# optical cables all created equal?



## oqvist

I have seen pictures here of real thick optical cables? Are they any better then these ultra thin ones except for being better to handle with? Or am I better off with a good coaxial? I would preferr that they also have rca interconnects for a reasonable price/performance ratio


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Erm, there is no difference in the signal that will come out of the cable. A difference in how your DAC handles the signals maybe (Though extremely unlikely I would say), but as long as the DAC can decode the LPCM coming through the cable all is good.

 As for a good coax, BlueJeans Cable makes a good one.


----------



## Maxvla

All optical cables are the same. Don't pay a premium for any fancy glass cables. A cheap, but properly made plastic cable has better durability. Optical cables don't need to be shielded so don't buy into any claims about shielding. All it is is a strobe of light transferred down the clear shaft of the cable. The strobe is the digital 1s and 0s. You can't get interference in a signal like that.

Toslink Optical 6 FT $2.14

 This is all you need.


----------



## daglesj

I love the ones that quote in their ad blurb - 

 "with gold plated connectors for better signal connection"

 I think that must be force of habit.

 I did find a website that was selling Toslinks for a good price but the difference with these were they were about 12mm thick!!!

 The covering on them was way over the top. They did look cool though.

 As with fibre network stuff, I think its how both ends of the fibre are finished and polished that really counts.


----------



## Currawong

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ The strobe is the digital 1s and 0s. You can't get interference in a signal like that._

 

You can actually, as the light is actually reflecting off the walls of the strands. "Just 1's and 0's" would be fine if there was buffering and error correction such as you have in computers, but in DACs which don't re-clock the signal, you don't have that.

 I thought that optical cables wouldn't make a difference until I found I could easily hear the difference between a cheap and nasty one vs. a high quality one from a reputable company.


----------



## majkel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_All optical cables are the same. Don't pay a premium for any fancy glass cables. A cheap, but properly made plastic cable has better durability. Optical cables don't need to be shielded so don't buy into any claims about shielding. All it is is a strobe of light transferred down the clear shaft of the cable. The strobe is the digital 1s and 0s. You can't get interference in a signal like that._

 

No, sir. They are not. Learn some optical fiber physics and come back to edit your misleading post. I have got at home two different optical cables, one is said to be made of glass. They sound different, and the Glass Toslink I'm talking about now is the bad one. Don't buy this crap from ebay.


----------



## mark2410

tosh, digital is digital, either it works or it doesnt. it is theoretically possible for losses to happen due to a very poor quality cable but there is certainly absolutely no EM interference. anything that could would be bright enough to blind you so you really would have bigger issues


----------



## krmathis

Certainly not all created equal.
 The most noticeable difference, which also may reflect in the sound, is the core material (plastic or glass) and the connectors.


----------



## daglesj

I always like this talk of 1's and 0's. Its not 1's and 0's, its on or off or pulse, no pulse.


----------



## Chri5peed

The difference is in build quality...tell me w/$130 cable!


----------



## milkweg

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *daglesj* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I always like this talk of 1's and 0's. Its not 1's and 0's, its on or off or pulse, no pulse._

 

Yea, and in digital computer language 1 = on and 0 = off.

 I have both Rocketfish coax and Philips optical connected to EMU 0404 USB and both sound exactly the same to my ears.


----------



## Headphile808

All Created Equal? No Way, I've got 3 different Audioquest Optical (OptiLink-1, OptiLink-G, Optilink-A,) & A Monster M-Series M1000. They are all built quite differently, as the cheaper models OptiLink-G ($50) & OptiLink-A ($30) have a bare-minimum design, being quite fragile-feeling. While the OptiLink-1 ($85) & Monster M1000 ($100) are fully sleeved to give it a lot more durability IMO. And also, the connectors used are much more substancial, which gives the cable a solid feel. As far as SQ, these are all cables of good quality, so differences are very inaudible when compared to one another. But if you compare it to one of those stock cables (never used one), I'm sure it would'nt be hard at all to determine. Good Luck.
 Aloha
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 Headphile808


----------



## myinitialsaredac

IME, there is a bit of a difference moving from cable to cable. In optical you have problems with reflections and over long distances signal degradation. The lens polish can make a difference, if the lens is causing reflections than the entire beam is gonna get messed up to some degree. Moving from a dayton 15$ optical to a monter thx 1000 (both plastic), offered a bit more soundstage and decay, but coaxial cheap coaxial to the monster thx was blatant. Using a cardas golden IC as a coaxial cable provided a sound that was darn near identical to the monster thx optical. Remember, the spdif protocol was written for 75 ohms, which cant be acheived with rca coaxial, and plastic fiber, which you cant do with glass opticals. 
 My recomendation is to go to target or best buy/frys electronics, buy one of the expensive opticals, and compare it. If you like it keep it, if not tell them you thought it was for optical like tv signals or monitor signals and it doesnt fit in the circular hole 
 Dave


----------



## Maxvla

You guys really are nuts. The most error proof connection there is and you still say there is a difference. 

