View Full Version : Optical vs. coaxial DAC connection
[Question addressed to Mark Bartlett of Audiocom International]
Mark,
Ian and me were discussing last night (as you do!) the merits of optical and coaxial connections between a transport and DAC.
Ian reported that he obtained better sound from the optical connection via a Toslink lead (with his admittedly temporary cheap DAC) than he did with the coaxial connection in conjunction with a (fairly) high quality Kimber coaxial digital interconnect.
As you know, the consensus of opinion is that the coaxial connection is the way to go for best performance, but is that actually always the case and if so why?
Basically, what we'd like to know is if the optical route has any advantages over the coaxial one, and vice versa - and why! :)
What process is involved in both instances when the signal is being transferred?
Can you help?
Cheers.
Regards,
Marco.
Filterlab
28-03-2008, 09:33
...Basically, what we'd like to know is if the optical route has any advantages over the coaxial one, and vice versa - and why! :)..
I use optical over anything else, and I can give you one massive reason why optical is preferable; light is not affected by electrical interference whatsoever.
Interesting.
And yet whenever I've compared (umpteen times) the optical and coaxial connections on a hi-end DAC, with the requisite cables, the coaxial option wins hands down on sound quality every time... :scratch:
Perhaps Mark can enlighten us?
Marco.
Filterlab
28-03-2008, 11:16
It shouldn't (theoretically) make any difference which input is used as long as the 1s and 0s are received. The resulting sound quality comes from the DAC after the transfer of data and not before, which of course doesn't apply to an analogue source.
However, I can understand why there may be differences.
Maybe it's a cable thing?
Marco.
Filterlab
28-03-2008, 11:56
Could be, there is a stark difference even with optical cables. I've tried a dozen or so and the best ones are the mid-price jobs from Maplin, £22.00 for a five metre cable that sounds better than a 0.75 metre for £175.00 from a higher end company. Maplin stuff is seriously underrated, although having said that there's not much choice in optical cables.
Audiocom AV
28-03-2008, 12:15
Hello Marco
Optical connections are not susceptible to line noise or other electromagnetic interference. With a cheap DAC the line noise would be predictably higher and the performance of the coaxial input is being reduced.
With a high performance DAC such as the Sony DAS-R1, line noise is very low; the coaxial input is also electromagnetically screened.
Both the coaxial and optical inputs use SP/DIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interconnect Format), the standard for carrying digital data between devices. There is no difference in the signal being transferred for optical or coaxial, both carry the same information. The selection or choice depends on the equipment, cables and personal preference.
Regards,
Mark
Optical connections are not susceptible to line noise or other electromagnetic interference. With a cheap DAC the line noise would be predictably higher and the performance of the coaxial input is being reduced. With a high performance DAC such as the Sony DAS-R1, line noise is very low; the coaxial input is also electromagnetically screened.
Thanks for that, Mark. It is indeed what I suspected, backs up my subjective listening tests (and what I mentioned to Ian last
night) :)
In my set-up I will continue to use a high quality (Transparent) digital coaxial lead.
Marco.
Maybe it's a cable thing?
Marco.
Don't forget there could be an issue with the quality of the optical conversion at either/both ends of the link! There can also be problems caused by the cleanliness, or rather, lack of, with the optical connections themselves. Notably, 'noise'.
Cheers,
Mike.
P.S. I have 'views' on the subject of digital transmission which I'll go into sometime. Like when I'm REALLY bored!
[Question addressed to Mark Bartlett of Audiocom International]
Mark,
Ian and me were discussing last night (as you do!) the merits of optical and coaxial connections between a transport and DAC.
Ian reported that he obtained better sound from the optical connection via a Toslink lead (with his admittedly temporary cheap DAC) than he did with the coaxial connection in conjunction with a (fairly) high quality Kimber coaxial digital interconnect.
As you know, the consensus of opinion is that the coaxial connection is the way to go for best performance, but is that actually always the case and if so why?
Basically, what we'd like to know is if the optical route has any advantages over the coaxial one, and vice versa - and why! :)
What process is involved in both instances when the signal is being transferred?
Can you help?
Cheers.
Regards,
Marco.
