# Which is the best optical cable under $300?



## rosgr63

Is it worth spending up to $300 for a Toslink cable?
 And if it is which one is worth it's high value?
 Your opinions please!


----------



## Necrolic

Said it once and I'll say it again, unless you are balancing headphones, expensive cable is completely pointless after a certain point, all you can do after the $80 mark in analog cables (estimate) is change the sound signature very slightly by changing cables, you can't get an overall improvement.

 Especially in digital cables, there is little to no difference unless you get a complete trash cable. Just get the Dayton Optical from HeadRoom or something in that price range.

 Balanced headphones on the other hand, are a huge improvement over single-ended.


----------



## El_Doug

toslink are digital cables unaffected by em/rfi - spending extra on these cables can be equated to flushing your cash directly down the toilet


 you asked for opinions


----------



## SoupRKnowva

indeed, im almost starting to believe in the cable kool-aide, you can go ahead and pass the pitcher, but for the optical run from my mac to my DAC, its still gonna be just the standard optical cable from monoprice, then ive got TWag from dac to amp and them amp to headphones.


----------



## krmathis

I love my Van den Hul The Optocoupler MKII, which did set me back about $130.
 Not sure I would have spend more on an optical cable though.


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Necrolic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_S
 Balanced headphones on the other hand, are a huge improvement over single-ended._

 

I agree


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *krmathis* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I love my Van den Hul The Optocoupler MKII, which did set me back about $130.
 Not sure I would have spend more on an optical cable though._

 

Do you know how it compares with the Wireworld Supernova 6?


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Do you know how it compares with the Wireworld Supernova 6?_

 

Sorry, but no.
 I have only slightly compared it against my previous cable, a Monster Cable of some kind. Not all sure about the audible difference, but build quality wise a clear league above. For that alone worth the extra ~$100.


----------



## rosgr63

krmathis thanks for your reply.


----------



## fatcat28037

Visit Blue Jeans Cables to check-see what a custom length cable will cost you. My 2 footer was less than $20. They make quality stuff and have great customer service all at a very reasonable price. BJC is well respected here.

Blue Jeans Cable -- Quality Cables at Reasonable Prices


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *fatcat28037* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Visit Blue Jeans Cables to check-see what a custom length cable will cost you. My 2 footer was less than $20. They make quality stuff and have great customer service all at a very reasonable price. BJC is well respected here.

Blue Jeans Cable -- Quality Cables at Reasonable Prices_

 

I use Sys. Concept for my custom made optical cables.
 They are also very good.
 I was just wondering about these expensive cables, are they worth it?


----------



## jilgiljongiljing

Go to monoprice and get their premium optical cable with metal connectors. Its built really well and works great.


----------



## Austin 3:16

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I was just wondering about these expensive cables, are they worth it?_

 

No. The only thing that matters with optical is the construction quality/durability. It has nothing to do with the sound, but how rugged/resistant to damage.

 Now with Digital Coax, as with analog cables, there are quite noticeable differences between cables.


----------



## iriverdude

I wouldn't spend more than £30 for a optical cable, some have more robust sheath so probably worth paying out for that. Of if it's a longer one.


----------



## dallan

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Austin 3:16* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_No. The only thing that matters with optical is the construction quality/durability. It has nothing to do with the sound, but how rugged/resistant to damage.

 Now with Digital Coax, as with analog cables, there are quite noticeable differences between cables._

 

I would agree with this, about to make the same statement. spend as little as possible still getting good contruction in that SQ will be the same with optial. I got one expensive one at price, one monster-not cheap, one basic. They all sound identical. The same can not be said for digital coax however.


----------



## rosgr63

I agree a Coaxial is very different, but why some optical cables are so expensive if they don't offer any improvement in SQ?


----------



## Necrolic

The Truth About Interconnects and Cables &mdash; Reviews and News from Audioholics

 As you can see there, things such as power cords will make no difference unless you go from an unshielded to shielded. Speaker/headphone cords CAN make a difference, but not a huge one (certainly not worth the massive prices people shell out), interconnects can sound different, again, not on a large level.

 Digital interconnects, with the exception of Coaxial, make no difference as long as they are properly built. Coaxial does make a difference, but I still wouldn't drop over $100 on it (I use the same $25 Canare Coaxial cable I've always used, tried an $100 one and noticed literally no difference, $300 was a different story but that's just too much).


----------



## rosgr63

Necrolic, thanks for the link


----------



## KevM2

To be honest, I don't think there's much difference between solidly made optical cables. As for differences in price? If you have the money, someone will make a product to take it.

 I can't say the same for power cords or interconnects. I noticed a slight difference from a generic power cord to an emotiva power cord and a very noticeable difference going from the emotiva to the audioquest cord. Using high quality interconnects has also improved the sound.


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *KevM2* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_To be honest, I don't think there's much difference between solidly made optical cables.

 Using high quality interconnects has also improved the sound._

 

I agree with both of your comments.

 I am trying to find out how the SQ will be affected by a 10X more expensive Toslink Cable.

 Maybe you won't get a lot of reflections, loss of quality when it's bent, better transmission through perfectly polished superior ends.

 Note I am talking about cable lengths 3m or less.


----------



## slim.a

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Necrolic* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The Truth About Interconnects and Cables &mdash; Reviews and News from Audioholics

 As you can see there, things such as power cords will make no difference unless you go from an unshielded to shielded. Speaker/headphone cords CAN make a difference, but not a huge one (certainly not worth the massive prices people shell out), interconnects can sound different, again, not on a large level.

 Digital interconnects, with the exception of Coaxial, make no difference as long as they are properly built. Coaxial does make a difference, but I still wouldn't drop over $100 on it (I use the same $25 Canare Coaxial cable I've always used, tried an $100 one and noticed literally no difference, $300 was a different story but that's just too much)._

 

I read that article and there are many things that bother me about it. To not drag this thread off topic, I started a new one discussing that article here : http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f21/my...9/#post6223875

 As for answering rosgr63 question, I have tried many plastic optical cables and none of them reached the performance of the cheapest coaxial cables I have. 
 However, glass fiber optical cables such as Wireworld Supernova 5+ are supposed to sound much better than plastic optical cables.
 As for needing to spend up to $300 on a coaxial cable to notice a diffrence with the canare coaxial cable, this wasn't the case in my system. I find that the similarly priced Belden cable performs much better and that stepping up to the $150 Stereovox really makes a big difference.


----------



## majkel

I stopped at Beresford TC-3618 due to price. It's indistinguishable from VdH Optocoupler II and Profigold PGD5000 AFAIR what my friend tested but it is distinguishable from many cheap, crappy plastic or tiny glass (beware of ebay) cables. With the Beresford you gett all you need - stiff sheath, polished glass lens and rugged ST plug. No need to pay more. 

 Re: coaxial. This is often because of bad Toslink transmitter and/or receiver power supply conditions. Don't blame the cable, blame accountants for savings on good capacitors near Toslink devices. I had to improve it in both my transport and DAC adding some tantalum capacitors nearby.


----------



## The-One

*this* one : -> 6' OPTICAL FIBER OPTIC TOSLINK DIGITAL AUDIO CABLE 6 FT - eBay (item 380179237262 end time Dec-18-09 11:51:26 PST)


----------



## slim.a

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I stopped at Beresford TC-3618 due to price. It's indistinguishable from VdH Optocoupler II and Profigold PGD5000 AFAIR what my friend tested but it is distinguishable from many cheap, crappy plastic or tiny glass (beware of ebay) cables. With the Beresford you gett all you need - stiff sheath, polished glass lens and rugged ST plug. No need to pay more. 

 Re: coaxial. This is often because of bad Toslink transmitter and/or receiver power supply conditions. Don't blame the cable, blame accountants for savings on good capacitors near Toslink devices. I had to improve it in both my transport and DAC adding some tantalum capacitors nearby._

 

Coaxial vs. Optical :
 First, just a little reminder. There is no such thing as pure digital transmission. Even with so called "digital data", the signal being transmitted is analog.

 Second, when using the optical cable, you are adding 2 extra steps in the signal chain : first the signal has to be converted to light (toslink connection) a the transport side then it has to be converted back to an electrical signal in the receiving side.
 The only benefit of this process is the galvanic isolation between the components. 
 But, if someone worries about "jitter" or losses induced by the digital cable, why would we go through 2 extra steps of signal processing?
 By the way, by using transformers in the coaxial line, we can achieve the galvanic isolation while benefeting from a much higher bandwidth than what you would get with a toslink connection.

 I looked at the Beresford TC-3618 and it has a 10MHZ bandwidth. In comparison, the Stereovox XV2 coaxial cable has 4ghz bandwidth.


----------



## rosgr63

slim.a its true the more conversions you have the more likely to degrade the signal.
 How important is galvanic isolation?
 What problems can you have because of it?


----------



## slim.a

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_slim.a its true the more conversions you have the more likely to degrade the signal.
 How important is galvanic isolation?
 What problems can you have because of it?_

 

Well this is just my opinions based on what I read and some logic. If someone cares about jitter, that person would like to have the least conversion processes in the signal chain. 
 Toslink is considered bad for high quality audio by many audio designers. Kingwa, from audio-gd, has found out that Toslink has many orders of magnitude of jitter higher than RCA spdif. And RCA spdif has 10 times more jitter than BNC (at least with his DACs).
 One more intersting factor to consider is the bandwidth extension between toslink vs. coaxial. One is limited in the MHZ range while the other can go to the GHZ. My bet is that the extra step processes are the culprit in this difference.

 As for galvanic isolation. It is essential to use some kind of transformer/isolation in the signal path between the computer and the DAC to avoid noise pick up in the receiving end and ground issues.
 Toslink does the job very well at isolation but so do most of the transformers/pulse transformers used in many transports (cd players or usb to spdif converters).


----------



## Necrolic

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Re: coaxial. This is often because of bad Toslink transmitter and/or receiver power supply conditions. Don't blame the cable, blame accountants for savings on good capacitors near Toslink devices. I had to improve it in both my transport and DAC adding some tantalum capacitors nearby._

 

Coaxial generally outperforms Optical, it's a well known fact, due to above mentioned reasons.


