# Plastic vs. Glass Toslink, what difference do you hear?



## dshea_32665

I just received my glass toslink cable. I knew this would probably be the most subtle of my upgrades, but I was wondering for those who can hear a difference, what that is?

 I am not really interested in which is better or if there is a difference, that has been covered in other threads.

 To me it is subtle, but the glass does tend to be just a bit smoother and just the slightest less simbelance (sp?), by less I mean about 1%. The glass sound may seem a bit weightier and darker in sound but just by a tiny bit.

 Does this sound like what others experience? Of course I have been listening to a total of 30 minutes so this is just an initial observation, do these things burn in since they are optical?

 I am glad I got it, it was cheap off ebay, but just curious. As I continue to listen I do hear more clearly my observations above.

 dshea


----------



## dd3mon

From what I remembered, the plastic coax I had seemed to have a smoother sound, while the glass more detailed and clean. This is a distant impression (I've been using the glass exclusively for many months now), perhaps I'll switch them out again tonight and see if I can hear a decent difference.

 -dd3mon


----------



## dshea_32665

After spending more time with the glass toslink, it does improve the sound noticeably, but still by the smallest amount of any upgrade I have done. I think it give a slightly purer signal which brings out more of my SR-71. The sound is detailed, but smoother and slightly darker and weightier. These are the same qualities that my SR-71 added to my setup, so I think the glass is allowing the SR-71 to do slightly more of what it does well. For $29.95 on ebay it was a great purchase.

 dshea


----------



## JeffS

I'm sorry for asking, but are you serious????
 I'm not trying to flame, but I don't understand how the cable type can
 make a difference in this case. 

 I understood when I read about people spending a fortune on power cables and line conditioning. I understand using silver interconnects, and that stuff.

 How does changing the optical cable make a difference in the sound though?
 It's bits! little 1's and 0's. Either they get there or they don't. 

 My appolgies if I'm coming off sounding like a jerk, but I deal with fiber for computers on a regular basis. I just can't imagine a tonal difference in cable type here...

 I would think this is a placebo effect.
 I'm honestly curious.

 -Jeff


----------



## Mr.Radar

SPDIF is a specification that is very prone to jitter (which can be audible, especially with a non-reclocking DAC), and glass cables are able to transmit the SPDIF data with less jitter.


----------



## HMan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JeffS* 
_I'm sorry for asking, but are you serious????
 I understood when I read about people spending a fortune on power cables and line conditioning. I understand using silver interconnects, and that stuff.

 How does changing the optical cable make a difference in the sound though?
 It's bits! little 1's and 0's. Either they get there or they don't. 
 -Jeff_

 

Actually I think that it is even worse than that. I can understand when there is a difference between coax and optical--you are exercising different inputs--but here it is between glass and plastic fiber. Frankly I cannot see how you can have a tonal change. In the S/PDIF spec (IEC958), the sample is on bits 8-27 of a 32-bit subframe. I don't understand how you can effect those bits in order to have a tonal change without totally distroying the sound sample. Also keep in mind that at 44.1 kHz, we are talking about less than 3 Mbit/s bit rates. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## HMan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Mr.Radar* 
_SPDIF is a specification that is very prone to jitter (which can be audible, especially with a non-reclocking DAC), and glass cables are able to transmit the SPDIF data with less jitter._

 

Again, I'm sorry here but this is not true. Jitter is a function of input and output systems, it really has very little to do with the medium i.e. glass or plastic. If a system is prone to jitter it will suffer in either case. Also like I previously stated we are dealing with bitrates of less than 3 Mbit/s. Any modern fiber system will be able to deal with rates that are at least 2 orders of magnitude higher.


----------



## tomek

actually, i found the cables i used made a big difference.

 the glass was more clear, transparent sounding.

 plastic had a more organic, warm feel to it.

 i much preferred the plastic, it was more musical, but others may have preferred the glass.


----------



## NotoriousBIG_PJ

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_actually, i found the cables i used made a big difference.

 the glass was more clear, transparent sounding.

 plastic had a more organic, warm feel to it.

 i much preferred the plastic, it was more musical, but others may have preferred the glass._

 

That mirrors my thoughts exactly!

 Biggie.