For coaxial then cable is critical. Everyone thinks that CD is frequency limited and in the anologue mode it is. BUT in the digital mode it behaves more like radar in some of its propogation characteristics. Much **** is talked about transmission in digital mode and how it cannot be corrupted. For a simple digital stream OK but for digitised music that is something else. You need minimum stop start corruption and as a digital pulse is like square wave it has extreme high frequency components. SO the best cable is one that acts almost like a wave guide as opposed to a transmission line.
That is why I use a pipe. Get the cable right and coaxial is far better than optical. Optical has far higher pulse corruption due to the speed capability of switching light on and off and the start and decay properties of that light source.
Don't forget there could be an issue with the quality of the optical conversion at either/both ends of the link!
What? This is an X-777ES and DAS-R1 you're talking about, my boy, not some 'Toytown' modern CD player! :eyebrows:
;)
Richard,
Thanks for that - most interesting!
Marco.
What? This is an X-777ES and DAS-R1 you're talking about, my boy, not some 'Toytown' modern CD player! :eyebrows:
Look here!... you can't even use a soldering iron! What chance have you got of grasping the nuances of digital transmission. !
:mental:
Hahahaha... Aye!
It's not that I *can't* use one; it's that I don't NEED to use one. I have minions to do that for me ;)
Marco.
Hahahaha... Aye!
It's not that I *can't* use one; it's that I don't NEED to use one. I have minions to do that for me ;)
Marco.
:barrel:
Steve Toy
29-03-2008, 00:39
I hope the 'minions' take that in the spirit you intend.
sastusbulbas
29-03-2008, 08:14
This may sound silly, but many of the threads in the past which I have read on other forums, where someone has preffered a Toslink connection over a Co-ax, have featured many users of either cheap DACs, cheap transports, people using any old bog standard cheapo unspecified cheapo RCA cable, or they have read and assumed that toslink is therefore sounds better.
My own opinion is that AES, then Glass optic, then BNC, then Coax via RCA, then Toslink are "usually" in that order of preference, but it is completely ancillary dependent and relies on properly manufactured cables.
Another point to look at is how many people actually hear any difference withe any cable, and are perfectly happy to believe any old RCA cable will do the same job as a properly designed digital cable?
Optic puts MORE into the mix so to speak IE an extra stage, and is reliant on well made optical circuits at each end, it has to convert the electrical signal into light then back into electrical, a better optic cable with rounded polished ends and such helps, my preference being Van Den Huls opticoupler, though I have read good things about Apogees optic cable.
They still suffer from stuff like modal dispertion and the like. But in my opinion many "better" sounding optic connections are probably highlighting poor electrical connections, there is a reason why optic is more prolific on cheap and more basic ancillaries instead of electrical. Its because its cheap and relatively consistent. One area where I have always felt a detrimental impact with toslink is in the bass.
They all have their uses, but I do think electrical is deemed technicaly superior in many instances still.
anthonyTD
29-03-2008, 09:47
Hahahaha... Aye!
It's not that I *can't* use one; it's that I don't NEED to use one. I have minions to do that for me ;)
Marco.
Never been called one of those before!!!:scratch:;):lol:
I hope the 'minions' take that in the spirit you intend.
Of course! :eyebrows:
Sastus,
That's another interesting account. I don't doubt your experiences, but in my system, and in many other high quality transport & DAC systems I've used in the past, coaxial has been best - by a country mile. There are obviously many influential variables to consider.
I agree that the quality of the digital coaxial cable is essential. To that end I use a Transparent Premium Digital Link:
http://transparentcable.com/products/digital/prem_75_digital_cable.html
Marco.
Never been called one of those before!!!:scratch:;):lol:
You're a 'valve guru', shweety, not a minion :lol:
Marco.
co-axial for me with 75ohm BNC's, properly loaded pulse transformers in the dac/transport
Leo, what / where did you get the pulse tx's?
I'm experimenting in that area at the moment with SB and Beresford DAC. Some mods already done to the Beresford IE Linear PSU (ALW SR to come), o/p cap replacement (before and after opamp), opamp replacement.
Found this improved performance and also that TOSLINK sounds just a bit better overall.
The 12v supply is split internally so next stage is to create new isolated 5v rails for DAC and 12v rail for the opamp.
I believe the reason why I've always found that coaxial sounds better than optical is to do with the quality of cable. Although light is not affected by outside interference (such as EM), it is far more affected by the quality of and defects in the cable.
