Digital Coax or Optical?

[Buddylee]

<font color='#000000'>Can someone help me with the pros/cons between the two? These carry audio signal only, right?</font>

 

[Audioholics]

<font color='#008080'>Digital coax is a cheaper cable to buy. If your receiver handles both, go this route. Also, you may run into a scenario where you have to use one or the other due to dwindling inputs on your receiver (if you have lots of things ocnnected)

Digital Cable, by the way uses coax exclusively for its digital audio, however it only outputs digital audio for channels 99+ (or something like that) so you'll need to hook up analogue AND digital from your cable box to your receiver.

DVDs usually have optical and coax, use either...</font>

 

[Eric]

<font color='#000000'>Hawke has pointed out the biggest choice factor: I’m out of coax inputs, time for toslink (optical).

Another reason for optical is if you run into a situation where the cable must run near power cords or video interconnects. In such a case (if you’re worried about interference) optical would be the choice as it’s immune to electrical interference.</font>

 

[Yamahaluver]

<font color='#0000FF'>Having tried both coax and toslink, I find the sound quality to be better with the coax personaly.</font>

 

[Eric]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>

Yamahaluver : Having tried both coax and toslink, I find the sound quality to be better with the coax personaly.

Not that I’m some kind of “optical only” guy, but you do see how that should not be the case, right?

Both coax and optical are carrying the same digital data, it’s not sound yet. Since the information going over the interconnect is binary in nature the optical cable should be superior: higher S/N, immunity to E&amp;M interference, ground isolation and so on.

The argument would have to be based on some kind of bit error rate or bit jitter basis. On both of these basis I can’t see (and neither can the telecom industry) how wire is better then fiber.</font>

 

[Khellandros66]

<font color='#000000'>Buddylee~

Heres some info on both.

First of all its a matter of personal preferences, thats not to say that either doens't have its faults.

Coaxial from what I have read can pass through 96kHz/24bit audio, probably cause its characteristics are similar to AES/EBU.  Coaxial however is still sent electronically so there are factors such as EMI, RFI, and possibly EMP (rare cases)

Optical seems to be the bells and whistles feature, it can pass through 96kHz/24bit audio, however you need a very well made transport and DAC to do so, something like the MSB with reclocking and jitter reduction. Plus do to the fact that Optical is light based it has constrants that pend on the manufacturers desire to put xxx# of fiber strands in the cable. (not always stated in specs)

~Bob</font>

 

[gene]

<font color='#000000'><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Coaxial from what I have read can pass through 96kHz/24bit audio, probably cause its characteristics are similar to AES/EBU. &nbsp;Coaxial however is still sent electronically so there are factors such as EMP and RFI.</td></tr></table>

I hope we don't have factors like EMP in audio. &nbsp;Who cares about audio after an EMP blast anyways &nbsp;

Sorry to heckle you. &nbsp;Since I do government communications work, your reference cought my eye. &nbsp;I suspect you meant EMI/RFI.

</font>

 

[Rob Babcock]

<font color='#000000'>It is mostly a matter of jitter. &nbsp;Optical outs are almost never used by &quot;true HiFi Fanatics&quot;. &nbsp;The prevailing wisdom is that in almost every case coax is superior.

How about an Audioholics shootout?</font>

 

[Eric]

<font color='#000000'>I found an interesting discussion about coax verses optical. You might give it a read.

MD:Coax v. toslink

P.S. I second the shootout request.

edit: bad link</font>

 

[Khellandros66]

<font color='#000000'>Hey Everyone~

Actually EMP is supposedly given off by power transformers on telephone poles. &nbsp;Plus I add a third vote to the shootout Although part of me feels that there really can't be an industrial difference, but perhaps to individual ears.

ElectroMagnetic Pulse (EMP): 1. The electromagnetic radiation from a nuclear explosion caused by Compton-recoil electrons and photoelectrons from photons scattered in the materials of the nuclear device or in a surrounding medium. The resulting electric and magnetic fields may couple with electrical/electronic systems to produce damaging current and voltage surges.** May also be caused by nonnuclear means.** [JP1] 2. A broadband, high-intensity, short-duration burst of electromagnetic energy. (188) Note: In the case of a nuclear detonation, the electromagnetic pulse consists of a continuous frequency spectrum. Most of the energy is distributed throughout the lower frequencies between 3 Hz and 30 kHz.

This definition of EMP was taken from an Internet Dictionary

~Bob</font>

 

[Guest]

<font color='#000000'>In my opinion I think it is more important to look at the quality of the output end of the system.

For example some CD players may have a better coax output then an optical output or vice versa.

But when looking at equipent the sub $500 area I would say that the optical side may not be as good as the coax.</font>