----------



## dshea_32665

Jeff, you aren't coming across badly. I bought the cable because it was cheap and I thought what the heck. I thought exactly as you did, how can it make a difference for optical. Maybe the actual connectors are higher quality? It makes no sense to me either, and the difference is slight, but I'll be damned if I do hear the subtle difference mentioned above. I guess if it is a placebo affect, who cares because I believe it sounds better. Ignorance is bliss. But, I really believe I am hearing a difference as I continue to A/B them every few hours.

 I didn't really want to get into the whole discussion of whether there is a difference (previous threads), I was mainly wanting to know that for those who do hear a difference, what it is.

 Okay, I can actually hear that the glass is clearer and more detailed. This would be consistent with my observation that it brings out more from what my amp does so well.

 dshea


----------



## ReasonablyLucid

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *JeffS* 
_I'm sorry for asking, but are you serious????
 I'm not trying to flame, but I don't understand how the cable type can
 make a difference in this case. 

 I understood when I read about people spending a fortune on power cables and line conditioning. I understand using silver interconnects, and that stuff.

 How does changing the optical cable make a difference in the sound though?
 It's bits! little 1's and 0's. Either they get there or they don't. 

 My appolgies if I'm coming off sounding like a jerk, but I deal with fiber for computers on a regular basis. I just can't imagine a tonal difference in cable type here...

 I would think this is a placebo effect.
 I'm honestly curious.

 -Jeff_

 

I too deal with fiber networks for computers and I also call shens on this.

 Prehaps the difference they hear is that some of the data is indeed not making it to the destination on the plastic cables so the sound properties slighly change?

 Glass is used with computers for data intregity, the data *will* get to the destination switch/computer.

 I think with the plastic you guys are losing a small percentage of the sound (a 1 or 0 here and there) which could change the qualities of it slightly.


----------



## JeffS

Thanks,
 I'm glad I didn't come off the wrong way, because I can assure you
 the way I was thinking, I would have 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm glad that the upgrade cable has imroved your listening experience. I will admit that I still don't get it. when dubbing via optical I've never experienced a difference except to my wallet. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Seriously, It's good to hear various peoples reports on things like this.

 -Jeff


----------



## dshea_32665

Interesting comments on plastic being more musical and organic. I went back to the plastic again and I can actually appreciate this difference. I also now know what people mean by detailed versus musical (not that detail precludes being musical). The plastic is smoother and seems freer and more natural. The glass is more detailed and dense.

 It actually reminds me to a lesser extent from when I rolled an AD8620 opamp into my Piccolo DAC, replacing the LM6172. The AD chip was more detailed but was a bit too much. I went back to the more musical and warmer sounding LM amp. The glass cable isn't quite as dramatic of difference as the opamp comparison, but it is in the same vein.

 I think I am starting to feel the same as tomek and Notorius, the warmer and more natural sound of the plastic cable seems to me preferrable, at least for the classical music I am listening to. 

 dshea


----------



## HMan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ReasonablyLucid* 
_Glass is used with computers for data intregity, the data *will* get to the destination switch/computer.

 I think with the plastic you guys are losing a small percentage of the sound (a 1 or 0 here and there) which could change the qualities of it slightly._

 

I guarantee you that if you are using optical in a computer network, you are in the 800 Mbit/s and greater data rates. With CD sound, we are talking about 3 Mbit/s data rate with 16 bit samples. The S/PDIF spec using 32 bit subframes so for each frame only half the data is sound sample. In addition, there is also a parity check to validate that data. So one error per frame would cause the frame to be dropped. Greater than one error might or might not be detected. But at 3 Mbit/s on an optical system, it is highly improbable to have one error let alone more than one error frame. So the likely scenario of losing a 1 or 0 here and there is that of a frame drop. I would think that dropping frame would be much more noticeable than a tonal or sibilance change. Also keep in mind that these errors must be completely random. So that these tonal changes must change over time. 

 I am sorry if I'm coming across too strong. Trust me, I'll be the first to fall on my sword if anybody can provide a reasonable explanation. I just don't see how glass versus plastic could have tonal or sibilance changes.


----------



## gaboo

I think the sound difference is due to the different refraction coefficient between glass and plastic. This results in different jitter, despite the almost nil bit error rate.

 Remeber: adio (from the DAC) = bits + clock. Plenty of info here: http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=90069


----------



## eric343

Is this single-mode or multi-mode fiber?