Optical has an advantage though: it is higher bandwidth than coaxial.
I got the Pulse transformers from Digikey, they are 1:1 Newava S22083.
They need to be loaded properly though to get the best out of them.
Its quite a long winded job getting co-axial right, often the reason why people find toslink better
And also because the cables are generally less expensive.
Like you say, getting coaxial right is a bit of a ball-ache, so that's why good digital coaxial cables are expensive.
Marco.
Thanks Leo, maybe I'll drop you an email about how to implement these transformers with the correct loading.
Marco, I can't resist :eyebrows:, what is your definition of a good digital co-axial cable?
One that sounds good! ;)
Read as: does as little to mess up the signal as possible, such as the one below which I use:
http://transparentcable.com/products...tal_cable.html
In my experience, good sounding digital coaxial cables, such as I have described above, start around the £200 mark. Below this level they are sonically compromised.
Marco.
In my experience, good sounding digital coaxial cables, such as I have described above, start around the £200 mark. Below this level they are sonically compromised.
Marco.
:eyebrows:
Why do you think that is?
LOL. Because it's what my ears tell me!
I've owned (and auditioned) many digital cables over the years :)
Marco.
Sand Dancin Donkey Walker
06-04-2008, 15:42
Hi All
Just to add my digital thoughts to this thread. I am in the fortunate position to have the option of using RCA/Balanced and AT&T Optical between my Tx and DAC and been able to switch between them. I find the one I mostly use and come back to each time is the AT&T optical, the Balanced would be next then the RCA digital. There is no night and day differences but certainly changes between them. I just find AT&T is the one I come back to every time. Though this is obviously only within the context of my system.
Other trials with friends gear have shown usually if the option for balanced connection is available then that is more often the prefered option. Though I have not really had much success with standard optical cables. But I suppose it shows the each of us has different prefferences and needs.
Andy - SDDW
In my experience, good sounding digital coaxial cables, such as I have described above, start around the £200 mark. Below this level they are sonically compromised.
Marco.
Oh god no!.... here we go again! :pat:
Would you like me to make one for you?
Go for it :)
If it's better than the Transparent one I use I'll buy it from you and sell the Transparent. I'm not a 'badge' snob. I'll also tell everyone how wonderful a cable-maker you are.
Equally, if it's shite compared to the Transparent then I'll come back here and let you know, too ;)
Marco.
Equally, if it's shite compared to the Transparent then I'll come back here and let you know, too ;)
Marco.
Absolutely matey! :)
What length do you need and what connectors? RCA at a guess, but BNC is better if you can use them.
Only one condition!..... You have to put a 'value' on it! Whether it's 50p or £500. Doesn't matter. What with your 'extensive experience' on these matters, it shouldn't be a problem! ;)
Equally, once you've valued it I'll tell exactly how much it cost. Right here in public! :)
RCA is what I need, matey. Sound like a plan, then :)
Believe me, I want your cable to win - because then I could sell the Transparent for about £200 (which is mint and boxed as new) and pocket the change, presuming of course that your cable costs less than £200 ;)
All will be reviewed on the forum completely impartially.
Let battle commence! :eyebrows:
Marco.
Right!... I've cobbled together a bit-O-wire for you to play with, I'll pop it in the post with those ECC83/12AX7's.
The heat-shrink looks a bit gash but I'm trying to hide as much as possible so you have to judge it on sound alone! :)
Not that it should have a 'sound' you understand.........
This one is a bit of a 'lash up' coz it's just for fun, if you actually do like it, I can make you one that at least looks a lot smarter. All it'll cost you is a pair of phono plugs of your choice, I want this one back I'm afraid. :ner:
Cheers,
Mike.
Bring it on, baby! :eyebrows:
I'll let you know as soon as the stuff arrives. Make sure you pack those valves to within an inch of their lives!
Marco.
All posted today Marco, I've never really had a problem with posting small signal valves TBH, they seem to be just about indestructible. At least compared to big output valves!
Cheers,
Mike.
Marco,
Have your toys arrived yet?
:eyebrows:
Yes indeedy :)
I'll have a play tomorrow and let you know what I think.
Marco.
Kurt-Holz
10-04-2008, 02:43
Marco
Well, is it tommorow, a silent but curious american wants to know
:-)
regards
Kurt
Well, I've been having a good listen today and the results are very interesting!