----------



## rosgr63

I run one of my systems via a cheap optical cable and via USB-S/PDIF (hiFace) Coaxial and the SQ is very similar.


----------



## haloxt

Article on optical: TOSLINK Interconnect History & Basics &mdash; Reviews and News from Audioholics

 Or if you want to get to the meat of the matter: Understanding Digital Interconnects

  Quote:


 TOSLINK has a couple of drawbacks that must be acknowledged and understood to maximize performance, however. First, the implementation of TOSLINK requires a change in format from an electrical to an optical medium. No such change, including similar changes from digital-to-analog or from analog-to-digital, is without cost. In the case of transforming the electrical data stream to an optical signal for use with a TOSLINK interconnect you will increase levels of both noise and distortion within the system. This decrease in fidelity may be especially pronounced with wide-bandwidth multi-channel signals.

 A related drawback of the TOSLINK scheme is its tendency towards restricted bandwidth. Truncated bandwidth in an optical connection can cause signal interpolation and/or jitter, and thus compromise the sound. Selecting a high quality interconnect with a minimum 10MHz bandwidth ensures maximum compatibility with multi-channel sources such as a DTS-encrypted DVD.

 Second, an optical interconnect has a maximum bend radius before internal reflections become detrimental to the signal. Put plainly, you can’t make a tight turn with a TOSLINK interconnect without causing a measurable drop in signal level. In fact, a tight bend in a TOSLINK interconnect can permanently damage the delicate optical conductor and cause a complete failure of the signal! The best TOSLINK interconnects will boast a high purity quartz conductor which allow as tight as a three-inch bend before signal loss exceeds .5 decibel. 
 

Btw I prefer my computer usb to a $40 2m cables to go sonicwave toslink.


----------



## rosgr63

haloxt thanks for the links. I have already read the Audioholics article, I will read the second one which looks very interesting.
 The problem with the USB is that if your DAC doesn't have it, you'll have to use a USB/SPDIF device first, plus you'll probably need a good quality USB cable unless you use hiFace.


----------



## haloxt

Just saying, I thought $8 usb cable with my typical dell computer is better by at least a little than the optical output of my computer sound card and mp3 player, although they may be the very worst examples of optical transports lol.


----------



## rosgr63

Sometimes the optical output is not that bad.
 I would say it depends on the system.


----------



## DeusEx

digital = digital ftmp


----------



## stocklaz

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I run one of my systems via a cheap optical cable and via USB-S/PDIF (hiFace) Coaxial and the SQ is very similar._

 

This statement raise my interest. As I am thinking how to output my digital signal to Corda Symphony, and iMac is my source that limited in USB and optical output. If I want to use coaxial the only way will be using something like hiface to converter the coaxial for me, but I am in confusion if the USB - Coaxial SQ will be anything better than direct USB output.


----------



## leeperry

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I run one of my systems via a cheap optical cable and via USB-S/PDIF (hiFace) Coaxial and the SQ is very similar._

 

possibly your S/PDIF receiver chip hasn't been blessed by the jitter shamans(DIR9001?)...it happens.

 BTW, which exact Sys. Concept cable would you recommend please? I'm very impressed by this 6ft glass toslink cable tbh: SHIN KIN - GLASS TOSLINK CABLES

 some food for thoughts, apparently silica glass would be far better because of its higher bandwidth than even coax: TOSLINK Interconnect History & Basics
  Quote:


 An often-overlooked cause of jitter is bandwidth limiting of the digital signal. Quoting from the Rémy Fourré Stereophile article "Jitter and the Digital Interface" published in the October, 1993 issue; " A word about optical links. Still using the example above with digital signals A and B, a low-pass filter at 5MHz-typical of TosLink-causes a time difference of 121ps. A 6MHz low-pass filter causes a time difference of 33ps. For adequate performance, optical links must have a bandwidth of 9MHz minimum. To operate at 48kHz and have a 15% margin for speed adjustments, the interface *bandwidth *must be at least 11MHz." 
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber#Materials

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOSLINK
  Quote:


 TOSLINK may use inexpensive 1 mm plastic optical fiber, or it can use higher quality multistrand plastic optical fibers or even quartz glass optical fibers, depending on the desired *bandwidth *and application. 
 

Introducing the dt700 Glass Toslink Deluxe! - Agoraquest - Sony Forum, News, Reviews
  Quote:


 the traditional Glass Toslink that I have been recommending here at Agoraquest for the last 3 years. 
 

LITE AUDIO DAC AM REVIEW
  Quote:


 In my opinion, the Dayton glass optical cable was a little smoother and warmer than the coax but with better sounding highs and imaging. 
 

Parts-Express.com:*Dayton GOC-3 Glass Optical Digital Cable 3 ft. | toslink optical cable glass optical fiberoptic. digital optical Dolby digital 5.1
  Quote:


 You can literally see the higher level of light transfer. 
 

glass toslink - Agoraquest - Sony Forum, News, Reviews
  Quote:


 you will have to go far above a $600 Digital Coax maybe even all the way up to the $1,000 Tara Labs THE ONE to possibly be able to top the sound quality of Fused Silica Glass Toslink.


----------



## rosgr63

I recommend the following cable Sys Concept Inc. Fiber Optic Products Attenuators, Patch cords, Laser Diodes, Connectors, MP3, Toslink, Hybrid Adapter and more: Toslink to Toslink Premium Optical Cable 0.05 to 50 meters
 People are very nice and will guide you if you need any help.


----------



## leeperry

thanks, I'll look into it!

 so it's an improvement over 280 strands glass to you? over what length? on what S/PDIF receiver? CS841x/DIR9001?


----------



## leeperry

and btw, I'm not too sure that attenuation would be such a big of a deal over multi strand glass, as this chinese OEM manufacturer also does them in 30/35ft: 35 ft GLASS TOSLINK DIGITAL OPTICAL CABLE - eBay
Glass 30FT DIGITAL AUDIO OPTICAL TOSLINK CABLE 30' - eBay

 that white ST 65 strands cable has been eyeing me for too long...this must stop! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Parts-Express.com: Dayton GOC-6 Glass Optical Digital Cable 6 ft


----------



## haloxt

leeperry, this is what I'm using, a 6ft one

[sonicwave glass] @ Your Cable Hookup

 The price is pretty competitive even though the site charges ~$15 shipping and has a minimum $50 order. "Cables to Go" makes well-constructed cables, I've got several like sonicwave digital coax, sonicwave bass cable, and shielded cat6/cat6a cable which I dissected, and it looks very good to me inside and out.

 Edit: oh yeah and the site has a fancy right angle mini-toslink adapter for $2 if anyone with a macbook is considering it, much more convenient than the normal mini-toslink adapters.


----------



## rosgr63

What I have done as I keep changing optical cables a lot is this:
 I got a Toslink to Mini 150mm cable with a female adaptor permanently connected to my Mac's output.
 This way I don't have to insert/remove optical cables into the Mac's output, it works like an optical output replicator.
 I have a similar 150mm Toslink to Toslink cable with a female adapter permanently connected to my Onkyo's ND-S1's output for the same reason.
 syscables made me these 2 adaptors and posted them the same day.
 And they look great!


----------



## leeperry

so it's not quite a deathmatch against the 280 strands glass toslink then..


----------



## slim.a

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_so it's not quite a deathmatch against the 280 strands glass toslink then.._

 

who cares about the "_280 strands glass toslink_"? Is there some magical property in glass toslink cables that the whole audiophile community has missed?

 Do you really think that a glass toslink and DIR9001 are the most important things in digital audio?

 leeperry, I am sorry to repeat it also in this thread. You clearly lack any deep knowledge about jitter and how DACs work. Yet you cannot stop yourself from posing for an expert and saying to people that the xx strands glass toslink is the only way to go and that no A/B test is valid until they try the glass cable you are using with a DAC that has the same DIR9001 your entry level dac has. You also copy past the same insignificant isolated posts. You don't seem to understand that the power supply, design of the pcb, choice of components, addtional PLLs, reclocking, ... all have an impact on the sound.
 Let's take the Weiss DAC2 (one of the many DACs rosgr63 has). It is a (very expensive) pro DAC with a well thought digital section. Even if didn't use what you called the _the jitter shamans(DIR9001?)_, it has many buffers/reclocking inside that the end result is a much lower jitter and clock phase noise than any regular DAC which uses a DIR9001 without any additional measure.

 Do you realize that if you worry about jitter so much that a BNC coaxial cable is the preferred way to go? The best glass toslink cables will have a bandwidth in the MHz range while the coaxial have a bandwidth in the GHz range (which more than a 100 time more).
 The only advantage of optical cables is the electrical isolation, but it involves 2 extra steps (conversion form electricity to light then again from light to electricity) which increases highly jitter. Any decent transport will use a pulse transformer which will basically provide a similar galvanic isolation as toslink while maintaining a much much more wider bandwidth.

 My intent is not to start yet another argument with you. And the few questions I made in this post are rhetorical as I sadly do not expect any sensible response from you.


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *slim.a* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The only advantage of optical cables is the electrical isolation, but it involves 2 extra steps (conversion form electricity to light then again from light to electricity) which increases highly jitter. Any decent transport will use a pulse transformer which will basically provide a similar galvanic isolation as toslink while maintaining a much much more wider bandwidth._

 

I couldn't agree more!


----------



## leeperry

you know slim, for your own good I'm adding you to my ignore list...your english is getting odd to decipher anyway.

 IIRC rosgr63 said in another thread that this sys. concept cable sounded better to his ears than glass toslink, and many ppl on audiophile forums(including the links I already posted) think that glass toslink sounds awesome...and better than coax in many cases.

 of course, neither all those ppl or I are worthy of your HD650 rig, your "analog sounding" coax cables(
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) and/or your 50 karat golden ears(that's implied of course 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




).

 silica glass optical has a much higher bandwidth than plastic, sorry for the breaking news...I can't be hassled to read your post in full in order to answer all your technical inquiries, though.

 like many ppl on this forum, you're talking about stuff you haven't even heard! _"oh yes, BNC coax is the **** coz I said so. Anyway, I'm too cheap to try glass toslink because I *know* that it can't possibly sound as good as my "analog sounding" coax cables"_





 this forum is full of glass toslink lovers: Reply to Difference between Digital Coax & Optical?- Agoraquest - Sony Forum
  Quote:


 Both Electrical Coax (50M hz) and Fused Silca Glass (30M hz) have adequate bandwidth, but plastic conductor Toslink (6M hz) lacks enough bandwidth to get the job done accurately and with decent gear you can clearly hear the difference. 
 

take care of yourself my little self-proclaimed S/PDIF jitter guru, keep entertaining us if you may


----------



## rosgr63

Come on guys this isn't a battlefield, please cool off.