 (the difference is that in single-mode, the light travels in a straight-down-the-center path. With multi-mode, it bounces around the inside of the fiber, and a pulse sent at a given time will fast spread out in the time domain.)


----------



## dd3mon

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HMan* 
_I am sorry if I'm coming across too strong. Trust me, I'll be the first to fall on my sword if anybody can provide a reasonable explanation. I just don't see how glass versus plastic could have tonal or sibilance changes. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



_

 

I'm a recent computer science graduate and the "difference" between one digital source (using a digital output) or better yet the difference between digital cables (that actually got the data through) seemed ridiculous to me.

 However, there is a key factor about digital audio that is irrelevant to computer data, the clock. The clock inside your computer (let's say on a network card that determines when exactly to send a packet of data over a network) is _ridiculously_ inaccurate on high-end audio standards. Since audio digital to analog conversion is done on the fly, the bits arriving exactly on time is _crucial_ to getting the conversion done well. Unfortunately that's where budget sources (computer, cheap dvd and cd players, etc) fail miserably. Their clocks are very inaccurate and therefore provide a great deal of jitter to screw up the signal. Cables can have the same effect if they don't transmit the data exactly as it's given to them (we're talking pico-seconds of error here that can make an audible difference!).

 A website devoted to jitter (and more devoted to selling their anti-jitter product) has some great reading on the subject. Here's the link:

http://www.jitter.de/english/engc_navfr.html

 Despite the obvious bias, they do explain the basics well.

 -dd3mon


----------



## HMan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gaboo* 
_I think the sound difference is due to the different refraction coefficient between glass and plastic. This results in different jitter, despite the almost nil bit error rate.

 Remeber: adio (from the DAC) = bits + clock. Plenty of info here: http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=90069_

 

The index of refraction for glass is 1.50-1.62. The index of refraction for plastic is from 1.45 - 1.60. In any case we are talking about a timing difference in sub picosecond range. Given that talking about 163 nanosecond clock rate with an allowable +-20 nanoseconds of jitter in the signal, I don't see that the refraction can make any difference.


----------



## gaboo

If someone can find the specs for TOSLINK (or ADAT optical for that matter) I'll add them to faq-in-progress page...


----------



## HMan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dd3mon* 
_Cables can have the same effect if they don't transmit the data exactly as it's given to them (we're talking pico-seconds of error here that can make an audible difference!)._

 

My copy of the IEC958 specification states that it has a +/- 20 nanosecond margin of clock jitter. If that is not the case, then it explains quite a bit.


----------



## gaboo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HMan* 
_The index of refraction for glass is 1.50-1.62. The index of refraction for plastic is from 1.45 - 1.60. In any case we are talking about a timing difference in sub picosecond range. Given that talking about 163 nanosecond clock rate with an allowable +-20 nanoseconds of jitter in the signal, I don't see that the refraction can make any difference._

 

I'm no expert on optics, I was just tossing an idea around. Most of the studies on jitter have been done on electrical. It seems there are few AEs that know optics...

 Anyway, I did find this paper, which seems to support your statement that jitter due to fiber is within ps.

 But, toshiba has this product page, which shows much higher values. It looks like most of the jitter happens at the transmitter/receiver.


----------



## HMan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gaboo* 
_If someone can find the specs for TOSLINK (or ADAT optical for that matter) I'll add them to faq-in-progress page..._

 

The S/PIF IEC958 specification is copyrighted and used to cost quite a bit of money. Thank you Sony and Philips. I don't know if this true any more.

 A good link to the subject can be found here.


----------



## gaboo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *HMan* 
_The S/PIF IEC958 specification is copyrighted and used to cost quite a bit of money. Thank you Sony and Philips. I don't know if this true any more.

 A good link to the subject can be found here._

 

I've linked http://www.audioprecision.com/bin/Tn-26.pdf on the jitter thread. It covers the updated IEC 60958, and (blush) it covers toslink...


----------



## gaboo

Toslink uses plastic multi-mode optical fiber with a
 red light-emitting diode (LED) transmitter and a photo
 diode receiver. The transmission distance is limited to less
 than a few yards (or meters). IEC60958-3 has a section for
 defining this format but it is still “under consideration.” As a
 result, methods of defining receiver and transmitter
 performance do not have a benchmark to evaluate against.