I've just got a few things to do now but I'll post my findings later this evening.
One thing I'll say is this is all very educational :)
Marco.
C'mon ya slacker! :lolsign:
I haven't finalised my decision on the digital cable yet, Mike, as I'm a firm believer that cables need to run-in for a period of time before you can analyse their performance effectively, so as I want to give the cable a fair chance I will come to a definitive conclusion about its performance in a few days.
All will be revealed then :smoking:
Marco.
One thing I've found recently is beware of cheap 'glass' Toslink cables from Ebay.
You only get what you pay for, it sounded crap! The 'free' plastic toslink I recieved with my iBasso DAC was much better, strange how an optical link of just 75cm long can have such and effect of the sound.
Okeydokey!
I have several 'confessions' to make regarding this....
All will be revealed in due course! ;)
One thing I've found recently is beware of cheap 'glass' Toslink cables from Ebay.
You only get what you pay for, it sounded crap! The 'free' plastic toslink I recieved with my iBasso DAC was much better, strange how an optical link of just 75cm long can have such and effect of the sound.
I'm not sure if I've understood your post correctly but it's unwise to use optical s/pdif cables shorter than 1,5 metres. It interferes with the data timing.
I've never bought a cable from ebay, but I've found the £5 ones sound the same as the £50 ones provided they're not too short. I use 2m and 5m as standards.
Ashley James
12-04-2008, 19:57
They either work or they don't, which isn't surprising considering they are just glass fibre strands.
We insist our customers use the cheapest optical digital cables they can get because the so called hi end one have large metal plugs on the ends which break off the insides of the optical sockets. We even made the hole to too small to take them.
Mine are all between 5 and 10 metres longs and work if you hold them near the socket.
Ash
Ashley,
What's your view on coaxial cables?
Personally, I've always found these to sound better in a transport/DAC CDP application. I don't know about anything else.
Welcome back, btw :)
Marco.
Ashley James
13-04-2008, 11:50
The Optical cable has the advantage of not providing an electrical link between the two units involved and greater bandwidth, but I don't see how there can be any difference sonically, to me they either work or they don't.
Interestingly Coaxial is the pro-audio standard and Optical digital, the consumer one.
Optical cables can be much longer, up to 50 metres or more I believe
Ash
sastusbulbas
13-04-2008, 12:59
A couple of things about optical cables.
By itself and on paper, high bandwidth and near perfect noise imunity.
But of course the above is not real life, and as mentioned optic cables can be fragile, easily damaged, yet still seem to work.
They do have to go through extra stages, that co-ax electrical signal has to be converted to light at the output, and then re-converted to electrical at the input.
These conversion stages can limit bandwidth, so you may lose one primary benefit, and this can also cause jitter apparently? Also to consider is the quality and cost implementation of these conversion circuits, if poor these again may affect noise imunity or such? These toslink outputs are popular due to the cheaper cost and ease of manufacture over Co-ax output I believe?
Quality of termination can have an effect on performance, and thats why some manufacturers state specific fibre grades and polished concave ends, a tight light free fit is also apparently beneficial.
Modal dispersion is also detrimental, this is light reflections within the cable itself between two ends of fibre, and of course this may be affected also by fractures in bent or damaged optic fibres.
This may be one of the things JC noted with required minimum length, as various points in an optic path affect signal attenuation?
I am sure most of the public are completely unaware of any drawbacks optic may have? But then again most are blissfully ignorant of similar problems with co-ax and RCA connection and will happily report no audible difference with a standard interconnect instead of a true 75ohm connection. I do think though, that it may be cheaper and easier to implement for most manufacturers of budget kit with consistent results.
How many are aware of ground loops with digital connections, or adviced about optic cables or pulse transformers in these cases?
Ancillary synergy and capability will also play a part, some may be better than others, or better implemented in some cases. Some dacs as Ashley may state, such as Benchmark, are less succeptable to huge differences with different cables so I believe.
As a side note, one of my early systems had an optic only transport, and the supplied cable was rather long, but I have never read any documentation from any HiFi Manufacturer or Cable manufacturer regarding optic cable optimum lengths.