 Lee please notice whenever I post a comment I always state that these are the results I get from my system. I never imply that what I find out is applicable to all other systems.

 Just my own experiences, not generalizations, or scientific experiments.

 Enjoy the music and your equipment, be happy!


----------



## leeperry

well I'm perfectly cool 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 you previously said that this sys concept cable sounded better than glass toslink to you, I simply wanted to know in what circumstances...and to me it doesn't look like a straight shootout win, that's all...no offense was meant whatsoever! 

 I think some ppl have troubles understanding basic english, and get easily hung up for the wrong reasons.


----------



## rosgr63

Lee can you please point me to my comment/thread so I'll try and put the record straight.


----------



## slim.a

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_you know slim, for your own good I'm adding you to my ignore list...your english is getting odd to decipher anyway.

 of course, neither all those ppl or I are worthy of your HD650 rig, your "analog sounding" coax cables() or your 50 karat golden ears(that's implied of course )._

 

Of course it is easier to attack me personally than to respond to the facts ...

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_IIRC rosgr63 said in another thread that this sys. concept cable sounded better to his ears than glass toslink, and many ppl on audiophile forums(including the links I already posted) think that glass toslink sounds awesome...and better than coax in many cases._

 

As I already explained on the usb to spdif shoot out thread, there are cases where a good plastic cable can outperform a poor glass cable.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_silica glass optical has a much higher bandwidth than plastic, sorry for the breaking news...I can't be hassled to read your post in full to answer all your technical inquiries, though._

 

The best glass optical cable for audio has a bandwidth of around 50 MHZ. High End coaxial cables have bandwidth that is over 4000 MhZ (check the specs of the Stereovox XV2 which is rated for 4 ghz including the connectors).
 So yes glass has a higher bandwidth than plastic (2 or 3 times). But a good coaxial cable has a bandwidth 100times higher... 


  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_like many ppl on this forum, you're talking about stuff you haven't even heard! "oh yes, BNC coax is the **** coz I said so. Anyway, I'm too cheap to try glass toslink because I *know* that it can't possibly sound as good as my "analog sounding" coax cables"



_

 

COULD YOU PLEASE STOP SPREADING LIES! I have never talked about equipment that I don't own. However, I can freely state scientific facts when I have done my research. When I say that the bandwidth of a coaxial cable is higher than the bandwidth of a glass cable, it is a simple and accurate scientific fact. Nothing more nothing less. 
 For your information, I have at the moment 7 coaxial cables (2 of them costing more $200 each) and 3 optical cables. I also have 5 usb to spdif converters and 5 DACs to try them on. So when I speak about digital cables, I have many gear around to play with and to check my findings. 

 Also, you lied when you said that I am "too cheap" to try a glass cable. As you already know, rosgr63 sent me a glass cable to try. I also bought another optical cable myself just to try even if I know that I probably won't need it.

 Overall, you have been wrong or inaccurate about every single thing you say. I honestly hope that you will start doing real research before posting and posing as an expert in "glass cables".


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *slim.a* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ The best glass toslink cables will have a bandwidth in the KHz range while the coaxial have a bandwidth in the MHz range (which more than a 100 time more)._

 

As far as I know Toslink Optical cables have bandwidths of 5 - 6 Mhz minimum , can you provide a citation for this khz assertion as it would make some fairly standard non high res digital audio unttransmittable over optical such as 16/44.1


----------



## slim.a

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *nick_charles* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_As far as I know Toslink Optical cables have bandwidths of 5 - 6 Mhz minimum , can you provide a citation for this khz assertion as it would make some fairly standard non high res digital audio unttransmittable over optical such as 16/44.1 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

That was a typo, thanks for catching that. I meant Mhz. 
 If you read my other post you will see that I speak about around 50 Mhz for the glass cables and 4 GhZ+ for the best coaxial cables. 
 Of course if the range was limited to the Khz range, it would be impossible to transmit anything but very low bitrate mp3 I think


----------



## rosgr63

slim.a I personally trust your findings 100%.
 There aren't many reviewers so knowledgeable who put so much time and effort to research, thoroughly test, and write honest and valuable reviews.
 I for one have learned a lot from you and I will learn more in the future.


----------



## slim.a

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Come on guys this isn't a battlefield, please cool off.

 Enjoy the music and your equipment, be happy!_

 

Sorry for participating to drag your topic off track. 

 I will try to be happy from now on


----------



## rosgr63

I like cable discussions, pleased Dr Charles is also participating.


----------



## SoupRKnowva

Well im currently using a 5 dollar plastic digital cable from monoprice out of my MBP into my dac19mk3 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 so that should make all of you feel better


----------



## leeperry

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoupRKnowva* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_im currently using a 5 dollar plastic digital cable from monoprice out of my MBP into my dac19mk3_

 

but does it sound "analog"?


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *SoupRKnowva* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Well im currently using a 5 dollar plastic digital cable from monoprice out of my MBP into my dac19mk3 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 so that should make all of you feel better_

 

I sometimes use a less than $1/m toslink cable and I am happy it!


----------



## nick_charles

I use Monoprice premium optical cables, the budget ones do not always work, i.e make a solid connection, but the premiums are reliable..


----------



## rosgr63

What's your Toslink cable budget Nick $/m?


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_What's your Toslink cable budget Nick $/m?_

 






 I buy optical cables when I need them. I have about 11 right now, a mix of freeies, mini-toslink to toslink for my PCs , vanilla monoprice and premium toslinks for the WD HDTVs CD player and my various DACs Zero/Entech plus a couple extra for my two optical switch boxes. Off hand I would guess that I have spent in the region of $50 for all of them ex shipping. None cost me more than $6 which would be ~ $3/M 

 So far they either work or they do not, i.e I get obvious problems, like no sound or the cable falling out of the devices, or no problems, I have not noticed any audible differences between any two working cables. 

 But if you want to lend me a couple of expensive cables I do have an ADC/Sound Card with an optical in so I can make digital-to-digital recordings and it would be trivial to compare the differences between cables...within certain well defined parameters


----------



## rosgr63

Sorry to disappoint you Nick, I don't have any really expensive Toslink cables, but you are welcome to try out any of my Toslink cables.


----------



## Kawai_man

Hi rosgr63, I remember someone mentioning these optical cables from lifatec, they make custom plastic or glass optical cables with your choice of toslink or mini connetors

SILFLEX Glass Toslink MiniPlug Digital Audio Optical Cables, ST, Mini Plug, Duplex and Armored


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kawai_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Hi rosgr63, I remember someone mentioning these optical cables from lifatec, they make custom plastic or glass optical cables with your choice of toslink or mini connetors

SILFLEX Glass Toslink MiniPlug Digital Audio Optical Cables, ST, Mini Plug, Duplex and Armored_

 

Thanks a lot for the link I wasn't aware of them, maybe I should try them one day!


----------



## kool bubba ice

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Is it worth spending up to $300 for a Toslink cable?
 And if it is which one is worth it's high value?
 Your opinions please!_

 

You would be getting a pretty, more exotic cable with better quality, but would it sound better then a cheaper optical cable.. Logic says no.. Now, analog is very different.. & quality does matter in long runs when using optical/HDMI/Co ax.


----------



## kool bubba ice

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I sometimes use a less than $1/m toslink cable and I am happy it!_

 

I'm using a 17.00 blue jean optical cable.. Please don't tell me blue jean cable are snake oil.. They are not.. Just great quality.. More durable & better built then my exotic & very pretty 50.00 optical cable.. Even comes in it's own case hold with padding..


----------



## 9pintube

Tell this Older Guy why would you want to use optical cable in the 1st place.....I could be wrong, but "They" (reviewers) always seem to use analog pairs saying They're "better" !!!You don't think they had their hands out for freebees from the big Cable companies for sweet words, like "These sliver ICs let you hear only the music",etc.etc


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *kool bubba ice* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm using a 17.00 blue jean optical cable.. Please don't tell me blue jean cable are snake oil.. They are not.. Just great quality.. More durable & better built then my exotic & very pretty 50.00 optical cable.. Even comes in it's own case hold with padding.._

 

So far I like my Sysconcept cable (less than $18/m) the best.
 Not because of improved SQ but because of construction, termination, flexibility.
 I have some more exotic cables which are at the hands of slim.a who hopefully will be able to review and give us, as always, his expert and unbiased opinion.


----------



## Currawong

When I first owned a DAC that had optical input, I bought a random cheap optical cable and used that. Out of interest, I later tried a different optical cable and found that, suddenly, the sound quality had improved. I wasn't expecting this. A lot of it probably had to do with the DAC being cheap and the quality being not so great. I need to try again now I have better gear, but I didn't notice any different the last couple of times I tried different optical cables. Presently I'm using a 3m Sony optical cable. If the extensive electronics between my MacBook Pro and DAC can't fix any issues that come up as a result of using the cable, then I've got more serious problems! If someone does want a fancy optical cable, I do think the Van Den Hul Optocoupler is good. Looks a bit cheap though.


----------



## IPodPJ

The only difference I've noticed is that some don't stick all the way in the input jack while others do. I just recently got a mini Toslink to Toslink and it doesn't lock into place on the input of the Audio-gd Reference Seven. It just kind of sits there.


----------



## haloxt

I've got different toslink to mini toslink adapters, and with my various cables sometimes it's a perfect fit and hold, too small to hold, or too big to fit. But I think all my toslink connectors fit into the toslink inputs on my receiver and audio-gd compass and dac19mk3, you just have to push a little bit more. It took me about a year to realize they fit and snap in the audio-gd gear 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.


