Coaxial vs Optical

[Aeromos]

I'm throwing this out to everyone. Which of the two gives a cleaner and more detailed sound? I've always thought that going with optical for surround sound was better than coaxial. But recently I've read that What Hi-Fi magazine prefers coaxial over optical. Please clarify your opinion (or fact) and if possible the technical reasons behind it (eg. loss of signal, noise interference).




Aeromos
Enjoy life, it's too short to waste!!
My Collection

[Lex]

Well, some have different opinions on this. My opinion is that optical sounds more digital, less smooth than it's coaxial counterpart.

This could be due in part to the fact optical must go through an additional layer of conversion by the RTX converters. (convert pulse signal to light)Then of course, on the receiving end, it must again be converted back to pulse technology the DAC understands.

Is it coincidence that DVD players with one digital out uses optical? I think not. I think it's because it's a cheaper way to do it when using cheap optical parts.

So, in the end, try it for yourself, and some say using glass optical cables can help. But for me, good old coax will do quite nicely.

Lex

[Andrew Pratt]

If you have the option use Coax since its a more robust connection and if the audiophiles are right coax does sound better. Optical's nice when you want to break the gound shared between devices which can come in handy if there's a hum in your speakers but that's likely best fixed at the root of the problem not with an optical cable. In the end though there's likely very sublte if any differences between the two cables but if you can use coax use it...if not don't loose sleep over it.

[Jariten]

I'm using optical from my DVD and LD player...
why?
just wanted to try it out...
some downsides are ..no looping of the optical cables..
(tight turns is a no-no)
I have 2 XLO/VDO otical cables and they sound nice...they feed my Halo C-1
I also have 1000ft of optical cable in my office..just there..not doing anything....

[SiliGoose]

It's nothing more than ones and zeros. The cables perform identically. This is one area where, it seems, the cable debate should be pretty clear cut. There is no difference in terms of performance. The difference is in personal preference/need. Coax may be better (and less expensive) over long cable runs.




-Sili

[George Bellefontaine]

Hard to tell the difference with these tired old ears of mine. But I did notice a difference when replacing a Monster coax with one of Doug's Supercats coax.




My Homepage!

[David Meek]

Yep, they are all ones and zeros, BUT. . . . you knew that was coming, right? As I understand it, there is an extra conversion step of data to the optical stream at the source and consequently a second "extra" conversion back from it at the processor-side. This could be adding to the "difference" in what we hear.

As always, YMMV.




David - HTGuide flunky
Our "Theater"
Our DVDs on DVD Tracker

[Lex]

Sili, pardon my calling your hand here, but your post reads a bit like God wrote it. It's not all fact period. Even I, a cable expert, specifiy my comments as my opinion, I'd appreciate your doing the same. I know your from the cable neysayer camp, but I cannot let that opinion be stated as fact without disputing it every time.

It is not fact that they are the same, because in fact there is an additional layer of conversions required in optical that is not necessary in coax. That's a fact. Are the signals the same when all the conversions are done and they are at the receiving DAC? It's highly debatable. While it is fact, it's pulse on, pulse off, zeros/ones, it's certainly not fact that everything is converted the same in these two processes.

So, the cable debate being clearcut as in both being the same?? Far from it. Among most audiophiles, the cable debate is pretty clear that coax is a superior method of transmission. A few do believe in glass coax for higher end optical systems.

Lex

[Chris D]

Sili does have the basic concept correct, that it's all 1's and 0's with digital media, but Doug is right in that it's all how the digital information is used, converted, interpreted, etc. For a long time, I've wondered a related topic, "if a CD (DVD, DVD-A, SACD, etc) is all digital media, and it's all 1's and 0's, why should the player make any difference in the quality of the sound and video output? Does one player REALLY make that much difference over another, and if so, why?

I've never really personally heard/seen a side-by-side comparison of players to demonstrate this, but I'm pretty confident in taking the word of others who have. The same digital conversion/transmission issue seems to me to apply to cable transmissions.

For a difference in players, like I mentioned, the important issue seems to be the D/A conversions. What is the issue with digital audio transmissions? As I'm not an expert here, I'd like to learn. It seems that on an optical line, a light will pulse, signifying a "1" with the light on, and "0" with the light off. (true?) But the player and processor still both have to convert the digital signal in the unit (maybe electrical after being read off the disc?) to the light signal and back. Is there something else that goes on?

I'm even less sure about coax cable. Is the signal an electrical charge, measured as a 1 or 0 by voltage? And if so, is it converted at all from the signal inside the player/processor that is read from the disc and changed to a manageable signal?

I know this subject comes up every few months, but I've never really learned the essential concepts of how it works.




CHRIS
Luke: "Hey, I'm not such a bad pilot myself, you know"

[Chris D]

bump, for answers to questions above.




CHRIS
Luke: "Hey, I'm not such a bad pilot myself, you know"