Why isn't Toslink able to do all audio formats?

[frostbyte]

I would think Toslink fiber should be able to do all lossless signals. Fiber should have plenty of bandwidth capabilities. Why not allow lossless truehd and dts-master over this instead of usually just HDMI?

 

[j_garcia]

Theoretically, I believe it could do this, but per its specs it can't. I don't think the cable or the format is the problem, I believe it is simply a hardware limitation for the current implementation which is per its specifications for both coaxial digital and optical (SPDIF).

 

[Seth=L]

Copyright stuff, plus they want you to buy HDMI cables.

 

[MDS]

It is the definition of the data format. S/PDIF is based on AES/EBU and is spec'ed to carry 20 bit / 48 kHz audio. It could in practice carry 24 bits because there are 4 unused bits that would be used for control information that could instead be allocated to audio data because they are generally not used.

Most implementations of s/pdif, both the hardware or 'physical interface' and the software (the s/pdif data format and communication protocol) only carry 16 bit / 48 kHz audio.

HD audio formats and multi-channel PCM usually use higher bit depths and sampling frequencies and that is why an s/pdif interface cannot carry it. The cable itself has nothing to do with it. Just as a component video cable can easily carry 1080p and beyond and yet does not because most devices will not pass the bitstream over a component video interface.

Copy protection is another concern but is not the underlying reason. HDMI and HDCP were created expressly for the purpose of locking down copyrighted bitstreams because s/pdif has no facility for doing so.

 

[frostbyte]

It figures. Just another way to try and control the public when all it does is cost everyone a fortune. Big rip off and waste of money. Do they really think even blu ray will truly be copy protected material after hackers and such? Just stop caring about that and allow people not to have to upgrade all their expensive equipment just to use the new media and make the media cheaper and people will be much more likely to buy it. IMO

 

[j_garcia]

But HDMI gives you digital audio AND video on one cable, and the cables don't cost too much if you know where to shop. HDMI is a step in the right direction for once, IMO. I too am using optical at the moment due to a receiver without HDMI and I have no complaints for now. I will eventually get a new receiver, but in the near term I will pick up a player that decodes internally and passes the new formats via analog.

 

[The Chukker]

But HDMI gives you digital audio AND video on one cable, and the cables don't cost too much if you know where to shop. HDMI is a step in the right direction for once, IMO.

I agree mostly with a few notable exceptions. Sometimes different devices won't shake hands with each other; in my case the new Denon 2500 BCTI Blu-ray player would not auto detect my panel's ability to display 24f no matter what I did in the set up menu. Too bad, I would much rather have the Denon than the Pioneer I currently own. Also, my Denon 2910 DVD player (HDMI 1.1) won't shake hands with my new receiver (the Denon 3808), forcing me to use a toslink cable if I want to bitstream the legacy formats. I agree with you j_garcia in that it is the right direction, only there are definitely some teething issues to be worked out.

 

[EJ1]

I agree mostly with a few notable exceptions. Sometimes different devices won't shake hands with each other; in my case the new Denon 2500 BCTI Blu-ray player would not auto detect my panel's ability to display 24f no matter what I did in the set up menu. Too bad, I would much rather have the Denon than the Pioneer I currently own. Also, my Denon 2910 DVD player (HDMI 1.1) won't shake hands with my new receiver (the Denon 3808), forcing me to use a toslink cable if I want to bitstream the legacy formats. I agree with you j_garcia in that it is the right direction, only there are definitely some teething issues to be worked out.

Not to mention the physical connection of an HDMI port is terrible.

 

[bigbangtheory]

But HDMI gives you digital audio AND video on one cable, and the cables don't cost too much if you know where to shop. HDMI is a step in the right direction for once, IMO. I too am using optical at the moment due to a receiver without HDMI and I have no complaints for now. I will eventually get a new receiver, but in the near term I will pick up a player that decodes internally and passes the new formats via analog.

What he said.

I would much rather keep my receiver and use analog than buy a new receiver with hdmi when I don't have to.

I'm old fashioned that way. Just look at my speakers.

 

[yettitheman]

Not to mention the physical connection of an HDMI port is terrible.

I agree on that remark