It's still a confused point. People who are using their TV's speakers won't hear a difference between optical and coaxial cables because they will be using neither. They'll be using analog stereo cables.

You want to ratchet down the rhetoric there a little bit before you go calling someone's opinion juvenile?

In a later post you provided a link to a story about fiber optic cables that are used by the phone company for cross-country data transmission. These can't be compared to the kind of cables used in the home consumer market.

Yes, there are glass optical cables, and undoubtedly some of it makes its way into high-end home interconnects. But most of what is sold for the consumer market is not glass, it's polymer, i.e. plastic.

Either way, it makes no difference over a typical three- to six-foot run from a DVD player to a surround sound receiver.

Do you really believe that the speed that signals move through a three foot length of wire makes a difference in what we're talking about here? Really?

What about the components inside DVD players and receivers that have to convert the electrical signal into a light signal and back again? That adds two steps to the equation and certainly affects performance.

Finally, most receivers have more than one optical input because TOSLink connections have been used on other components, such as Minidisc. These other components must be accomodated, therefore requiring additional optical inputs.

Optical is the only way to go. Well...
The reason I use optical:
I have 6 divices that require it and I have always believed that it is better. Just my thoughts.

Mr. Salty...

1) I am sure there are TVs out there that accept digital input.

2) Yes, I can compair cross country data transmission optical cable to home theater optical cable because it is the same technology (well, I don't know if home theater has adapted the multi frequency type yet). You say it makes no difference, but clearly, if I am hearing a difference (between coaxial and optical)and others are not who are using plastic, there is some difference.

3) The signal has to be converted to coaxial as well. Do you think that all the cables in your receiver are that thick? Coaxial is so think because it need a thick insulator. If you ever get to see the inside of a receiver, the wires are nowhere near as thick, therefore a different type of signal. Also, so you are saying that one devise (DVD Players) use coaxial while multiple other devises including DVD Players use optical? To me, that seems like a new norm in development.

By the way, what brand and model of optical cable are you using? What brands and models are your DVD player, receiver and speakers?

josh, before you continue this argument, please read up on exactly what is happening across a digital audio line. These are bits being transmitted; if the cables are of sufficiently low quality, then bits might be dropped, but this will not result in a sound that is "warmer" or "thinner" (terms that are nebulous enough when you're talking about speaker cable). This is not an analog audio signal, and there's no such thing as a weak 1 or 0; the bit is either going to be correct or wrong. When a digital signal with incorrect bits is run through the DAC, it is usually going to come out as garbage. This is clearly not happening to those of us using coaxial or plastic optical cables.

Think of it this way: if the cable made so much of a difference, then why aren't there more units that integrate the receiver with the CD/DVD player, and bypass the digital link entirely?

Its actually father's system I helped put together a few years ago. All components are top of the line Mitsubishi. I think the Receiver is VR-1000 but I am not sure what the DVD Player is. The speakers are Mitsubishi as well; I admit they aren't even close to being great, but they do a damn good job. The total system, including TV, cost a little over $10,000 (I think). As for the optical cable, I'll have to call home and let ya know.

I'm not arguing that there are weak or thinner 1s and 0s, I am saying that 1s and 0s are lost. When those are lost, part of the sound is lost. The loss in sound can result in a thinner sound as minute parts of the sound do not make it to the speakers. Ex: you watch a concert of a person playing a guitar on a DVD Player. They pluck a string, this is sends 1s and 0s to the receiver which outputs to the speakers. If some of thoses 1s and 0s are lost, will you still hear the plucked string? Yes. Will it be the full, intended sound which was encoded on the DVD? No. Minimizing the amount of 1s and 0s lost is the reason to use optical cable.

Josh, you are incorrect in everything you have stated.

No information is lost in coaxial connections or lower grade
fiber optics.

The one true benefit you gain from fiber optics is bandwidth.
Thats it. Increased speed and amount of information transmitted.

I don't know how much bandwidth is used by the audio output of a DD5.1 bitstream or a DTS bitstream but I am positive that it is in no way pushing the boundaries of even the cheapest coaxial cables.

The only time fiber is ever going to be a better choice is in applications where the bandwidth needed exceeds the capabilities of the equipment.

So why is optical so popular for digital stereo? Because there is alot more profit in it. People like you assume you are getting something for your money. You are not. The technology is better and provides for alot of growth but digital sound is never going to need optical.

Once we start seeing digital video outputs direct to an HDTV monitor from a dvd player or HDVD player sometime in the future those optical cables might be needed. For audio THEY SERVE NO PURPOSE. YOU DO NOT NEED OR USE THE EXTRA BANDWIDTH.

All the liabilities that come with optical make it a poor choice to use when you are seeing no benefit.

-K

If you happen to be dropping just the LSB's, which is why I said the sound would "usually" be garbage.

Interesting thread.