----------



## Audio Jester

This has been an interesting thread (for me at least). I have been looking around for optical cables for my MBP, but now I am thinking that USB might be a better option. Is there less potential for limitations/distortions/jitter in a usb>DAC connection? How many headfiers are happy with an optical connection between source>DAC?


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Audio Jester* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This has been an interesting thread (for me at least). I have been looking around for optical cables for my MBP, but now I am thinking that USB might be a better option. Is there less potential for limitations/distortions/jitter in a usb>DAC connection? How many headfiers are happy with an optical connection between source>DAC?_

 

One of my DAC's shows little difference between optical and coaxial, whereas another has better SQ with coaxial.
 I would recommend you read slim.a's review of the hiface USB/Coaxial converter which is a nice little converter at a reasonable price.
 It's asynch with 2 clocks, galvanicaly isolated, can't get better than that at a very reasonable price.
 Also slim.a will be writting a review of Optical cables soon which will be excellent as the rest of his reviews.


----------



## Audio Jester

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also slim.a will be writting a review of Optical cables soon which will be excellent as the rest of his reviews._

 

I am looking forward to it. 

 I think this whole situation just comes down to personal testing and tastes rather than science. If someone loves their system with a certain cable then all power to them. In ear we trust.


----------



## slim.a

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Also slim.a will be writting a review of Optical cables soon_

 

Indeed rosgr63 sent me 2 glass optical cables to try (Wireworld and Sonicwave) and I have also bought a Sysconcept plastic cable. I will compare them to the Mitsubishi Eska POF and 2 other plastic optical cables.

 So far, I have found that there are 2 groups: The first one includes the Wireworld supranova, sonicwave and Sysconcept. The second one include the rest. The first group have a very good performance comparable to very good coaxial cables. The second group ... not so much. 
 Anyway, these are only very early impressions. I will write a mini-review/cable shoot-out once I get familiar with the sound of each of those optical cables (I usually use coaxial) and I have yet to try them with different DACs and transports.


----------



## rosgr63

Thanks a lot, please post a link to your review.


----------



## Audio Jester

@ Slim.a
 by any chance can you get your hands on a Silflex Glass Cable from Lifatec? I would love to see how that compares against other optical cables.


----------



## jchandler3

So, I think this has been said, but I just want to say it again. A digital signal is a digital signal... Ones and zeros. Either the signal is transmitted or it's not. Cable quality is VERY important with analog but means nothing for digital sound quality.

 You're only paying for construction quality. Please, please, please save your money! If you think you're hearing a difference, I think it's a placebo. :-/


----------



## jchandler3

PS... I don't mean anyone offense. I'm just trying to help out.


----------



## Kawai_man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *jchandler3* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So, I think this has been said, but I just want to say it again. A digital signal is a digital signal... Ones and zeros. Either the signal is transmitted or it's not. Cable quality is VERY important with analog but means nothing for digital sound quality.

 You're only paying for construction quality. Please, please, please save your money! If you think you're hearing a difference, I think it's a placebo. :-/_

 


 Yea thats not true, its not just one and zeros in fact there are no ones and zeros from what Ive read, anyways besides the data being passed threres also a time or clock , from what Ive red higher quality coax and usb cables are able to pass the data and clock more effectively so the DAC recieves a lower jitter signal, which is why so many people DO hear a difference between different coax and USB cables. Optical cables have different bandwidths for example cheap plastic cables only go up to like 6mhz and glass can transmit up to 50mhz


----------



## Kawai_man

I did my own little comparison of some different cables I tried.

 One is a 3ft plastic? cable that came with my Ibasso D10, I compared this cable to a 10ft sonicwave glass toslink cable and recently a 3ft glass cable I bought on ebay for 19$.

 I used the optical out from my macbook pro so I had to use a mini to toslink adapter with all the cables. I connected it to my valab DAC, this DAC doesnt have any type of reclocking or upsampling so I think the type of cable used with this DAC makes a bigger difference.

 The first comparison I did was between the 10ft glass toslink and the three foot toslink cable I got with my ibasso. 

 When I first compared these I wasn't intentionally comparing them I was just changing my setup and I didn't need a 10ft cable anymore so I decided to just use my 3ft ibasso toslink cable. To my surprise I noticed the ibasso cable sounded better, the word that came to my mind was just that it sounded clearer , I tested them back and forth and the ibasso cable just sounded much nicer.

 I thought maybe this had to do with the length more than the material so I sold the 10ft glass cable and bought a 3ft glass toslink cable.

 So then I compared the 3ft glass toslink and the 3ft toslink that came with the ibasso, and the 3ft ibasso cable still sounded better. This time I paid more attention to the sound, I used the song 1979 by the Smashing Pumpkins to compare both cables, just listening to the song its hard to tell what sounded better except that it did and it sounded clearer but when I payed closer attention particularly when he sang It was obvious that what it was, is that his voice extends a little longer and decays a little more naturally with the ibasso cable, with the glass cable the decaying of the instruments and especially the voice was a little more muddy

 Something I noticed about the cables when looking at the ends , is that it kinda seemed that the red light was brighter on the ibasso cable than on the glass cable, another thing I noticed is that the tip on the ibasso cable was longer than the tip of the glass cable.

 Theres is still one more glass cable I want to try well actually two (but I cant afford the lifatec cable) the other cable I just bought is the Dayton 3ft glass cable which is different than the ebay glass cable, it should be here this week.

 I dont have the ibasso toslink cable anymore since I sold my ibasso, so ill be comparing the dayton glass cable to the ebay glass cable next. If anyone knows the name of the toslink cable that comes with the ibasso please let know, it says it on the side of the cable but I forgot the name.


----------



## haloxt

All the theoretical reasons that optical cables can be different are unfortunately all the theoretical reasons optical cables are not ideal digital cables 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. I still use it 80% of the time though, for cool factor and because I like the sound signature.

 Since people here seem to be taking glass cables seriously, people should remember they are delicate and can be damaged by bending, and theoretically they'll have less attenuation if kept as straight as possible. If you handle glass cables a lot or gravity is dragging it down, I recommend duct taping it like one of those spirally things outside barber shops for added stiffness, keep taping until you are satisfied with the stiffness.


----------



## fradoca

the best one i've tried is the Wirewolrd Supernova 5+


----------



## rosgr63

Kawai_man thanks for your review, interesting results, waiting for more info when you get your Dayton cable.


----------



## scootermafia

The Van Den Hul Optocoupler kicks ass. It does make a difference.


----------



## Kawai_man

Sorry for the late response,

 So I compared the the Dayton glass cable and the ebay glass cable.

 I used the same equipment as the previous test, my first impressions when I compared them was that the the dayton was a little more extended but also a little harsher in the high end and had a little less bass than the ebay cable, while the ebay cable sounded more relaxed, had a little more present bass but everything sounds more dull or more blunt.

 I found that when I listened to the dayton cable I could actually listen to the music more It was harder to stop listening it involves you more in the music, while with the ebay cable it sounds more relaxed but its not as involving. 

 In conclusion I liked the sound of the dayton cable more and its the cable ill be using with my system , btw the build quality of the dayton cable is really nice a whole other class above the ebay cable.


----------



## leeperry

very nice! I currently use a 6 footer of the ebay cable, and that GOC-6 has been eyeing me for a while...but the shipping costs to Europe on partexpress are pretty delirious.

 ah well, I like the laid back sound of the ebay cable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 anyway, I didn't realize jitter had to be so low for 24bit over S/PDIF: Canuck Audio Mart &bull; View topic - Quality GLASS TOSlink cable - recommend in GTA

 Dogbert(who wrote some GPL drivers for the CMI8768 DSP) also told me that jitter was a headache for 24bit over S/PDIF..


----------



## rosgr63

Kawai_man thanks for your update, very interesting indeed.
 Can you post the link for the Dayton cable please?
 How does it compare to your other Optical cables apart from the ebay one?
 Have you tried the sysconcept cable (<$18/m)?


----------



## Kawai_man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Kawai_man thanks for your update, very interesting indeed.
 Can you post the link for the Dayton cable please?
 How does it compare to your other Optical cables apart from the ebay one?
 Have you tried the sysconcept cable (<$18/m)?_

 

Parts-Express.com:*Dayton GOC-3 Glass Optical Digital Cable 3 ft. | toslink optical cable glass optical fiberoptic. digital optical Dolby digital 5.1

 I havnt tried the sysconcept cable These are the cables Ive tried 

 6ft mini-toslink monoprice cable
 10ft sonic impact glass cable
 3ft cable that came with the ibasso d10,
 3ft ebay glass cable
 3ft Dayton glass cable 

 The two best ones are the 3ft ibasso cable and the Dayton glass cable these both sounded better than the 3ft ebay glass cable and the other ones. Unfortunately I sold my d10 before I got the dayton glass cable and dont have that cable anymore to compare it to the dayton glass cable. I remember the ibasso cable has a name and I think a model number on the side of it, I checked them on ebay and they were pretty cheap but I forgot the name, if anyone has one please let me know the name it says on the side of it!



 I still want to try a few other cables but Im spent on money for cables so the last one ill probably be trying is the ibasso cable if anyone can give me the name of it. These are the ones I still want to try, which I may still try if I find them used so Ill be able to resell them without taking a hit or taking only a small hit on my wallet

 Lifatec glass and plastic cables
 Van den hul optocoupler
 Optilink-5 
 sys-concept cable


----------



## rosgr63

Thanks Kawai_man, also slim.a will be evaluating some optical cables, I suggest we wait for his findings too before buying more cables.
 And yes I know it can become an obsession.


----------



## Kawai_man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Thanks Kawai_man, also slim.a will be evaluating some optical cables, I suggest we wait for his findings too before buying more cables.
 And yes I know it can become an obsession._

 

I wonder when hes gonna get to it

 I was able to find a small review of someone who tried the lifatec glass silflex cables, these are two but they are from the same guy,

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/co...-Digital-Cable

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/s....php?p=1022843

 *fixed the links


----------



## rosgr63

kawai_man could resend the links please, thanks.


----------



## Currawong

I can tell you the pinkfishmedia link will be: 

optical cables, any good ones? - Page 2 - pink fish media

 I couldn't find the computeraudiophile link at all.