----------



## gaboo

So it looks like the light disperses through the fiber (multi mode) => jitter plenty.

 Can anyone tell what kind of fiber was tested in the umd paper?


----------



## dd3mon

I just compared my glass to my plastic again. The glass seems more extended, clearer and more detailed than the plastic. The plastic sounds a tiny bit thin (due to less bass extension) and seems to have some "haze" to the sound.

 My plastic optical is super-duper cheap however, it's a <$10 GE model. My glass is the glass optical from eBay (reasonably priced, great looks and build quality).

 -dd3mon


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gaboo* 
_Toslink uses plastic multi-mode optical fiber with a
 red light-emitting diode (LED) transmitter and a photo
 diode receiver. The transmission distance is limited to less
 than a few yards (or meters). IEC60958-3 has a section for
 defining this format but it is still “under consideration.” As a
 result, methods of defining receiver and transmitter
 performance do not have a benchmark to evaluate against._

 

Well, guess it's time to try using a single-mode fiber...


----------



## gaboo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_Well, guess it's time to try using a single-mode fiber..._

 

Is there plastic single-mode? Is it cheap? Will it work despite the spec?


----------



## tomek

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dd3mon* 
_I just compared my glass to my plastic again. The glass seems more extended, clearer and more detailed than the plastic. The plastic sounds a tiny bit thin (due to less bass extension) and seems to have some "haze" to the sound.

 My plastic optical is super-duper cheap however, it's a <$10 GE model. My glass is the glass optical from eBay (reasonably priced, great looks and build quality).

 -dd3mon_

 

I guess we have different preferences. I find the glass to be overly analytical. It makes a digital cable feel 'digital', and not in a good way. Like the equivalent of a silver cable.

 My plastic is more musical, and I find myself listening to my music not analzying my gear more when I use it, and that's what we want as the bottom line.

 BTW, mine isn't as cheap, so that might be the issue.


----------



## gaboo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *tomek* 
_My plastic is more musical, and I find myself listening to my music not analzying my gear more when I use it, and that's what we want as the bottom line.

 BTW, mine isn't as cheap, so that might be the issue._

 

What is your DAC?


----------



## flecom

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_Well, guess it's time to try using a single-mode fiber..._

 

wont work, single mode is designed for lasers, not LED's

 i doubt you will get enough light on the other end for the signal to actually get there

 also i doubt how there can be a difference really between the glass and plastic, the speed of light is the speed of light...

 the only thing i could see would be a poorly polished end connector... (do they polish audio fibers?)

 anyway i wont comment much as the only fiber i work with is single/multimode fiber for data networks


----------



## dshea_32665

I mean no disrespect to those who know a lot about all the technical computer science and physics information describing that there can be no difference between the two. I really don't. I am enjoying your discussions very much and learning a lot.

 I am just curious. For those who say there can be no difference, have you actually compared the two and listened for yourself? This isn't meant to be an antagonistic question and I am not intending to devalidate your discussions, perhaps there are other elements which affect the sound. I am just genuinely curious.

 After listening for a couple of days, there is a clear difference between the two on my particular setup. It is exactly as Tomek and others have said previously. The sound is not identical and is definitely not a placebo affect. I get a slight digital headache and fatigue listening to the glass toslink after awhile. This always happens to me when I change a variable in my setup to make it more detailed/digital. It is why I can't listen to the AD8620 opamp in my DAC.

 dshea


----------



## JeffS

I doubt too many would take your suggestion/question with disrespect.
 I've used both expensive glass, and cheap plastic for interconnects years ago when recording to MD. Results were identical. Some may argue that this is because it's being converted to a lossy format even if it is a high bitrates...

 What I would like to see, and I don't know if anyone on here has the access to the right equipment, is an actual measured test of both kinds of fiber.
 Since I'm not working at my old job I no longer have access to fiber splicing and testing hardware. I'm curious if there is signal degredation between the two choices.

 I'd also be interested to see the wave form output from the DAC with both glass and plastic. 

 Between these two tests, I think a difference could scientifically be established. Any thoughts?

 Does anyone have the means to do any of the above testing?


 dshea, I'm not saying that you aren't hearing a difference. I am questioning what actually is the difference. As I've said before, if you've got a sound setup you're happy with, congrats. After all, when all is said and done, it really is about the enjoyment of the music.