I have also only heard one optic cable which seemed to be marginaly better sounding, and that was the Van Den Hul Opticoupler, which at teh time was stated as higher banwidth than the competition, with a better grade fibre and polished ends on very tight plugs. Mine has ceased working due to optic fibre damage. My old Technics 1.5m cable wich is string thin in hard plastic is still going strong! I also use Ixos Toslinks and have heard good things about Apogee Toslinks and would like to purchase a couple of these maybe.
For me, its try them and see what you prefer. I prefer well constructed optic cables over cheapo poor constructed plastics of dubious origin.
As for length,
With standard optical cabling (Toslink) the noise immunity and bandwidth are excellent, however, at large lengths the
cable’s attenuation and so-called modal dispersion (the time difference of travel between the light rays traversing the fiber
at various angles) become increasingly important. A consumer-grade Toslink optical connection therefore
has a shorter distance limit (depends on quality, but roughly 10 m) than electrical cabling.
Steve
The sonic difference is real, which I found surprising. In the data communication world there are different grades of multimode and single mode Fibre cable, IE for multimode there is OM1, OM2 and OM3.
OM3 is the better cable; data can be transmitted further and faster than the other grades even though the cable has the same dimensions IE 50um and the same optical transceivers.
The difference is in the quality of the optic (glass), OM1 has more imperfections which affects the refractive index and modal dispersion. Longer cables make things worse and I’ve always found that a reduction in cable length improves matters.
I can only think that my $17 Ebay cable has not been terminated correctly or the glass strands are of such a low quality that it is, in some way, affecting the sound.
I have reached a conclusion on Mike's digital cable. I shall do a write-up later :)
Marco.
This should be fun!
:cheers:
Marco,
I've pre-prepared my 'confessions'! Let me know what time you intend to post your review and I'll be ready to post my reply as soon as you have. That way you won't think I've made it up in response to what you tell us all!
:)
P.S. Don't forget you are supposed to be 'putting a price' on it. As if you'd bought it from a shop in fancy packing with as established 'name' on it, please?
Hurry up Marco, I'm getting cramp in my tenterhooks !
LOL - get your enthusiasm! :)
Sadly, chaps, this will now have to wait until tomorrow as a couple of things have come up, and then it will be nighty nighty time.
I'll be up bright and early tomorrow though so you won't have to wait too long ;)
Mike, your points have been noted :smoking:
Marco.
I'm ready to go now, Mike, whenever you are! :smoking:
Marco.
OK, Get on with it then! :ner:
Well I’ve given Mike’s cable (which consists of seemingly good quality coaxial cable, of an unknown type, terminated in high quality WBT phono plugs) a good chance to 'burn-in' now, so here are my conclusions…
Mike’s cable is very good, actually, and has improved quite noticeably as it’s been used. It does nothing 'wrong' musically or tonally in terms of presentation, it doesn’t muck up the timing or coherence, nor impede the flow of the music, and depending on your available benchmark everything appears as 'present and correct'. I could quite easily live with it, as I would imagine most people could. The only problem comes when comparing it to something 'better', and by that I mean something, which without measuring it, subjectively seems more accurate. My guess is that the Transparent cable is 'quieter', i.e. it lets less noise or digital hash into the signal due perhaps to its particular construction, internally and externally, and proprietary method of shielding/insulation.
When switching to the Transparent digital cable I normally use the sound noticeably opens up and recordings appear to make more 'sense': that is one is able to follow musical strands more easily and become absorbed in the performance. Consequently, it makes music more interesting to listen to, whilst before it was portrayed as good but somewhat matter-of-fact. This discovery is not new to me as I’ve heard similar effects whenever I’ve judged perfectly competently made D.I.Y cables to those from respected high-end cable manufacturers.
Like I said before, I’m not a badge snob and would quite happily use cables someone has constructed personally if they were as good as my current benchmark but so far this has not been the case. When I moved from my all-Naim electronics system a few years back I auditioned many cables from different manufacturers before settling on a full Transparent cable loom for my system, as for me it simply allowed more of the music through without imposing too much of the cable's 'sonic signature', which is all one can reasonably ask a cable to do. I do not use cables as tone controls or to tune a system, as often all one is doing is masking inherent problems elsewhere to the detriment of ultimate musical enjoyment.