 Enjoy your $100 tubes of plastic.


----------



## Currawong

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You guys really are nuts. The most error proof connection there is and you still say there is a difference. 

 Enjoy your $100 tubes of plastic._

 

The great irony is that when people say that ICs make no difference, they quote scientific tests, but when they say that optical digital cables make no difference, they completely ignore science!


----------



## myinitialsaredac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You guys really are nuts. The most error proof connection there is and you still say there is a difference. 

 Enjoy your $100 tubes of plastic._

 

Optical....error proof? I think you just belittled the value of your opinion in this thread....

 Dave


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The great irony is that when people say that ICs make no difference, they quote scientific tests, but when they say that optical digital cables make no difference, they completely ignore science!_

 

Analog interconnects make a big difference because they pass an analog signal. Said analog signal is very fragile as it is a variable voltage, and therefore has an almost infinite amount of states. Because of the almost infinite amount of states, the signal can be effected in an equally infinite amount of ways.

 A digital cable makes very little difference: as long as the signal it is passing can be decoded by the receiver (Example here would be LPCM and DAC) then the signal is the same as the source. The voltages might have been rounded off, the amplitude might have been decreased, but it makes no difference because the decoder still knows what it means. The cable only needs to pass two states: maximum voltage, and no voltage. Therefore, it only has two possible states of interference that effect the perceivable outcome: it works or it doesn't work (This is an oversimplification but it does not have bearing on our conclusion).

 The only feature of the signal that a better cable will effect is the length you can run the signal before it cuts out.

 To quote BlueJeans Cable:
  Quote:


 But a digital signal, because of the way its information is stored, can be quite robust. While the signal will always degrade to some degree in the cable, if the receiving circuit can actually reconstitute the original bitstream, reception of the signal will be, in the end analysis, perfect. No matter how much jitter, how much rounding of the shoulders of the square wave, or how much noise, if the bitstream is accurately reconstituted at the receiving end, the result is as though there'd been no degradation of signal at all.


----------



## ThePredator

Digital errors wouldn't cause a loss of soundstage or decay, it would literally sound like small chunks of sound were missing or sounds would be created that weren't there (and it would be very noticeable).

 If someone shows that a piece of data hashed at each side of a cheap (but still working audibly) toslink fibre cable are different, then I will go buy a Monster fibre optic the next day. Until then (it would be a relatively easy test to do compared to testing analog cables) I will continue to happily use relatively cheap plastic ones.


----------



## myinitialsaredac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Analog interconnects make a big difference because they pass an analog signal. Said analog signal is very fragile as it is a variable voltage, and therefore has an almost infinite amount of states. Because of the almost infinite amount of states, the signal can be effected in an equally infinite amount of ways.

 A digital cable makes very little difference: as long as the signal it is passing can be decoded by the receiver (Example here would be LPCM and DAC) then the signal is the same as the source. The voltages might have been rounded off, the amplitude might have been decreased, but it makes no difference because the decoder still knows what it means. The cable only needs to pass two states: maximum voltage, and no voltage. Therefore, it only has two possible states of interference that effect the perceivable outcome: it works or it doesn't work (This is an oversimplification but it does not have bearing on our conclusion).

 The only feature of the signal that a better cable will effect is the length you can run the signal before it cuts out.

 To quote BlueJeans Cable:_

 

.5, up or down? .4 up or down? .6 up or down? .499 up or down? .501 up or down? see where I'm going with this?
 Your oversimplified version doesn't take into affect dielectric properties. 
 In optical this is not a problem, but if reflections add jitter, or worse cause the signal to be 70% of the light at a given time, or reflect so 50% arrives at the right time and 50% at a slightly later time then Houston we have a problem. The receiver must make a decision whether it is a 1 or 0. 