 -Jeff


----------



## gaboo

Anyone with equipment to do that kind of study, would probably publish it an AES journal or conference, not on head-fi...

 FYI gigabit ethernet had to take DMD induced jitter into account. But toslink uses LEDs so it shouldn't suffer from it...


----------



## dshea_32665

Thanks for the clarification Jeff. I wrote that message after reading the blood bath on the amps forum, so I wanted to ask my question in the way it was meant, with no chance of being misinterpreted. I am fascinated about what all the variables are for different sounds we are hearing, so I have been enjoying reading what people have to say wrestling with all this stuff.

 dshea


----------



## eric343

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *flecom* 
_wont work, single mode is designed for lasers, not LED's

 i doubt you will get enough light on the other end for the signal to actually get there_

 

I will have to do some experimentation, but I think that it's doable.


----------



## flecom

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *eric343* 
_I will have to do some experimentation, but I think that it's doable._

 

its doable, yes... but it would involve lasers, LED light will simply not go more than maybe a foot through a single mode fiber if even that


----------



## flecom

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *dshea_32665* 
_I mean no disrespect to those who know a lot about all the technical computer science and physics information describing that there can be no difference between the two. I really don't. I am enjoying your discussions very much and learning a lot.

 I am just curious. For those who say there can be no difference, have you actually compared the two and listened for yourself? This isn't meant to be an antagonistic question and I am not intending to devalidate your discussions, perhaps there are other elements which affect the sound. I am just genuinely curious.

 After listening for a couple of days, there is a clear difference between the two on my particular setup. It is exactly as Tomek and others have said previously. The sound is not identical and is definitely not a placebo affect. I get a slight digital headache and fatigue listening to the glass toslink after awhile. This always happens to me when I change a variable in my setup to make it more detailed/digital. It is why I can't listen to the AD8620 opamp in my DAC.

 dshea_

 


 honestly i have never used optical toslink until tonight actually

 either way, no, i personally have not compared plastic/glass

 is it possible that it makes a difference, of course, quite literally anything can make a difference, who knows maybe your glass fiber has a better connector and it closer to the LED/sensor?

 but really i doubt that glass/plastic would make a differece... 

 but like i said, i base that only on my knowledge of fiber from data networks

 is glass fiber better than plastic? of course, there is no plastic fiber used for data communications for a reason, but its mostly distance limitations


----------



## roadbuster

The notion that glass vs. plastic interconnects for the 
 transmission of digitally-encoded linear PCM audio signals 
 has a deterministic, filtering effect is preposterous. It's 
 simply not a believable idea that the distortion effects
 between the two materials would lead to such an effect.

 Consider three distortion effects on signals driven over 
 an optical cable: jitter, bit errors, and material-dependent 
 frequency response. Let's start with the last concept first. 
 The frequency response of any optical transmission medium 
 is going to be non-linear after some point. What is that 
 point for plastic and glass cables? Somewhere around 
 400MHz/km for shoddy plastics, and 2GHz/km for half-decent 
 glass. Given that your S/PDIF signal might be at 192KHz at 
 the most, and that the maximum length of cable that any of 
 you are using is, maybe, 10 feet, high-frequency roll-off is 
 not a meaningful distortion mechanism for digital audio signals.

 Now, let's look at the source of error mentioned first: jitter. 
 To avoid confusion, let's define what jitter really is. Jitter 
 refers to the variation in a signal's phase relative to their 
 ideal position in time. For example, if an edge of a square 
 wave was supposed to arrive at time T, but actually showed-
 up at time (T+t), then the jitter is 't.' 

 How much jitter is tolerable? Jitter is tolerable to the point 
 where the data is out-of-sync with the sampling window at 
 the receiver. How big is this sampling window? Ideally, it's 
 [ 1 / 2*sample frequency ]. Given a 192KHz signal, the 
 sampling window is 2.6 microseconds.

 Ok, so we can shift any sample by up to 2.6 microseconds 
 and still be safe. How much jitter are the two mediums 
 introducing? For high-frequency (>1GHz) signals, I've seen 
 figures around 5-25ps for multimode glass fibre transmission. 
 Is anyone here convinced that the jitter introduced by plastic 
 would be 520 000x worse? I'm not.