----------



## leeperry

ok I've just ordered a six-footer of that Dayton glass cable


----------



## Kawai_man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_kawai_man could resend the links please, thanks._

 

Fixed them, here they are again


optical cables, any good ones? - Page 2 - pink fish media

Wireworld Supernova 6 Glass Toslink Digital Cable | Computer Audiophile

 .


----------



## leeperry

it looks like not everyone is afraid of the big bad volcano, as I should be getting that dayton 65 strands 6ft glass cable tomorrow...I wonder if I'll hear the same diff as you did over the 6ft ebay glass cable


----------



## Kawai_man

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it looks like not everyone is afraid of the big bad volcano, as I should be getting that dayton 65 strands 6ft glass cable tomorrow...I wonder if I'll hear the same diff as you did over the 6ft ebay glass cable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

LoL, Let us know your impressions of it when you get it.


----------



## techenvy

no way youll be able to hear a difference,,, but dallan is right about durability,,, if your not moving them around alot i wouldnt worry,, me personally if it feels like a cheap toslink cacble ai wont use it,, i like the rca clear ones you can get at wall mart which are a little more expensive then the black ones but they look nice lol,,, terminate with silver ends.


----------



## rosgr63

Lee what are you going to compare your Dayton with?


----------



## leeperry

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Kawai_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_So I compared the the Dayton glass cable and the ebay glass cable.

 I used the same equipment as the previous test, my first impressions when I compared them was that the the dayton was a little more extended but also a little harsher in the high end and had a little less bass than the ebay cable, while the ebay cable sounded more relaxed, had a little more present bass but everything sounds more dull or more blunt.

 I found that when I listened to the dayton cable I could actually listen to the music more It was harder to stop listening it involves you more in the music, while with the ebay cable it sounds more relaxed but its not as involving. 

 In conclusion I liked the sound of the dayton cable more and its the cable ill be using with my system , btw the build quality of the dayton cable is really nice a whole other class above the ebay cable._

 

ok cool, I got the Dayton cable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 it's a lot stiffer than the ebay glass for sure! it's 10:50AM here, I will run the ebay cable for a while and then I'll switch back and forth...I completely agree that the ebay cable is laid back and easy going(that's why I like it so much), but I wouldn't mind a more involving cable at this point..


----------



## leeperry

ok, well: 



 I use it between my Firestone Spitfire DAC(on its DPS, using LT1028AC opamps and a CS8414 S/PDIF receiver) and a bit-perfect CMI8768 PCI soundcard using those uncompromising drivers: cmediadrivers





 would I dare saying that indeed the sound is more involving, the stereo imaging "tighter" and much clearer, the bass much more controlled and far less "blurry" than on the ebay cable? the hype was very much true to my ears:
LITE AUDIO DAC AM REVIEW
  Quote:


 In my opinion, the Dayton glass optical cable was a little smoother and warmer than the coax but with better sounding highs and imaging. 
 

glass toslink - Agoraquest - Sony Forum
  Quote:


 You should be able to hear an improvement in sound quality from upgrading from 5-6M hz bandwidth molded plastic conductor Toslink to 30M hz bandwidth GlassToslink just as so many of us have. 
 

 Quote:


 you will have to go far above a $600 Digital Coax maybe even all the way up to the $1,000 Tara Labs THE ONE to possibly be able to top the sound quality of Fused Silica Glass Toslink. 
 

cables can easily become your set up weak link 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I'm very pleased so far!

*PS:* indeed, tiny details are much more audible, the SS is clearer/wider and the sound far tighter, so it's inherently more "in your face" and less laid back than the ebay cable. The trebles are also noticeably clearer and more extended


----------



## leeperry

BTW, I ordered 2 cables to make the shipping costs to Europe acceptable...if anyone cares, I'll get my friend to give his feedback too.

 after 1 day of use, I'm still VERY impressed by the increase in resolution...it doesn't sound clinical and dull like the AudioQuest VDM-XR I tried, it's the same as before...just much tighter, I like the drummer analogy in that Agora link:  Quote:


 The difference is not loss of Data, but the corruption of the timing relationship between the Data and the 4 timing clocks in the S/PDIF Bitstream. This timing discrepancy is called jitter and for 16 bit data there can be no more than 100 picoseconds (1 picosecond =1/1,000,000,000,000th of a second) of jitter for full resolution whereas 24 bit Data can have no more than 0.5 picoseconds of jitter to maintain full resolution. 

 With Digital Audio Transmission sound quality is determined by the timing in that the Data is not lost in transmission, but the Word Clock, Bit Clock, Master Clock and Emphasis Flag are very easily corrupted. 

*Think of jitter as the drummer in a band and how negatively the sound of the entire band is effected if his timing is just a fraction of a second off beat even though the rest of the Musicians (the Data) turn in a flawless performance.* 
 

percussions sound so much clearer and true to life than they ever did before...talk about bottlenecks, duh!


----------



## leeperry

something I find really weird is that the new cable makes mp3 totally acceptable...kinda weird, I guess high jitter + mp3 distotion was a big no-no


----------



## haloxt

How come some people say less strands is better for sound quality?


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_something I find really weird is that the new cables makes mp3 totally acceptable...kinda weird, I guess high jitter + mp3 distotion was a big no-no 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

lee what's the bit rate of your mp3 files?


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *haloxt* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How come some people say less strands is better for sound quality?_

 

I would have thought the quality of the strands and termination would be more important than their number.


----------



## MadMan007

Glass Toslink Digital Optical Cable

 People sometimes say there are relatively few manufacturers of raw wire. I can assure you there are even fewer, as in less than a handful, glass optical cable manufacturers. Notice how many of the 'high-end' glass cables all have the same specs? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 for example '280-strands.' Overpriced optical cables are even more of a sucker's game than pricey analog cables. That place sells on eBay too with free shipping.
 =====
 slim.a - I am not going to argue about optical versus coax but I will argue that you're unnecessarily focuing on one spec, bandwidth, as your reasoning. Excess bandwidth does nothing since by definition it goes unused, all you need is sufficient bandwidth for the task.


----------



## leeperry

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *MadMan007* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_even fewer, as in less than a handful, glass optical cable manufacturers._

 

O RLY? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





SHIN KIN - GLASS TOSLINK CABLES


----------



## gitf03

BTW, anyone tested different ethernet cables? I tested some various and i found out that one of the more expensive ones gives me the most saturated colors on web pages.


----------



## leeperry

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gitf03* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_BTW, anyone tested different ethernet cables? I tested some various and i found out that one of the more expensive ones gives me the most saturated colors on web pages._

 

good point! but I'm already using this fantastic Jena Labs products to improve my DVD colors: Jena Labs presents Esoteric 3D-X
  Quote:


 Esoteric 3D-X is very effective on DVDs, DVD-As, DVD-Rs, DVD-RWs, video CDs, and LaserDiscs®. 
 Some things you'll notice:

 Blacker blacks 
*More saturated colors *
 Dramatically reduced “noise” 
 Significantly improved sound 
 

I'm afraid the gamut would become obese in the end? something like super-uber-wide? my Eye-One colorimeter would flip out fo sho


----------



## gitf03

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_good point! but I'm already using this fantastic Jena Labs products to improve my DVD colors: Jena Labs presents Esoteric 3D-X_

 

Why does this site reminds me of a penis enlargement spam mail?


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gitf03* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_BTW, anyone tested different ethernet cables? I tested some various and i found out that one of the more expensive ones gives me the most saturated colors on web pages._

 

Can you give us some details & links please?


----------



## Audio Jester

Wow, the sarcasm around here is at a dangerously high level.

 I personally have not tested different optical cables. That being said I will be soon so that I can hear the effects (if there are any) for myself. It is all good and well focusing on the basic scientific theories behind data transfer, but I feel that many people are very quick to assume limitations of the human ear. We can all agree that different materials have different properties, hence we use copper for heat sinks and not plastic, so why does this not apply to optical cables??

 In other words, opinons are not facts. So don't get so upset when someone's opinion is different that yours.


----------



## rosgr63

Audio Jester, I wouldn't be surprised if a well made/terminated plastic cable performs as good as if not better than an expensive glass cable.

 BTW sarcasm isn't as bad as insalting and been rude to people.

 I have been at the receiving end in other threads when I mentioned I liked "Beresford" oops I did it again so sorry I mentioned the bad word!


----------



## Audio Jester

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Audio Jester, I wouldn't be surprised if a well made/terminated plastic cable performs as good as if not better than an expensive glass cable._

 

Neither would I. Does not mean that it is not possible. I for one, am curious enough that I want to give a more expensive cable a try. Why not eh?

 I do get a little sceptical though when people start saying that it has improved their system by 30% or something... But I have to test this for myself otherwise I am making crap up and that is not helpful around here. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 relating to your dirty word problem... some people take things too seriously huh?


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Audio Jester* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Neither would I. Does not mean that it is not possible. I for one, am curious enough that I want to give a more expensive cable a try. Why not eh?

 I do get a little sceptical though when people start saying that it has improved their system by 30% or something... But I have to test this for myself otherwise I am making crap up and that is not helpful around here. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 relating to your dirty word problem... some people take things too seriously huh?_

 

Some people are biased I am afraid.
 slim.a is on holiday now when he comes back he'll report about his optical cables tests, I am sure his findings will be very interesting.


----------



## gitf03

It wasn't my intention to offend anyone with my sarcastic post above, I just thought it could be a kind of eye opener and I feel my plan failed so I want to proceed with some facts to contribute something useful to this discussion.

 The big improvement in digital over analog is that you have no quality loss in transmission, copying or archiving. I will explain why.

 In analog and digital there are physical values like voltage sent over the wire and measured on the end. But there is an essential difference in digital and analog. In analog, the original values are sent directly to the receiver. So we have thousands of possible values that need to be measured on the end. Lets assume we have a 5V signal. Then the receiver must distinct between voltage 1.234 and 1.235 (I'm just simplifying). That means there is compared to digital a huge possibility in distortion of the signal. Different values will be measured than originally where sent.