 Your quote from BJC is very accurate, but I think you misunderstood it. It is saying that if a signal arrives, yet it has slight imperfections, but was understood perfectly, than it will sound the same as if it did not have those slight imperfections. It does not say that imperfections can change the sound. 

 Jitter does not cause huge gaps in time to disappear, it simply causes some of the 44,100 points to be in a different spot by a certain amount. This can manifest itself in more than one way I'd assume. It would effectively be the same affect of misinterpretations on the receiving end for 1s and 0s. It doesn't mean it wont work, but it can cause slight variations in sound. Oversimplifying does not work in this case, because one must consider what these 1s and 0s culminate into, a complex analog wave that is derived from 44,100 points and some interpolation. 

 Dave


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

From what I have read, jitter introduced by cables of reasonable manufacture and length for audio application is not high enough in amplitude to effect rise and fall times (Of the charge) to the point were a bit is read different vs the source.

 In any case, I guess not all optical is created equal... but surely there is a point were the jitter introduced by the cable is not going to effect the signal (and that point is not up in the clouds of 100USD+)?


----------



## Maxvla

This is becoming overly complicated. The receiver would see either no light or some light of any value. Whether it is 70% of the full light or not it doesn't matter.


----------



## ThePredator

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is becoming overly complicated. The receiver would see either no light or some light of any value. Whether it is 70% of the full light or not it doesn't matter._

 

The claim here seems to be that light transmission is slow and varied enough through cheap fibre optic that it can cause timing issues on MHz clocks.


----------



## Devolve

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ThePredator* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The claim here seems to be that light transmission is slow and varied enough through cheap fibre optic that it can cause timing issues on MHz clocks._

 

$2 cables deserve some sort of award then for slowing down the speed of light.


----------



## RickEC

Signal amplitude doesn't matter as discussed. The speed of light does not have to change for cables to mess with the timing of the signal. These are just theories on paper. If you cannot hear the difference, then don't bother.


----------



## gadgetman

I'm a newbie, though I'm somewhat familiar with the technical aspect of data transfer and codec formats... I've a question about digital optical audio:

 I assume the format of data in question being bitstreamed thru said optical cables are RAW PCM Stream? 
 Does that have any error correcting capability?


----------



## myinitialsaredac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_This is becoming overly complicated. The receiver would see either no light or some light of any value. Whether it is 70% of the full light or not it doesn't matter._

 

.7 up or down? .5 up or down? .1+.3 up or down? .3+.023+.58+.2 up or down? Do you understand the complexity yet? Any reflections can cause light to arrive at slightly different times, where it may be arriving with other reflections or other signals. 
 Your oversimplifying something far beyond where it can be oversimplified too. 
 Dave


----------



## myinitialsaredac

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gadgetman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I'm a newbie, though I'm somewhat familiar with the technical aspect of data transfer and codec formats... I've a question about digital optical audio:

 I assume the format of data in question being bitstreamed thru said optical cables are RAW PCM Stream? 
 Does that have any error correcting capability?_

 

It does not have any error correction because there is no 2 way transmission in an optical cable. One transmitter, one receiver.

 Dave


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gadgetman* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I assume the format of data in question being bitstreamed thru said optical cables are RAW PCM Stream?_

 

Actually, it is Spdif format: clock + stream.


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_You guys really are nuts. The most error proof connection there is and you still say there is a difference. 

 Enjoy your $100 tubes of plastic._

 

They may sound the same, but still not be created equal... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 I am certainly enjoying my $150 cable.


----------



## Devolve

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *myinitialsaredac* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_ Any reflections can cause light to arrive at slightly different times, where it may be arriving with other reflections or other signals. 

 Dave_

 

Are these "slightly different times" even detectable at the speed of light?


----------



## nick_charles

Nobody, anywhere with any combination of any format of optical cables of normal length (non faulty) at any price levels or construction or any material has ever shown any verifiable measurable differences in the integrity or interpretation of an optical data stream passed from transmitter to receiver, the end....afaik - if someone can point to some ***empirical*** evidence to challenge this I will be more than happy to read it, and _I heard a difference _does not count...


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

welcome to www.jitter.de

 A good read for those interested. They state that they used a long Toslink (10 meters) to make the measurable jitter more apparent for the scope.


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_welcome to www.jitter.de

 A good read for those interested. They state that they used a long Toslink (10 meters) to make the measurable jitter more apparent for the scope._

 

10 meters is bang on the limit for toslink optical cables without using repeaters and these chaps sell a jitter attenuator so are maybe not the most unbiased source ?