Here in the UK, the received wisdom is that co-ax is the preferred option. I suspect that there is a conversion necessary to output data to optical and that quality can suffer in this process.

My high-end (around $1400) DVD manufacturer (Arcam) actually recommends that you use co-ax if you have the choice.

My 36" Toshiba CRT TV accepts both co-ax and optical input since it has in-built DD decoding, by the way.

Nope, there is no loss in quality, it's still the same digital information.

Of course, since all DVD players are only reading the DVD and sending 0s and 1s down the wire to the amp/receiver/decoder/TV/projector there can be no difference in the picture/sound quality, can there?

Sound quality? No, if your player doesn't have a built in DD/DTS decoder then all the responsibility rests on the receiver.

Picture quality? Different story entirely, you're talking about an analog signal.

No one jumped on this while I was gone... Shame! Information is always lost during the transmission. No material out there is capable of transmiting data without losing some. Fiber optic loses less data than coaxial on average becuase it is a constant medium. Coaxial uses alloys and metal has more imperfections. Glass fiber optic has less imperfections then plastic fiber optic, meaning it will lose less data.

Think about what you are saying. You are saying that the coaxial supplied by the manufactures is equal in quality to a high grade coaxial you can purchase. If this were true, recording studios would have no need to spend over $10 a foot for cable because the $0.10 a foot cable would give the same performance. I can tell you from personal experience that this is not true.

Interesting post.

Maybe each player operates better with different cables. One player may operate better with coaxial, while another may operate better with optical. Anyone else have company recommendations?

Signal degredation and loss of data are not at all the same thing. The former does not guarantee the latter, or nothing electronic would work.

Yes, but imperfections cause both. Imperfections are evil! Optical has less imperfections, therefore less chance for data degredation or loss.

Everything I've read says optical has more inherent imperfections due to the type of medium it is, thus the potential jitter and physical problems. Perhaps you could quote some sources stating what the imperfections of each are and their effects on transmitting digital data?

Do you realize how hard it is too find information about that without stumbling onto a companies website? You really love challenging me don't you? I'm game...

http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/S.Bhat...es/node21.html

Okay, there is a direct comparison between the two mediums. This is from the Department of Computer Science at the Univerity College London. I can find more if you want, but I think that should do (for now atleast).

Josh,

You get much more signal degradation going from electrical-optical
and back to electrical then you are ever going to get passing through either type of connector.

Perhaps you think your optical connection is being read directly from your dvd and sent to your receiver?

That is not how optical connections work.

You are taking an electrical signal from the read laser, sending it through a photodiode converting it to an optical signal.

That optical signal is then being sent to some sort of receiver which again converts it to electronic so that it can be decoded.

You will pick up much more jitter and noise from those 2 extra conversions than any coaxial connection will ever produce.

The amount of data being transmitted is so low that this entire process is a huge waste of time and money. You are paying more for less. Optical connectors will lose signal for reasons that have no effect on coaxial at all, tight bends and loose connections being two major ones. Couple that with the fact that pitting and scratching will happen over time and optical is even less attractive. Plus you will always have to worry about back reflection, you may get bad cables. Coaxial has none of these issues.

-K

Kevlar...

I realize that the signal is converted, but it is also converted for coaxial. The the laser reads the data and turn it into an electrical format, which is then converted into a coaxial format. The receiver gets the coaxial format and converts to an electrical format. Same number of steps.

Atleast you are admitting that now, but it is not a waste of money when quality is concerned.

Improper installation or mistreatment of ones equipment can not be blamed on the cable. And you can get bad coaxial too, so don't think that is an issue.

As I said before, you should probably get a better understanding of what is going on in the world of electronics before you continue this discussion. You are obviously just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind and passing it off as authoritative.

Well, since you are the resident expert, why don't you explain it to me?

First off, next time you do a web search and try to pass it off as something you have read, try to get something a little more recent.

Optical technology has advanced pretty far in the last 8 years. The article you quoted was written in 1995.

Then maybe you should look up one of these electrical to coaxial converters you seem to be touting. I for one have not seen nor heard of one.

-K

Huh? What is a "coaxial format?" Coaxial is simply a type of shielded copper cable that carries an electrical signal. This is why a coat hangar can also be used. There is no "coaxial format."

That may mean something when you're transmitting a signal from New York to Los Angeles. When you're sending a signal three feet from a DVD player to a receiver, the amount of signal loss is so infinitessimal as to be insignificant.

This is the part of the argument that seems to be escaping you. You're comparing the advantages of fiber optic cable for transcontinental applications to use in an incredibly short audio interconnect.

Yes, Sony makes a point of recommending coaxial connections when given a choice.

In a previous post you wrote that you were sure you had a glass optical fiber cable, yet you don't even know what brand the cable is? I'm honestly not trying to start a flame war, but I would really like to know how you know the cable is glass.

You seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of how digital recording, encoding, transmission and decoding works.