 Assuming arguendo that jitter and high-frequency roll-off are 
 actually distorting the signal to the point that the signals are 
 being interpreted incorrectly, is it possible that the errors in 
 transmission would lead to a change in the tone of the audio? 
 Given that the data being transmitted is the signal in the time 
 domain (linear PCM) and not in the frequency domain, how 
 would the bit errors have to occur in order to, say, increase 
 the bass of the signal? The errors would have to occur 
 periodically, and affect the same bits in each sample to 
 prevent violent modulation in the volume of the audio. Is this 
 conceivable? I hope not.


----------



## gaboo

Toshiba engineers must be perfect idiots when they publish the jitter of their own transmitters and receivers at 15-25ns. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 IMO most of the trouble comes from the interfacing, not from the fiber itself.


----------



## gaboo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadbuster* 
_How much jitter is tolerable? Jitter is tolerable to the point 
 where the data is out-of-sync with the sampling window at 
 the receiver. How big is this sampling window? Ideally, it's 
 [ 1 / 2*sample frequency ]. Given a 192KHz signal, the 
 sampling window is 2.6 microseconds._

 

Jitter is considered audible around 10ns (but the threshold varies with frequency). If the receiver lock its clock to the sender, then that's the threshold for the transmission line too. Shameless plug.


----------



## roadbuster

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gaboo* 
_Toshiba engineers must be perfect idiots when they publish the jitter of their own transmitters and receivers at 15-25ns. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 IMO most of the trouble comes from the interfacing, not from the fiber itself._

 

Why would they be idiots? It's necessary for a manufacturer to 
 publish relevant operating specifications so the engineers can 
 design a functional product.

 Just to be clear, those jitter numbers are for the drivers and 
 receivers, not just optical adaptor. For those devices, there's 
 jitter introduced in the electrical->optical->electrical conversion 
 by the transmitter and receiver, and that's where the "large" 
 jitter numbers are coming from.

 You are right when you say that most of the trouble comes from 
 the interfacing. I spent a summer working on opto-electrical 
 converters for intra and inter-silicon communication, and the 
 delay & jitter added by the conversion is a real pain.

  Quote:


 Jitter is considered audible around 10ns 
 

It might very well be the case, but any relevant digital audio 
 player has a buffer to decouple playback from the input bus. Thus,
 small-scale variations which don't violate timing constraints do
 not affect the audio playback.

  Quote:


 Shameless plug. 
 

Great collection of links. Thanks.


----------



## gaboo

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *roadbuster* 
_It might very well be the case, but any relevant digital audio 
 player has a buffer to decouple playback from the input bus. Thus,
 small-scale variations which don't violate timing constraints do
 not affect the audio playback._

 

Being a computer geek myself, that's what I assumed at first.
 Boy, was I surpized...


----------



## tunes

gaboo said:


> I think the sound difference is due to the different refraction coefficient between glass and plastic. This results in different jitter, despite the almost nil bit error rate.
> 
> 
> Remeber: adio (from the DAC) = bits + clock. Plenty of info here: http://www6.head-fi.org/forums/showthread.php?t=90069




See posts below. At least with Chord DACs there should be no change in SQ between glass or plastic as long as they are high quality.

Originally Posted by tunes View Post

Can Rob or anyone else with experience tell me if there is an audible difference between a high quality plastic versus glass TOSLINK to mini cable. Seems there are many different opinions with some saying it is not possible to get differences since any signal degradation would just prevent any modulation to get accurate sound. I don't want to waste money on glass if they are more fragile and offer no sound quality enhancement over plastic for a short cable run.

So Lifatec Glass Toslink Cable versus Sys Concept
SEE the explanation below as to why plastic may be better.

Concerpthttp://www.sysconcept.ca/product_info.php?products_id=364&osCsid=2h2pduirapjbckjecublgmo250

I would love to know what actual Toslink Rob uses or prefers to use in his spare time! 
@Rob Watts

I'm guessing the answer will be 'Chord's optical cables of course' 
Bog standard plastic - except for 192 kHz, when I use very short bog standard plastic!

My DAC's are intolerant of jitter, and also intolerant of optical's asymettric rise and fall times - the SPDIF rx in the FPGA automatically calibrates for this. So long as it is bit perfect, I have not been able to hear any difference.

I have bought Kabel Direkt - excellent service.


----------