----------



## Andrew_WOT

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_welcome to www.jitter.de

 A good read for those interested. They state that they used a long Toslink (10 meters) to make the measurable jitter more apparent for the scope._

 

Excellent article. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## Maxvla

But really who runs a 25 foot optical cable?


----------



## krmathis

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_welcome to www.jitter.de

 A good read for those interested. They state that they used a long Toslink (10 meters) to make the measurable jitter more apparent for the scope._

 

Thanks!
 Looks like a *must read* ...


----------



## qusp

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Devolve* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Are these "slightly different times" even detectable at the speed of light?_

 

lol whether something is traveling at the speed of light or a snails pace is irrelevant; if a reflection causes a piece of information to arrive later than it should; then the signal will be decoded in a way that is inaccurate.


----------



## ashmedai

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_welcome to www.jitter.de

 A good read for those interested. They state that they used a long Toslink (10 meters) to make the measurable jitter more apparent for the scope._

 

*cough*snake oil*


----------



## Chri5peed

All this talk of jitter, is it acftually a noticable pop or jump?

 As my DAC can use all 3 digital signals, I've extensively used all 3 and have always gone back to Optical, never given me cause for concern.


----------



## moogoob

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Devolve* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_$2 cables deserve some sort of award then for slowing down the speed of light. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

This may belong in sound science, but technically ANY transparent material (other than a vacuum, which is the absence of material) slows the speed of light. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 That's what refraction is indicative of. 

 /Okay, you can all get back to your regularly scheduled thread


----------



## tubaman

This is all you need.[/QUOTE]

 I once had someone told me that when she saw my $600 truck.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ashmedai* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_*cough*snake oil*_

 

How is it snake oil? They cite papers written by experts, show scope measurements.


----------



## ashmedai

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How is it snake oil? They cite papers written by experts, show scope measurements._

 

For starters, since you like that one: Scope measurements? Showing minor fuzzyness? On a DIGITAL signal?

 That, assuming they didn't rig it, which would be almost trivial to do.

 (Yes, I'm being deliberately vague, because I don't want to get into a detailed technical discussion. And I definitely want to avoid a protracted argument about cables on head-fi, which is about as fun as fighting a land war in Asia in the dead of winter. But it should be clear enough what I'm thinking is wrong if you've used an oscilloscope much & had experience with digital signals. But then again if you did wouldn't you have been all "hey, wait a minute..." too? Hmm...)


----------



## nick_charles

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Dr. Strangelove* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_How is it snake oil? They cite papers written by experts, show scope measurements._

 

Actually they are being a bit misleading and I shall explain why.

 1. They use 3ns as an exemplar for jitter, this is a lot of jitter but still below the threshold of human perception (Benjamin and Gannon, 1998) 

 2. They cite Julian Dunn. Dunn never measured the audibility of jitter ever, he modelled it but never ever performed any jitter listening tests and even revisited his views on audibility after B and G..

 3. The BB paper states that all digital is PCM, where have they been since 1998, no mention of DSD ??? 

 4. 3ns is a lot of jitter, and way above what commercial audio device actually sport in jitter terms, read a few stereophile measurements of digital audio devices , you will not find any **CD** players with 3ns jitter , a music server and one DVD player but no , even cheap end, CD player manifests 3ns jitter.

 5. 3ns is inaudible in "proper" listening tests

 6. The Philips CD723 had to be **bodged** to give it an optical feed, it does not have one normally, hmmmm no possibility that they didnt rig that test ?. Why did thye not buy a CD player with an optical out ?

 7. Sighted listening tests sigh


----------



## ashmedai

Nick also has good objections, and is more explicit about them than I.


----------



## Headphile808

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_But really who runs a 25 foot optical cable?_

 

Monster M-Series MLS1000 8M
 Aloha
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




 Headphile808


----------



## zeroibis

If you really wanted to know if there is a difference just do the following. 
 Connect two devices together with said optical cable
 Create a stream of 1's and 0's and send it though the cable
 Have the receiver configured to output the sequence of 1's and 0's
 If the sequence you sent was the same as the one it got than clearly you are not losing any quality...


----------



## Maxvla

They aren't arguing that the data received is not the same, they are arguing that the data is received at different times based on reflections inside the cable.