 In digital, the original values are coded in numbers, on the end based on a binary layer, with only two values (1 and 0, High and Low...). The receiver of the signal now only need to distinct between two values. So we define, that a voltage range of 0-0.8 means 0 and 2-5 means 1. Now the possibility of distortion is very small. In addition, because we deal with numbers, we can implement mathematical algorithms to proof the data we receive. Imagine, before the coded source data is sent, the sender sends some kind of summery data about the source data that will be send. So the receiver knows how many 0 and 1 he will get (again, this is a much simplified description) and is able to proof if he got the data correct.

 The conclusion is, that the received information in digital is always the same. Either the information is there, or is not. But if it's there, it's always the same. Now the coded data will be again decoded in analog values (that is what a DAC is doing).

 That means it is just not possible that there is a different sound or video or picture or whatever with different DIGITAL cables. Analog cables is something different and for sure something worth to debate. But it really isn't worth to debate about sound quality with different optical cables, because there is no difference in the information that is sent.

 Of course, a digital cable must "work". The physical values like voltage (or light impulses in the case of optical cable) must be able to pass the wire. All the bandwidth discussion applies to that. More bandwidth than you need won't give you any improvements. Now how do you know if a cable is working? Easy, if you hear something, then it is working, if you hear nothing, it isn't. But there never will be a difference in sound.

 As an example lets compare a big scratch on an analog vinyl and digital cd. On the vinyl, you will hear the scratch in form of crackling, hissing or whatever. But it will still play, it just plays the "lost information". The receiver of the signal is not able to tell if this information it got is intended to be like this or not. Only we know. On a CD, you will never here crackling or hissing, but only skipping. The receiver of this digital signal knows that information is missing and is not playing anything for the area where the scratch is. Small scratches can be recovered with the "summery system" I briefly mentioned above, but bigger one not.

 If there would be a possibility for different sound, then it would also matter which hard drives it is save on, with which cables these are connected with, even which operating systems or programs the files are copied with. All these concerns applied to the analog world, but it doesn't matter in the digital. There is no loss of information. That is the big improvement over analog and the reason why we prefer to go digital in so many cases. Of course, it has also downsides, in a perfect condition you will have better audio quality in analog, but this is a different topic.

 Now, why are some companies selling that expensive cables? Easy, because there are people buying it. 

 Of course, you can buy a more expensive cable for its build quality or its length (sometimes we need different cables for different length, because we must still assure, the signal will arrive). But paying money for a DIGITAL cable that is advertised as a sound enhancer is fraud of the companies selling these and ignorance of the buyer. That's why I did the comparison with the penis enlargement in the earlier post. It is the same. And they trust in the habit of customers that are used to the cable-discussions in analog world and their ignorance of the digital technic.

 I think in a quality hifi forum this should be common sense. But sadly there are not few that bought expensive DIGITAL cables and are shouting out what great improvements they hear... that is only placebo. And it misleads newcomers and people leaking this knowledge to give their money to people that deserve nothing more than a kick in the ass ( i mean the sellers of such cables). No, I never compared digital cables for sound quality. But I also will never compare if the same sentences I write with different pens have a different meaning.

 The discussion reminds me of one between an evolution-scientist and an calvinist. Facts against beliefs. Although I think the facts for our topic are even stronger since this is something we invented and not something we try to understand in reserve.

 That are facts. Not an opinion. If you are interested further, just google about this topic, or read books or visit a course in the university. You will find plenty of information about it. I just simplified many things to make it clear.

 I hope I helped someone to learn something new and kept him from headaches and silly money burning.


----------



## leeperry

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gitf03* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_it could be a kind of eye opener [..] I hope I helped someone to learn something_

 

wow, can't thank you enough! I'm done and I'll be using those in coax from now on: http://themagazine.info/56/Pictures/...hromeThree.jpg


----------



## gitf03

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_wow, can't thank you enough! I'm done and I'll be using those in coax from now on: http://themagazine.info/56/Pictures/...hromeThree.jpg_

 

If you get them over 500$... why not?


----------



## leeperry

Canuck Audio Mart View topic - Quality GLASS TOSlink cable
  Quote:


 The difference is not loss of Data, but the corruption of the timing relationship between the Data and the 4 timing clocks in the S/PDIF Bitstream. This timing discrepancy is called jitter and for 16 bit data there can be no more than 100 picoseconds (1 picosecond =1/1,000,000,000,000th of a second) of jitter for full resolution whereas 24 bit Data can have no more than 0.5 picoseconds of jitter to maintain full resolution. 
 

Low Jitter Clock
  Quote:


 By reducing the jitter error, you will hear clearer positioning, also details are further refined vocally and instrumentally. Sound stage and positioning will improve noticeably and that includes deeper sound stage and darker background. Some said it also improves the control on the bass. 
 

About S/PDIF
  Quote:


 the poor quality optical fibre components often used can tend to introduce data-dependent jitter in the process of separating clock from data in the Manchester decoder at the receiver. This can cause a *measureable *degradation of the conversion back to analogue format 
 

so you can measure it...but it's placebo, right? and you did try it for yourself? you're not talking about stuff you never tried, right?


----------



## gitf03

As I wrote, either your cable works or not. If it doesn't, you will hear it clearly, and if it works, it won't be better with an an expensive cable.

 But hey, i'm not trying to play the pope. Buy whatever you want.


----------



## leeperry

yes, like HDMI cables, it's only a bunch of 0's and 1's after all 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 there's no attenuation taking place, skin effect, intra-pair skew, inter-pair skew, Far End Crosstalk(FEXT): http://www.head-fi.org/forums/6527983-post18.html

 I bought a 10 meters cheapo HDMI cable and it's no workee too well...how come???


----------



## MadMan007

I like how this has devolved in to a 'bits is bits' argument 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Do people not get tired of the same thing over and over?


----------



## gitf03

Hey, you know this finite elemente: highend furniture, bestwig, germany, deutschland, designermöbel, high quality, beste qualität, racks, hifi-racks, hifi-rack, hifi rack, audio-rack, audio rack, pagode master reference, signature, spider, level plus, cerabase, cerapuc ?

 It's only 1500$. That will bring your sound experience to the moon.

 Damn, i need to start thinking about an own cable company..
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Honest advise for the OP: Buy a cable for 30$ (if it doesn't need to be long) and put the rest of your budget into your next DAC or something else.


----------



## leeperry

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gitf03* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_advise for the OP: Buy a cable for 30$ (if it doesn't need to be long) and put the rest of your budget into your next DAC or something else._

 

my favorite 6ft dayton glass toslink cable costs $45, does it break your argument at all? or is $30 the hard limit?


----------



## rosgr63

gitf03 I thought Head-Fi and "silly money burning" go hand in hand.
 And I am guilty.
 BTW I like your penis enlargement parallel!


----------



## haloxt

IF YOU GO OVER $30 IT'S LIKE GOING OVER 21 IN BLACKJACK.


----------



## Currawong

gitf03: The problem is not the cable, the problem is that the receiving circuitry is converting the data real-time into an analogue signal. If the timing of the digital signal is altered, so will the music be. It's pure mathematics. Most of the problem is eliminated by the PLL circuit though, so the cable shouldn't matter.

 Considering Toslink is a poor connector and the transmitters and receivers aren't that great either, it's not an ideal connection.


----------



## gitf03

Of course you are right. That's why I suggest not to spend too much on the cable and invest the money in a good DAC. The problems of timings appear in the A/D or D/A units, but (though theoretically possible) only very marginal in the transmission. Like you mentioned, the most cheap DACs today are able to handle that easily with the help of a buffer and their own exact frequency, even when there is measurably higher jitter on toslink.

 And sadly, when it's about jitter, there is much BS written and sold with that argument. It's just stupid to buy 10 different optical cables to compare their sound. Because either you have a working cable, or you don't. And in that case you will hear clicking clearly or nothing, but you won't have a deeper bass or a wider soundstage with a "better" cable.


----------



## leeperry

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gitf03* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_either you have a working cable, or you don't._


----------



## Audio Jester

Does anyone know of a $30-40 glass optical cable that is Toslink to mini with no adapter needed?


----------



## majkel

Glass Toslink Digital Optical Cable

 This cable is a piece of crap. I owned one and even looking at the light spot, it's not uniform. Forget about a circle. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Comparing the sound to four other fiber cables, its flat, thin and colored. 

 From between the four I tried, the Belkin PURE|AV is the best, probably flawless. Other flawless options are the Van den Hul Optocoupler II or the Wireworld Supernova III+.


----------



## Audio Jester

Thanks Majkel, 
 You know the more I think about it the more I am convinced that I need to test this whole cheap vs expensive cable thing for myself. I love this hobby.


----------



## music_man

many of you may indeed have poor quality sounding toslink cables. they are poorly constructed. ie, malfunctioning. dropping packets.

 all properly constructed optical cables do an exact equal sounding job. sorry.
 these are not metal cables carrying electricity. they either transmit the light intact or they do not. if they do not transmit the light intact they can indeed sound poor. they are sending erratic or loss of data and an improper clock pulse/signal. with dacs that reclock the clock is not even an issue. which is lucky because the clock takes more precision in the manufacture of the cable than the data.

 pof(plastic optical fiber) is also preferable. it is less prone to damage and subsequent malfunction described above. it must be properly manufactured with very specialized machines and properly polished at the terminations. cheap cables are simply cut and stuck in the termination. a polished and properly fluted brass ferrule at the termination is also required.

 i spoke with a colleague that was on the board that designed the specification at length. i trust his opinion.

 for an example, usually a 6 foot cable that is $10 is not going to cut it. one that is $30 if carefully choosen probably will work perfectly. i got a 12 foot philips for $10 that did not work. then i found out why. as i was checking it the ends pulled off!

 i am told nxg and hosa are basic cables that will do the job in most instances.

 i know people here will maintain that there is a sound difference in properly functioning cables. so let this thread go on.

 music_man


----------



## Audio Jester

Not to pull the thread too far off track, but I am wondering what the general concensus on adapters for optic cables is? Are they as well made/ polished as the better cables? would I be better off getting a toslink to mini cable as a complete cable from a reputable brand?


