foot XLR microphone cables at a
local music store. Sounds perfectly fine to me. Someday if I feel
motivated maybe I'll spring for a couple of toslink cables and
compare.
Thanks for all
I would like to add the following in the discussion:
Remember, I'm an electronics engineer so this gets a bit technical;
Transmitting a digital signal over fiber optic cable has several
advantages over transmitting the same signal over copper. They are:
1. complete electrical isolation (ground
At work we send 1200GB/S for 100km and we always use glass but if you're
talking SPDIF at around 5MB/S I'm a bit more cynical.
Craig
--
Craig
MC2Slim - Windows Shell and J River Media Center Integration for
Squeezebox.
http://www.duff-zapp.co.uk
Craig;342251 Wrote:
At work we send 1200GB/S for 100km and we always use glass but if you're
talking SPDIF at around 5MB/S I'm a bit more cynical.
CraigIt's not the same protocol, is it ? ;)
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus Faber Grand Piano Domus
Can't compare computer fibre with Toslink. Toslink is driven by a
standard LED...
Also, regardless of whether plastic or glass, the cable needs to be
round in cross section to avoid asymmetric internal reflections.
However, somewhere on these forums is the famous Sean Adams Toslink
abuse post
So - dare I ask? What do folks recommend: the toslink or XLR
connection?
Joe
--
joeriz
Transporter rebuilt/modified Dynaco ST-70 amplifier JM Reynaud
Arpeggione Signature speakers
joeriz's Profile:
Phil Leigh wrote:
I really can't help thinking that a lot of these debates are driven by
rational thinking overtaking practical reality. We know that the
transmission qualities of glass can exceed those of plastic so we
assume that a glass cable should sound better.
can exceed doesn't lead to
pfarrell;342334 Wrote:
Phil Leigh wrote:
I really can't help thinking that a lot of these debates are driven
by
rational thinking overtaking practical reality. We know that the
transmission qualities of glass can exceed those of plastic so we
assume that a glass cable should sound
Phil Leigh wrote:
pfarrell Wrote:
Phil Leigh wrote:
I really can't help thinking that a lot of these debates are driven
rational thinking overtaking practical reality. We know that the
transmission qualities of glass can exceed those of plastic so we
assume that a glass cable should sound
joeriz;342319 Wrote:
So - dare I ask? What do folks recommend: the toslink or XLR
connection?
Joe
In my limited experience, I've nearly always found the XLR connection
(when available) to give best results.
However I've also found that different audio pieces can be
unpredictable, and
I apologize in advance if this causes a stir although that is not my
intention.
I recently purchased a Behringer DEQ2496 which I would like to hook up
in the digital loop of my Transporter. So, obviously, I'm going to
need a couple of toslink cables. So I do a search on a few different
forums
joeriz;342052 Wrote:
My question: does it really matter for a roughly 3-6 foot run of cable?
Why not just try it out?
Audiophiles swear by glass - for me the difference is negligible to
non-existent.
--
Mark Lanctot
Make it so it doesn't suck is a good design target, but hard to
implement
The main problem with optical toslink cables is generated jitter. I
haven't come across a study stating that glass intrinsically generates
less jitter... But you'll need good cables, that's for sure.
PS: unfortunately I can't get a hold on the measures of optical cables'
generated jitter, but
Mark Lanctot;342055 Wrote:
Why not just try it out?
'Cause I don't want to buy both kinds. ;0)
Joe
--
joeriz
Transporter rebuilt/modified Dynaco ST-70 amplifier JM Reynaud
Arpeggione Signature speakers
joeriz's
Themis;342078 Wrote:
But you'll need good cables, that's for sure.
Why, for such an easy application? The Behringer's doing a lot more to
the signal than any cable does.
joeriz;342100 Wrote:
'Cause I don't want to buy both kinds. ;0)
I guess I meant, try out plastic and see if it sounds
FYI, you can use coax with the DEQ2496, you just need to hook it to the
AES/EBU connector with a balanced xlr on one end and a RCA on the
other.
The manual covers this, you have to short two of the pins (13 I
think... can't remember) on the xlr side.
I've done this with a custom cable I put
joeriz wrote:
I apologize in advance if this causes a stir although that is not my
intention.
I recently purchased a Behringer DEQ2496 which I would like to hook up
in the digital loop of my Transporter. So, obviously, I'm going to
need a couple of toslink cables.
Why is that obvious?
I
Mark Lanctot;342108 Wrote:
Why, for such an easy application? The Behringer's doing a lot more to
the signal than any cable does.You are probably right, simply I don't like
buying cables that I'm
obliged to throw away later. ;)
--
Themis
SB3 - North Star dac 192 - Denon 3808 - Sonus
bluejeanscable.com sells plastic Toslink rather than glass. They offer
a rationale here:
http://www.bluejeanscable.com/store/digital-audio/index.htm
I'd be inclined to trust them.
--
opaqueice
opaqueice's Profile:
glass v plastic is one of the enduring audiophile truism myths...like
switched v linear power supplies.
Life isn't full of absolutes. I think you should just buy a good
quality plastic and enjoy it.
Of coure we all know that coax is better anyway ;)
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the signal
You could always check out the odd review although they are always bound
to recommend the most expensive option aren't they? ;-)
http://www.tnt-audio.com/accessories/toslink_comparison_e.html
--
Nuuk
Nuuk's Profile:
Robin Bowes;342129 Wrote:
joeriz wrote:
I recently purchased a Behringer DEQ2496 which I would like to hook
up
in the digital loop of my Transporter. So, obviously, I'm going to
need a couple of toslink cables.
Why is that obvious?
R.
Well, only if you're an idiot like me. ;0)
The only comment I'll throw into this debate is if you do decide to try
and go with a glass optical cable, try and look at the termination
before you do. I've got a couple of these superior glass cables, but
the ends are circular, rather than D shaped, and frankly, the sloppy
alignment of the
DCtoDaylight;342199 Wrote:
The only comment I'll throw into this debate is if you do decide to try
and go with a glass optical cable, try and look at the termination
before you do. I've got a couple of these superior glass cables, but
the ends are circular, rather than D shaped, and
89 matches
Mail list logo