 I don't see how this is possible unless the cable is moving. A stationary cable will reflect every piece of data exactly the same, if the reflection causes a 2ms delay every piece of data will be delayed by 2ms and you still end up with the same exact performance, just the entire stream is delayed in starting and ending by 2ms.


----------



## ashmedai

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Maxvla* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_They aren't arguing that the data received is not the same, they are arguing that the data is received at different times based on reflections inside the cable._

 

Um, okay. Assuming it's a true statement that the sequence of bits is preserved, but that the t_arrival for each bit differs...

 What, it's a clocked signal. As long as you have buffering and the average delay is some small fraction of your signal rate (which, reading the last few posts, it seems to be) - YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM. Also, some variation is expected behavior for any real system - insisting that there should be none is just silly when it's well within meaninglessly small levels.

 Snake oil. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 (Really, need to remember not to post anything about cables, ever.)


----------



## majkel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *Currawong* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The great irony is that when people say that ICs make no difference, they quote scientific tests, but when they say that optical digital cables make no difference, they completely ignore science!_

 

Lack of logical thinking is a general inability of cable non-believers. They think they saw proofs all cables are the same while I have never seen such a proof. This is like that - they saw somebody didn't distinguish cable A from cable B. The conclusion is - X is like Y, D is like C, C is like X, ... any combination is lik A against B. Does it make sense?


----------



## ashmedai

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Lack of logical thinking is a general inability of cable non-believers. They think they saw proofs all cables are the same while I have never seen such a proof. This is like that - they saw somebody didn't distinguish cable A from cable B. The conclusion is - X is like Y, D is like C, C is like X, ... any combination is lik A against B. Does it make sense?_

 

I believe in logical circles, your first statement is called a gross generalization (when it's not just referred to as silly - "everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" tends to be shoddy reasoning at the best of times), and the second is called a strawman argument.

 Am I right?


----------



## gregorio

Transfer of digital audio is not a particularly new technolgy. The digital audio stream also contains a great deal of metadata. This metadata includes timing information (embedded word clock) and error correction data. None of this is new, it's been around for more than 20 years and it works! Once the information reaches your DAC or other piece of digital audio equipment it is buffered and the metadata extracted. The internal clock is then synchronised to the word clock data (extracted from the metadata or supplied separately with pro-gear), parity and other error correction is checked before being release in order and in time from the buffer.

 So, all this stuff about reflections or the rest of it is all bogus. So if you are happy sitting there with your $100 lightpipe cable enjoy yourself. I will sit here with my $10 cable absolutely secure in the knowledge that there can be no difference to audio quality whatsoever. If you can hear a difference between cables or connector types you either have a fault with the cable or with the equipment it's plugged into.

 I personally think it's despicable. Manufacturers know that digital audio is not well understood by consumers and this allows them to take advantage. There are numerous cases where consumer (and even budget pro-gear) manufacturers big up certain specifications when they know that these specifications are going to have absolutely no impact on sound quality but simply allows them to sell additional products with massive profit margins. For professionals like me it makes my blood boil that manufacturers are deliberately mis-leading the consumer and that there doesn't seem to be anything illegal about this practice.

 Cheers, G


----------



## majkel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ashmedai* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_I believe in logical circles, your first statement is called a gross generalization (when it's not just referred to as silly - "everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot" tends to be shoddy reasoning at the best of times), and the second is called a strawman argument.

 Am I right?_

 

Looks like you didn't understand. As I said before, problems with logical thinking are very coherent with assumptions kind of "cables don't differ, optical fibers don't differ". Have you ever seen a single proof saying all cables must sound the same? Please, show me.
  Quote:


 ]Transfer of digital audio is not a particularly new technolgy. The digital audio stream also contains a great deal of metadata. This metadata includes timing information (embedded word clock) and error correction data. None of this is new, it's been around for more than 20 years and it works! Once the information reaches your DAC or other piece of digital audio equipment it is buffered and the metadata extracted. The internal clock is then synchronised to the word clock data (extracted from the metadata or supplied separately with pro-gear), parity and other error correction is checked before being release in order and in time from the buffer. 
 