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Audio Jester* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Not to pull the thread too far off track, but I am wondering what the general concensus on adapters for optic cables is? Are they as well made/ polished as the better cables? would I be better off getting a toslink to mini cable as a complete cable from a reputable brand?_

 

Sysconcept, a Canadian firm making custom lengths and adaptors is worth considering.
 I have been using their standard cable $18/m and some specially made adaptors for me and I am very happy with the results.
 The cables are very well made.


----------



## Audio Jester

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *rosgr63* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Sysconcept, a Canadian firm making custom lengths and adaptors is worth considering.
 I have been using their standard cable $18/m and some specially made adaptors for me and I am very happy with the results.
 The cables are very well made._

 

Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## music_man

i got a 17 foot hosa cable that is nearly as thin as a hair. it is plastic fiber. i compared it to a $450 one meter glass cable. no difference i can hear. i was glad to find a thin cable to snake through the floor.

 edit: i am surprised this cable even works as thin as it is. cool. i take it this is not the hosa cable that has been recommended here in the past? it works fine.

 music_man


----------



## MacedonianHero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_my favorite 6ft dayton glass toslink cable costs $45, does it break your argument at all? or is $30 the hard limit?_

 

Cool thanks for the recommendation...my 3ft Dayton Glass GOC-3 toslink cable arrives tomorrow. Only $35...not bad at all.


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i got a 17 foot hosa cable that is nearly as thin as a hair. it is plastic fiber. i compared it to a $450 one meter glass cable. no difference i can hear. i was glad to find a thin cable to snake through the floor.

 edit: i am surprised this cable even works as thin as it is. cool. i take it this is not the hosa cable that has been recommended here in the past? it works fine.

 music_man_

 

Very interesting, can you send us a link for the hosa cable please?


----------



## music_man

Hosa OPT-117 | Sweetwater.com

 i cannot honestly say if all optical cables are the same or not. i have not tried enough of them. i will say this one meets my expectations for sq. like i said, it is a marvel that it even works as thin as it is. it is not fragile either. i tugged and pulled on it. where the philips fell apart this one did not. it is intresting that everyone wants glass. the experts recommend plastic. i don't have links to those comments, you will have to take my word for it. glass is really designed for multi mile runs. it is also too fragile to be pushing through floor boards so i could not use it for this. also, all those toslink cables with fancy metal ends are just "covers" over the plastic connector. the connector is always plastic inside that metal barrel. this cable cuts way down on the bulk. i was told where i bought it(the store also owns a large studio) that it is used throughout the inside walls of their studio for years.

 btw, i think it says 16.5' it is an even 17 feet. they make them up to 30'.
 music_man


----------



## leeperry

*@MacedonianHero:* ok, let us know how it goes if you like 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




*@music_man:* yes, usually the thinner the better...but FWIR they need many strands to make it through the plugs.

 a hair thin silica fiber can drive 100 Gb/s over 7000 km: Optical fiber - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 glass has much better optical properties than plastic, better sharpness, constringence and less distortion(I personally cannot stand plastic based glasses...they make me feel half-blind): 
Abbe number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
mtf sharpness - Google Search


----------



## TrumpOrMonkey

I recent purchased a Van Den Hul Optocoupler MK II, because I like Van Den Huls house sound. It sounds very smooth and is definitely an improvement over the cheaper belden type cable I had before.

 Don't overestimate the difference between cables though, it is fairly noticable to my ears, but no where near night and day.


----------



## music_man

i just don't see how an optical cable can sound different. well, they don't not to me. except when they are malfunctioning. which is the case with many cheap cables. the new one must sound much better simply because the old one was not working properly. not because it is "better". it is better because it is constructed better. i feel either they work or they don't. however not working can be subtle. so i see why many of you move up to a more expensive one and it does sound better.

 hosa is known for making quality stuff for cheap. it is used in studios. i think it is one solid plastic fiber but i could be wrong. it could be multiple fibers. silica is glass? the hosa is plastic(pof). the big thing with glass is it can carry signals much further distances than plastic. it should not make a difference for us. other than your cheap plastic ones that did not function properly. so indeed the new glass one sounded better. try this, take two different glass cables at the same price range from quality manufacturers. do they sound different? analog cables i agree 100% but not fiber optics. we are not transmitting electricity. either the light pulse arrives fully intact or it does not. i am not a hater by any means. i just cannot hear a difference in ones that are working. plus with high end dacs the most important part, the clock signal does not have to be transmitted intact.

 the hosa is intresting that it is thin and seemingly not fragile. the thicker cables have cladding since glass is fragile. with glass as well, less strands is better i am told. so those cheap 280 strand cables are not the better ones. if you want the "better ones".
 i think the best ones have about 67 strands.

 if you have a good dac the hosa(or other qulaity inexpensive pof cable) should work as good as any. for a nonupsampling/reclocking dac it may in fact might make a large difference. i wouldn't know. so i guess it is possible. with my da924 and dac1 i cannot hear a diffenrece between the 17 foot hosa and a $450 one meter glass cable.

 music_man


----------



## mddorsey

Sure would appreciate some help here!
 I have a DVR that has both a Coax Audio Out port and an Optical Audio Out port (S/PDIF?). I want to convert either of these to a female USB port, into which I can plug the USB cable from my BOSE Companion 5 speaker system. 

 The Bose only has this one USB connection---the system is designed to plug into a computer (It is a Great system for that) Bose tells me that they can use the digital audio signal that comes out of these ports. I just need a way to connect them together (without soldering) Thanks, everyone!


----------



## haloxt

Okay we get it you like your hosa cable and it's well-constructed, don't have to say it a million times.


----------



## MacedonianHero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*@MacedonianHero:* ok, let us know how it goes if you like 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 glass has much better optical properties than plastic, better sharpness, constringence and less distortion(I personally cannot stand plastic based glasses...they make me feel half-blind): 
Abbe number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
mtf sharpness - Google Search_

 

Alright, I was a little skeptical about a digital cable making a difference...ok, really skeptical. I understand the theory of transferring data digitally over cables (as much as a Chemical Engineer who has worked in the electronics manufacturing/design industry for more than 15 years) and I just don't get what I am hearing.

 Being the "digital skeptic" that I was, I went out and picked up a 1M Monster Optical cable on sale at Bestbuy and never thought about it until I read leeperry's post. Since I seem to agree with him and his ears on many previous subjects, I thought for $35, why not.

 So that brings us to right now and I am no longer a skeptic. Listening to the SACD version of Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits (remaster), using the CD layer through to my PS Audio DLIII Dac via optical (and my HD800s), I can certainly here an improvement.

 On the very first track, "So Far Away", the cymbal hits on the drums seemed two dimensional, bright and lifeless. The bass was good, but seemed a little weak and not very taught. So I swapped out the 1M Monster cable with the 1M Dayton GOC-3 Glass Toslink cable and viola!

 The cymbal smashes became three dimensional with a better sense of space, they were better located in the sound stage and no longer too bright and came to life. The bass surprisingly tightened up even further with better definition.

 So being an engineer, I am back to doing some more A-B comparisons to collect more data, but so far I am very surprised and a little humbled.

 Thanks leeperry for the recommendation!

 BTW, the construction of the cable is just fantastic and very similar to many of my Kimber Kables. So far a happy skeptic...er customer.


----------



## leeperry

np! I also love mine 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 cables, opamps and tubes sure have magic to them...the hell w/ the reasons why


----------



## MacedonianHero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_/the hell w/ the reasons why 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Tough for an engineer to just let go!

 A former coworker about 12 years ago was also a magician and he always said he loved to do magic for engineers because he knew we would be up nights trying to figure out how his tricks worked.


----------



## leeperry

well, much higher optical MTF sharpness and bandwith than any kind of POF, far less optical distortion(meaning far less jitter), polished silica strands(the same that can drive 100 gb/s over 7000km 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




), high quality/properly installed metal plugs, good QA = better SQ 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 the guys on the forum I quoted earlier even said that this cable would kill coax...they can't all possibly be shills 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 it's funny how m2tech state in their FAQ that jitter over toslink is terrible and that it's limited to 24/96...but I was told on another forum that 24/192 was entirely possible over cheapo POF toslink, and did they even try silica toslink to run their jitter tests? ah well, "_if it sounds good to you, it's good_"


----------



## MacedonianHero

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *leeperry* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ "if it sounds good to you, it's good" 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I completely agree! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 And thanks again!


----------



## music_man

sorry to rub in the hosa. i did not mean to brag about a $10 cable.

 the dayton looks like a huge bargain. i'd want one but i need more than 12 feet. plus that is some big holes in the floor. not a great idea for various reasons. even if it did not sound better to me that is one nice cable for a steal price.

 the aq that is the same which comes in the length i need is $1,100. i am not doing that for internet radio.

 music_man


----------



## leeperry

FWIW, my other friend is also stunned by the glass cable...he's got a dac19mk3 and a mac laptop.


----------



## music_man

i need a glass cable that is 20' can bend sharp and is less than 1/4' at the connectors. otherwise i am stuck with the hosa. i will take your guys word and i would like to try it. if a cable this size exists. per this threads title, i do not care what the price is. well, within some reason.

 music_man


----------



## rosgr63

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *music_man* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_i need a glass cable that is 20' can bend sharp and is less than 1/4' at the connectors. otherwise i am stuck with the hosa. i will take your guys word and i would like to try it. if a cable this size exists. per this threads title, i do not care what the price is. well, within some reason.

 music_man_

 

Does it have to be glass?


