DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,491
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 26, 2010 14:37:49 GMT -5
Please, let's not start a "which cable is better" flame war... just a simple question about the performance of the UMC-1.
Is there any difference in sound quality between using an optical or a coax digital input?
I will probably try both and test it our for myself, but I thought I'd ask here if anyone has already experimented.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 26, 2010 14:42:18 GMT -5
Please, let's not start a "which cable is better" flame war... just a simple question about the performance of the UMC-1. Is there any difference in sound quality between using an optical or a coax digital input? I will probably try both and test it our for myself, but I thought I'd ask here if anyone has already experimented. Thanks! None that I have ever heard. I prefer optical as it is less prone to RF interference....though optical cables do not take bending of the cable well. But now...well...I am 100% HDMI. (This would be a good time to perpetrate an optical HDMI standard on the unsuspecting consumer). |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,491
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 26, 2010 14:45:03 GMT -5
I was planning to try connecting my Squeezebox to the digital inputs to see how the UMC-1 DAC compares to the external one I'm using now.  |
|
markd
Emo VIPs
Posts: 182
|
Post by markd on Feb 26, 2010 15:34:46 GMT -5
Same data is sent across either. . . only benefit to optical (besides jmiltons point above) is that you can use it to break a ground loop if you have one.
I don't know what the jitter people might have to say about the difference though. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by greentea123 on Feb 26, 2010 15:52:15 GMT -5
I tried both because of my dated DVD player. I really can't hear any noticeable difference though. They both sound good to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 26, 2010 16:04:32 GMT -5
Same data is sent across either. . . only benefit to optical (besides jmiltons point above) is that you can use it to break a ground loop if you have one. I don't know what the jitter people might have to say about the difference though. ;-) Curse those "jitter people"!  |
|
|
|
Post by merlinwerks on Feb 26, 2010 16:26:04 GMT -5
Same data is sent across either. . . only benefit to optical (besides jmiltons point above) is that you can use it to break a ground loop if you have one. I don't know what the jitter people might have to say about the difference though. ;-) Probably lots ;D From what I've read around the Internet, most HDMI implementations have a worse jitter spec than S/pdif  Oh! The Horror! |
|
bootman
Emo VIPs
Typing useless posts on internet forums....
Posts: 9,358
|
Post by bootman on Feb 26, 2010 16:38:16 GMT -5
Personally I have preferred coax, not for sound but for a better connection. You wind up spending much more on a good toslink cable than you do on a good 75ohm coax. (since any decent video cable will do) As far as sound, when working they both sound the same to me. (of course when that cheap toslink cable falls off, coax wins by a mile  ) |
|
markd
Emo VIPs
Posts: 182
|
Post by markd on Feb 26, 2010 16:39:50 GMT -5
From what I've read around the Internet, most HDMI implementations have a worse jitter spec than S/pdif Oh! The Horror! Right, but that isn't what is under discussion. . just optical vs coax. HDMI has more jitter because the audio is packetized and squeezed into the blanking time of the video. The audio clock and data are reconstructed on the other end and sent out of the HDMI interface chip. HDMI chips are not audiophile quality devices. ;-) A good processor can re-clock the data, with a nice big jitter buffer, and clean it up. That said, I doubt I could hear it- I'm a video guy, not an audio guy. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,491
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 26, 2010 16:41:31 GMT -5
Thank you all for your feedback. I also usually use coax, by the way...
|
|
|
|
Post by jmilton on Feb 26, 2010 16:51:27 GMT -5
Thank you all for your feedback. I also usually use coax, by the way... ...you know, I always pegged you as a coax kinda guy. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,491
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 26, 2010 16:54:36 GMT -5
Thank you all for your feedback. I also usually use coax, by the way... ...you know, I always pegged you as a coax kinda guy. Is it that obvious? Really? I guess the creams don't work as well as I thought. Damn... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2010 16:56:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by strindl on Feb 26, 2010 16:58:29 GMT -5
Thank you all for your feedback. I also usually use coax, by the way... Years ago when digital first came into being, I always heard that coaxial digital was preferred over toslink. There was even a digital plug and cable system known as AT&T ST optical which used a glass filament rather than the plastic optical one used in Toslink. It was a different plug and cable than toslink and never really caught on. I had and used those connections on my PS Audio Lambda Transport and Ultralink II DAC back in the mid 90's. I still have that DAC and the cable. The transport died though. I use the coax and toslink pretty interchangeably now and never noticed any difference. That ability of the toslink to not establish a ground between two components is a real advantage though. |
|
|
|
Post by loopinfool on Feb 26, 2010 17:25:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by merlinwerks on Feb 26, 2010 18:39:14 GMT -5
From what I've read around the Internet, most HDMI implementations have a worse jitter spec than S/pdif Oh! The Horror! Right, but that isn't what is under discussion. . just optical vs coax. HDMI has more jitter because the audio is packetized and squeezed into the blanking time of the video. The audio clock and data are reconstructed on the other end and sent out of the HDMI interface chip. HDMI chips are not audiophile quality devices. ;-) A good processor can re-clock the data, with a nice big jitter buffer, and clean it up. That said, I doubt I could hear it- I'm a video guy, not an audio guy. ...but, but, but, it was your jitter comment that drew me OT  Thanks for the explanation though. And apologies to dyohn for the OT, from one coax guy to another ;D |
|
|
|
Post by jerrym303 on Feb 26, 2010 19:53:59 GMT -5
I have few of these and they are built nicely and seem fine for the use. I prefer optical to reduce the chances of loops. |
|
|
|
Post by roadrunner on Feb 26, 2010 23:47:37 GMT -5
I started using optical 10 to 15 years ago. I have never experienced any problems using optical cables. I have used optical to cure problems caused by EMI, RFI and ground loop.
The only time I found loose connections being a problem when using optical cables is when I tried using very cheap plastic fiber optical cables. Glass fiber is better than plastic, but to be honest most people will never know the difference. In laboratory settings optical is clearly superior, but for normal residential setting it is not needed.
Choosing and arguing coax vs optical could best be described as "splitting frog hairs"... unless you have a noisy electrical environment. Maybe 20+ years ago there were valid arguments but today those reasons no longer exist. Just use whatever you have as long as quality material and build is present.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spiky on Feb 27, 2010 11:30:04 GMT -5
Um, most Toslink cables are cheap plastic fiber. There have only been a couple glass fiber cables, most people don't even know they exist.
|
|
)