Bla, bla, bla. False generalization. First - how can you be sure the digital communication between the two devices is flawless? It is not, maybe it's true in very well built digital transports, but in most cases - it sucks to deliver 100% flawless digital stream. Second - there are several methods of colcking the DAC, and in most cases it is not re-clocking but PLL recovery of the SPDIF data clock. So, the data come more or less flawed, and you have jitter on them, affecting the DAC clocking. Another problem is that you get bad frames from time to time, just because of reflections, transparency loss and dispersion in optical fibers. The data recovery is practically none for SPDIF. Bad frames are rejected which means no data. It's up to the DAC or the SPDIF receiver what to do with such a frame but it's each time made out not recovered.


----------



## gregorio

"Bla, bla, bla. False generalization. First - how can you be sure the digital communication between the two devices is flawless?".

 You can't, transferring any signal is always going to degrade it, at least in this universe. Duh, this is why digital audio was invented!! Digital audio doesn't need to be transferred flawlessly to flawlessly reproduce the original signal, that is why it was invented in the first place! Hello, am I getting through here? It doesn't matter if it's a good quality '1' or a bad quality '0' or if the odd '1 or 0' is missing or out of time, digital systems have been designed for over a quarter of a century to expect and deal with these errors. Without this ability there would be no digital audio!

 Look, you want to spend $100 on a piece of plastic which is going to make absolutely no difference when compared to a $10 equivalent, you go for it. Share holders are having a hard time at the moment and I'm sure they will appreciate your contribution to keeping them in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed!

 Cheers, G


----------



## rocker

I have myself wondered about the value of high end toslink - I love Van Den Hul cables but really wonder how ther Opticoupler could give more.


----------



## gregorio

rocker - I am not arguing that different makes of cable don't have different specifications and some have better specifications than others, I take this as a given. What I and several others, are saying is that the very nature of digital audio and why it was invented in the first place makes the specification of the cable irrelevant. Even the very cheapest cable (providing it isn't damaged or faulty) is going to pass a signal well enough so that the DAC can perfectly recreate the original signal. It's black and white, there is no grey, no better or worse, it either works or it doesn't; if it works, it works as well as any other cable.

 G


----------



## majkel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_rocker - I am not arguing that different makes of cable don't have different specifications and some have better specifications than others, I take this as a given. What I and several others, are saying is that the very nature of digital audio and why it was invented in the first place makes the specification of the cable irrelevant. Even the very cheapest cable (providing it isn't damaged or faulty) is going to pass a signal well enough so that the DAC can perfectly recreate the original signal. It's black and white, there is no grey, no better or worse, it either works or it doesn't; if it works, it works as well as any other cable.

 G_

 

You are very wrong. If you studied subjects like data transmission or related, you should know that the error rate is never equal zero. You assumed that your digital transmission is 100% correct. I am telling you it is not, even though these are ones and zeros. Take into consideration as well that for the non-reclocking DAC it is very important for how long each logic state is present. The problem is that each audio producer is going with the costs as low as still the error rate is acceptable for statistically huge group of people, taking into consideration the equipment they will use, and statistical hearing. People here averaged, are say, above all globe average. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 I tried it for myself what Technics did to the Toslink transmitter - very long traces and just one capacitor 100nF at the optical device. Guess what happened when I soldered another 68uF tantalum capacitor to decouple the transmitter supply. Well, it started to sound more like fed from the Accuphase DP800 transport via a regular, cheap coaxial cable. Why all of that? Just because the digital trasport must be properly build with a good margin of voltage stability and edge steepness of the data to work fine with a less than perfect cable. It's not a big deal, especially for a DIYer but companies make it intentionally to show you the more you pay, the more you get. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 In the meanwhile - keep on believing your digital is bit perfect. That is cheaper for sure.


----------



## rocker

I have learned as in all hobbies, YMMV and buyer beware.


----------



## gregorio

"You are very wrong. If you studied subjects like data transmission or related, you should know that the error rate is never equal zero. You assumed that your digital transmission is 100% correct."

 majkel - Thank you so much for pointing out what I assumed. Try reading the thread before telling me what I assumed!

 G


----------



## Currawong

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Lack of logical thinking is a general inability of cable non-believers. They think they saw proofs all cables are the same while I have never seen such a proof. This is like that - they saw somebody didn't distinguish cable A from cable B. The conclusion is - X is like Y, D is like C, C is like X, ... any combination is lik A against B. Does it make sense?_

 

What gets me is that people will do scientific tests, then deduce things from them that they didn't prove, which is non-scientific.

  Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_"Bla, bla, bla. False generalization. First - how can you be sure the digital communication between the two devices is flawless?".