----------



## music_man

well everyone is saying it is the -glass- cable that makes a big difference in sound quality. i don't want to doubt them. besides, it certainly is not going to hurt anything. if there is one small enough i'll get it. from what i read here any plastic one simply will not do the job as well as glass. i compared my seemingly decent plastic one to a very expensive glass one and did not hear a difference. i would also not be surprised if there are better glass ones. better glass,that small and bendable? hopefully!

 music_man


----------



## rosgr63

My 2c, long lengths can be better achieved by plastic fibers.
 Sysconcept make reasonably priced fiber optic cables and this is what they say:
 Quote
 ====
 Yes, some manufacture charge extra especially for glass optical cable
 but glass optical cable has very high attenuation as it is composed of
 small glass strands; therefor nobody will make you length longer then
 8meters (I think)
 We can make you Toslink Cable over 25-meters and it will still work, so
 make your own judgment. 
 In addition, what counts is not low fiber attenuation (ours is
 Attenuation less 0.15dB per meter @650nm) and very important part is the
 finish type. We polish our cable on 0.3um film and most other
 manufacture including more expensive one terminate their cable by hot
 glass or knife. 
 Yes, those cable will work or short distance and you can hardly tell the
 difference but they will fail on longer distance transmission in length
 over 20meters, or if you try to connect the two cables together via
 female to female adapter especially the fiber with hot glass
 termination. The tip of these cables are round, so when you try to
 connect two cables together only the tips are touching an the rest of
 the surface is air to air transmission which gives you very high
 attenuation loss.
 UNQUOTE
 =======


----------



## leeperry

Quote:


 nobody will make you length longer then 8 meters 
 

that plastic cable seller thinks a lot:

Glass 30FT DIGITAL AUDIO OPTICAL TOSLINK CABLE - eBay

25 ft GLASS TOSLINK DIGITAL OPTICAL CABLE - eBay

 and yes, sure, attenuation is terrible w/ silica optical fiber...they're used wordlwide and can drive 100gb/s over 7000km, that's not impressive at all.

 anyway, what matter is the SQ...this sellers also says that glass is bad: Digital Audio Cables at Blue Jeans Cable
  Quote:


 POF is in general rather lossy stuff compared to glass optical fiber, we prefer it for optical digital audio use because it's much more physically durable and because its aperture matches the spec for optical digital audio use, unlike glass fiber which is too small and must be used in bundles. 
 

it's a very nice story! but in that test they found their Mitsubishi POF cable worthless: LITE AUDIO DAC AM REVIEW
  Quote:


 The Mitsubishi POF cable sounded dull and lifeless 
 

 Quote:


 the Dayton glass optical cable was a little smoother and warmer than the coax but with better sounding highs and imaging 
 

specs, commercial bs....it's very nice and all, but a wild guess would lead me to believe that it's far easier to cut POF with a hot knife, use shiny plugs, call it "audiophile grade" and sell it for a good price...than assembling silica cables professionally, that would take a lot more equipment and money to set up. As usual in this hobby, there's only one way to find out 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 majkel mentioned a Belkin cable earlier, maybe I'll try it someday...but I can't find a good reason right now


----------



## rosgr63

What cables have you actually tested leeperry?


----------



## music_man

the people that said glass is for short runs are completely wrong. glass is designed specifically for long runs. it has to be very pure glass though. data travels thousands of miles on glass. in fact we are all probably using it to chat here right now!

 glass is not the specification for toslink though. i am open to the fact that it may sound better however. if i can find one that suits my needs above i'd be happy to have it. if it makes a difference or not. i am streaming 128kbps radio so i might not even notice a quality difference. the quality of this sound is rather poor as you might imagine.

 the better audio cables have less strands of glass. audioquest makes a 9 meter 5 series. it is like $4,500 or something. that is a top quality cable with 65 strands and heavily armored. therefore i doubt i will find what i want. glass cables must have thick armor. they also generally canot be bent tightly which i also require.

 as far as the run from my transport to dac i still prefer a high end silver/gold aes/ebu to my short aq series 5. i think coax is better and aes/ebu is the best. as always i could be wrong.

 i'd prefer to use glass just because so many people think it is better. i don't mind. the problem is the ones that are really good, 65 strands are a lot of money for long runs. plus the issue with size and bending. i do not think the 280 strand cables on ebay can compete with the 65 strand aq or similar. if you really want to feel you have the best sounding cable.

 music_man


----------



## Crazy*Carl

$300 optical cable.....
   
  Tell me, 'friend', when did Saruman the wise abandon reason for madness?!


----------



## haloxt

That looks like some serious vibration dampening device.


----------



## leeperry

I still can't really explain why, and it might very well be 100% placebo...but I still feel that the $45 Dayton glass toslink cable has made lossy audio totally acceptable?! it's like before there used to be distortion due to the lossy encoding and *on top* of it, there also was the jitter/harmonic distortion/"whatever you call it" of the cable that just made the music "lo-fi" sounding...and now I fully agree that ABX'ing 320kbits MP3/FLAC would be really really hard. MP3 used to sound edgy and amusical before...ah well, this set up is still going strong! if I'm not bored 3 weeks later, it's usually a good sign
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  I thought the more transparent your set up, the more MP3 would sound like ****...but I believe that it actually allows lower quality files to sound their best.


----------



## Kawai_man

Quote: 





leeperry said:


> I still can't really explain why, and it might very well be 100% placebo...but I still feel that the $45 Dayton glass toslink cable has made lossy audio totally acceptable?! it's like before there used to be distortion due to the lossy encoding and *on top* of it, there also was the jitter/harmonic distortion/"whatever you call it" of the cable that just made the music "lo-fi" sounding...and now I fully agree that ABX'ing 320kbits MP3/FLAC would be really really hard. MP3 used to sound edgy and amusical before...ah well, this set up is still going strong! if I'm not bored 3 weeks later, it's usually a good sign
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

  
  I think I have an explanation to why it's better. On my review of the cables I mentioned that the light output was a little brighter with the dayton cable than with the ebay glass cable, I forgot to mention that the surface area of the optical input of the dayton cable was considerably larger than of the ebay glass cable,  and before that comparison I had compared the ebay glass cable to the to the ibasso toslink cable, the ibasso cable (which is plastic btw) also sounded better than the ebay glass cable and the ibasso cable also had a brighter light output and If I remember correctly it also had a bigger optical surface area. The ibasso cable and the dayton  both have longer tips so they were also much closer to the LED than the ebay glass cable.
   
  That led me to the conclusion that what really matters is how much light the cable can let pass. The surface area of the LED is like 4x bigger than the optical surface of the cable so the cable only covers like 1/4 of the led. So a cable with a bigger optical surface will let more light pass through which will give a better sound, and it  also helps if the cables tip is as close as possible to the LED.
   
  I actually found a way to test this. I have this little USB to optical converter Ive been using (link below) because it sounds better than the optical out from my mac. I decided to connect it directly to my dac without an optical cable  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 !!! This would allow the full light output from the LED in the onverter to be sent to the reciever. I used a 3ft usb cable to extend it and I rolled a little paper into a small cyinder which I painted black and I put that in between the converter and my dacs optical input, this helped keep it in place and I think it also helps keep some of the light from escaping so it goes more direct to the optical receiver. I also made sure the paper was short enough so that the dongle and the reciever were as close as possible.
   
  This made a very noticeable difference in every way there was just much more to the sound especially more detail and it was also a little louder.
   
  I then took it a bit further. I removed the case and I cut part of the plastic that extends from the optical out of the converter so this would get me even closer contact between the LED and the receiver, this improved the sound a little further in the same way but there was an especially good improvement in the extension of the notes from the instruments and the singer, like when the note from an instruments decays before going to the next note the you could more clearly hear that or with the singers voice the words extend longer.
   
   
   
  I put pics below so you can see the light output from the source and how much actually gets passed through the cable, I also put a pic to show how I connected the converter to my DAC.
   
  heres is the link
   
  http://cgi.ebay.com/Xitel-MiniDisc-MD-Port-DG2-PC-Link-Optical-Audio-Cable-/220582822530?cmd=ViewItem&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item335bc2c282
   
   
   
  Cheers
  -Cris


----------



## leeperry

hehe, good point! that dutch toslink cable is said to have a convex lens on both ends...and actually I've got a luxmeter, too bad I already tossed the ebay cable 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   
  it's too bad the new forum becomes unreadable when large pictures are posted...so you've stuck the USB dongle to your DAC input? haha!


----------



## haloxt

I also noticed going from various plastic to my sonicwave toslink that the sound becomes less harsh, this is a quality you hear in lossless over some lossy formats.
   
  Very cool mod Kawai Man, I tried doing something like that before with 2x optical adapters out of transport to dac but cut up the optical connector too bad. I'm still searching for a new hard drive based transport to replace my h120, when I do I might try to do what you did.


----------



## rosgr63

Nice work Kawai Man, thanks for sharing.


----------



## markkr

Quote: 





fatcat28037 said:


> Visit Blue Jeans Cables to check-see what a custom length cable will cost you. My 2 footer was less than $20. They make quality stuff and have great customer service all at a very reasonable price. BJC is well respected here.
> 
> Blue Jeans Cable -- Quality Cables at Reasonable Prices


 

 X2
   
  I bought 3 different toslink cables from BJC... all are top notch quality and delivery and customer service is the BEST!


----------



## MichealAngelo

Quote: 





kawai_man said:


> I think I have an explanation to why it's better. On my review of the cables I mentioned that the light output was a little brighter with the dayton cable than with the ebay glass cable, I forgot to mention that the surface area of the optical input of the dayton cable was considerably larger than of the ebay glass cable,  and before that comparison I had compared the ebay glass cable to the to the ibasso toslink cable, the ibasso cable (which is plastic btw) also sounded better than the ebay glass cable and the ibasso cable also had a brighter light output and If I remember correctly it also had a bigger optical surface area. The ibasso cable and the dayton  both have longer tips so they were also much closer to the LED than the ebay glass cable.
> 
> That led me to the conclusion that what really matters is how much light the cable can let pass. The surface area of the LED is like 4x bigger than the optical surface of the cable so the cable only covers like 1/4 of the led. So a cable with a bigger optical surface will let more light pass through which will give a better sound, and it  also helps if the cables tip is as close as possible to the LED.
> 
> ...


 

  
  Thats awesome, good job!


----------



## leeperry

it's essentially the toslink DIY version of this: http://www.audiophilleo.com/audiophilleo1.aspx


> our device is designed to be small and attached directly to your DAC without the use of an SPDIF cable


 
   very clever! maybe this could help further? hopefully it's a convex lens(easy to check against a wall): http://cgi.ebay.com/Optical-Gender-Toslink-female-Toslink-female-/250565082756
   
  my ebay seller has sent me a replacement for the USB dongle, maybe I'll start looking for a tiny glass convex lens now: http://shop.ebay.com/?_from=R40&_nkw=glass+convex+lens&_sacat=See-All-Categories


----------