 You can't, transferring any signal is always going to degrade it, at least in this universe. Duh, this is why digital audio was invented!! Digital audio doesn't need to be transferred flawlessly to flawlessly reproduce the original signal, that is why it was invented in the first place! Hello, am I getting through here? It doesn't matter if it's a good quality '1' or a bad quality '0' or if the odd '1 or 0' is missing or out of time, digital systems have been designed for over a quarter of a century to expect and deal with these errors. Without this ability there would be no digital audio!

 Look, you want to spend $100 on a piece of plastic which is going to make absolutely no difference when compared to a $10 equivalent, you go for it. Share holders are having a hard time at the moment and I'm sure they will appreciate your contribution to keeping them in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed!

 Cheers, G_

 

I can see by your post you know very little to nothing about how digital audio works, and don't want to know, because that would show the gross flaws in your arguments. Start with the alt.cd-rom FAQ. You might get a rude shock to discover that, for example, ALL CDs are full of errors. But this is the tip of the iceburg.

 Incidentally, when I first bought a Van Den Hul Optocoupler, I expected it to make no difference compared to the cheap optical cable I was using. To say that I received a rude shock would be an understatement. That being said, there are DACs and CD players that have DSPs in them that render the differences almost null, but for most people and most DACs, it'll still make a difference.


----------



## Chri5peed

^ I've an Optocoupler Mk.2, I got it more because the specialist audio place I got it from ordered it from Van Den Hul and I chose the exact specs[connectors/length].

 Incidentally, yesterday I ripped all The Beatles Anthology CDs. For those 6CDs every song got AR confidences of 70-80. Surely these errors burstning from CDs are really drops in the ocean?


----------



## gregorio

"I can see by your post you know very little to nothing about how digital audio works, and don't want to know, because that would show the gross flaws in your arguments."

 Hahahaha. Classic! Shame then that I've earnt more than a decent living over the last 20 years from creating digital audio and as a nice little sideline, lecturing on the subject at university. 

 As I said, you sit there and enjoy your $100 cable and I'll sit here and laugh at you for being an idiot!! And, CD's have errors, shock, horror, never knew that one. You want to explain to me how error correction works then, just in case I've forgotten about it since I studied it, probably before you were born!! Just out of curiosity, have you any idea whatsoever what a fact actually is?

 G


----------



## Chri5peed

^ Actually the only idiot is not the purchaser of a 'super' cable, its the purchaser of said cable who has gone hungry from buying cable.

 Its like those who buy physical CDs entirely for the coverart and booklet. Technically a waste, but not to them, same story w/cable.

 My Van Den Hul looks nice.


----------



## majkel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_
 Hahahaha. Classic! Shame then that I've earnt more than a decent living over the last 20 years from creating digital audio and as a nice little sideline, lecturing on the subject at university. _

 

Shame indeed, for your university. It's quite common that in many universities worldwide people give lectures about things they actually don't know much about. You seem to be another example. Poor students. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Man, digital electronics are basics which I had on several subjects finished with exams - digital and switching circuits, digital instrumentation, optoelectronics, data transmission and others. Finished with the MSc EE degree. Do you think I find it the reason to say I know something about the digital audio? No. Do you think I find several DSP projects (HW/SW) related with audio as another proof of my digital audio excellence? Again, no. I know digital electronics from broader point of view coming from my practical experience with digital audio like CDPs, DACs, optical fibers, coaxial cables, etc.  Quote:


 As I said, you sit there and enjoy your $100 cable and I'll sit here and laugh at you for being an idiot!! And, CD's have errors, shock, horror, never knew that one. You want to explain to me how error correction works then, just in case I've forgotten about it since I studied it, probably before you were born!! Just out of curiosity, have you any idea whatsoever what a fact actually is?
 G 
 

So we'll keep on laughing at each other. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Error correction in SPDIF? Take a cold shower. Better find out how it happens that you hear no pops when a frame is lost - just for the beginning.


----------



## ashmedai

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *majkel* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_Looks like you didn't understand. As I said before, problems with logical thinking are very coherent with assumptions kind of "cables don't differ, optical fibers don't differ". Have you ever seen a single proof saying all cables must sound the same? Please, show me._

 

The word you were looking for is "consistent," not "coherent." Someone with the background you're claiming should know the difference.

 GJ


----------



## majkel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ashmedai* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The word you were looking for is "consistent," not "coherent." Someone with the background you're claiming should know the difference.

 GJ_

 

Sure my English is not as good as my mother tongue. I rely on my dictionaries, they might be wrong in terms of meaning differences between these two words expecially that there are several kinds of English used worldwide. In Polish they'd both work for me with my preference of word "coherent" in that sentence. It might be also the case you thought I meant something different. Finally I could choose the word "convergent". I like it.


----------



## gregorio

lol, it just gets funnier!


----------



## majkel

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *gregorio* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_lol, it just gets funnier! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

Where do you come from, Mr Shy? Are you ashamed to share this detail with us?


----------



## oqvist

hmm what have I started. I did get the blujeans cable some week ago. the optical cable is an upgrade to the flimsy standard plastic cable in the way that no more flimsy connectors that don´t fit right and fall out ot place. 

 Better functionality and better looks is what you pay for I suppose. I can also say there is 0.0 % difference in sound from coaxial or optical out to my Keces fast switching betwen 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




...
 But really get an optical cable with connectors as seen on the picture no more frustration


----------



## oldson

does cable length make a difference?

 i bought a £40 cable to replace the freebie, with my dac, couldnt hear a difference. got a refund!


----------



## oqvist

Must be very long for it to really matter... Exactly how long I don´t know I just use 1 metre cables there it don´t matter at all on my system anyway


----------



## ashmedai

I think the length threshold is supposed to be >20ft before plastic starts sucking. But yeah, my longest is 5 or 6. Bit-perfect or close enough.


----------



## musician

Quote:


  Originally Posted by *ashmedai* /img/forum/go_quote.gif 
_The word you were looking for is "consistent," not "coherent." Someone with the background you're claiming should know the difference.

 GJ_

 

As being a non native speaker I can see only that 'coherent' means being connected together. As consistent means that something is constant throughout the time. [Latin coherent: cohaereo = to be connected -->OP intention?; consistent: consistere = to be standing still]
 Nonetheless, why do you guys fight so much over it? Do you have to pick on the language now? Are you out of arguments?

 As on the topic:
 Surely there is jitter. Some may have more and some less. Question is how much is really present and how much can you personally hear? And after that how good is the DAC? etc. etc.

 Of course we can scientifically discuss this matter in an ideal system.

 But fact remains: If you look at all possible problems which could arise on the way from the source to your brain, then the digital transport is the least you should be worrying about.
 Some nice little facts (w/o me stating what degree I am holding):
 - human ears loose perception for certain frequencies beginning with the age of 20yrs
 - cables transporting analog signals are prone to interference, e.g headphone or loudspeakers
 - most modern CDs are not even tipping the edges of the specifications, e.g. dynamics; and are poorly mastered
 - Did you ever compare a superb analog signal with a standard digital output? My Denon CD-Player gives a better digital out, while the Cambridge seems to has a better analog output- compared to the other plug on the same player.
 Can you be certain to have eliminated all of these things and many more?

 Conclusion:
 Without going too much into detail: If you have paid a premium for your equipment then those few extra bucks wont hurt. But if you consider it rational there is not much left for differences between two optical cables!


----------



## David_N

I've got a VDH on the way from England (Couldn't source it from North America 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




) so I'll post a mini-review when it gets here! I have a couple of cheaper cables to compare it to.


----------



## gregorio

Musician - "If you look at all possible problems which could arise on the way from the source to your brain, then the digital transport is the least you should be worrying about."

 At last, someone else with some sense contributing to this forum!

 Someone else mentioned paying a big premium for cables because of their appearance. If someone wants to pay $100 per ft for cable because they like the way it looks, fine. I've got no problem with that. Same as if someone thinks that an extra $5,000 for a yellow paint job on a Ferrari looks great. But if that person says and advises others that their Ferrari actually performs better because of it's yellow paint job, compared to a standard red Ferrari, and that paying the extra $5,000 is worth it in terms of the Ferrari's improved performance then I'll feel justified in calling them an idiot!!

 G


----------



## punk_guy182

Hello there! I'm looking for something to replace my Blue Jeans Cable POF 15Ft cable that connects my computer to my Compass because I notice that the sound is not very good.

 This is a quote directly taken from BJC website that confirms differences in optical cables:  Quote:


 While 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. 
 

Digital Audio Cables at Blue Jeans Cable

 Anyhow, can someone recommend me a good way to output digital audio to my Compass? I have a bit perfect capable codec and a good coaxial cable, but I pick up interference from the computer when using coaxial.


----------