So in conclusion I would say that Mike’s digital coaxial cable is as good as any commercially available cable up to £100 – this is how much I would value it in terms of construction and performance - and indeed it is better than examples I have of VDH and Kimber cables at this price point, so all-in-all a very good cable for, I would guess, not a lot of expenditure. Mike I’m sure will advise me on that one! But this exercise proves that if you’re half decent with a soldering iron good quality D.I.Y cables can be produced, albeit in some instances falling slightly short of established industry standards from the best professional cable manufacturers.
Marco.
Confession time (and general musings)…….
My views on digital cables are just about completely the opposite to analogue cables.
I have never listened to a digital cable in my life.
Although I’ve made many hundreds, if not thousands, of digital cables over the years. This is the first one I’ve ever made for audio use, so Marco is a Guinea Pig here.
I have absolutely no idea at all if it’s any good.
I cannot think of a reason why it should be good, bad or indifferent. If a digital cable works, then that should be it, there is no reason why it should have any sound.
It took about half an hour to make and cost five quid. That’s it, a fiver!
A fiver? Nice one :)
Weren't the plugs dearer than that?
You should make those cables and sell them :smoking:
Like I said, they're better than some VDH and Kimber cables, and I suspect a few others!
Marco.
I bought 8 of those plugs for £20 of ebay.
The rest is just stuff I had lying about. The cable itself is a propriety wire used for many many years in the Telecommunications field, I have tons of it that was intercepted on it's way to the skip at work. Because of the vast amount of the stuff that is sold around the world it costs a few pence per metre.
I have other 'wires' hanging about too, some of which may be 'better' but most of it doesn't lend itself to use with RCA plugs very well.
More experiments needed I think, I need to try and get my head around what's going on here. It doesn't make sense that digital cables should sound different, something is wrong somewhere!
:scratch:
Hi Mike,
What needs to be understood is that the differences between the cables are in real terms 'slight', but significant enough to influence the sound.
I put it down to 'noise' levels of the respective cables. I would guess that if you had the necessary equipment, and measured both cables, the Transparent would measure as 'quieter', in terms of digital hash and other types of interference/distortion. I don't think this is a particularly new phenomenon. The cable sceptics will of course say I 'imagined' the difference but experience tells me differently.
Transparent describe their digital cables thus:
The large, polished OFHC center conductor is surrounded by proprietary air/spiral teflon insulation to reduce noise and increase propagation speed. Superior shielding results in a cable that is free from interference.
I'm sure some of that will have had an effect :)
Marco.
Hmmmm.... I have access to equipment that can do all manner of tests, but for me there is one major point with digital transfers.
If a binary sequence is transmitted from 'point A' and arrives at 'point B' with all its bits intact, in the right order, and at the right time, then thats it. Job done.
If 'something happens' to just one of those bits and on arrival it is read as a 1 instead of a 0, or vice versa, then there is a 'bit error' and hence the signal has changed.
So if I can take a number of cables and attach them to a BERT (Bit Error Ratio (or Rate) Tester), and pour data through them at many hundreds of megabits per second for many many hours, without detecting one single bit error, then there should be no difference to the 'sound' of these cables. They are all 'doing the job' faultlessly and the rest is up to the DAC!
Agreed?.... or not?
Yes, under those circumstances, totally agreed. But I'm not sure that real world conditions are identical.
In my experience with all types of cables, even ones that are theoretically 'perfect' aren't necessarily so when listening and comparing them to other supposedly 'perfect' cables.
This is a very complex subject, Mike. By all means attempt to fathom cable effects but explaining them has defeated better people than you or me.
That's why I adopt the 'if it sounds better then it *is* better' mantra, as it keeps you sane :lol:
I also trust my ears explicitly - they've never let me down yet!
Marco.
That's why I adopt the 'if it sounds better then it *is* better' mantra, as it keeps you sane :lol:
Nothing wrong with that! ;)
S'not gonna stop me wondering whats going on though! :scratch:
Hmmm... I'll make more dammit!...... Anyone else want to try the cable Marco's got, to see what they make of it?
:) Give him 3 more cables Mike and ask him to pick the odd man out. BERT them first to save time on Marco's "burning in"
That won't work at all!!!
They'll ALL be odd! :lolsign:
I also trust my ears explicitly - they've never let me down yet!
Marco.
When it comes to cable tests, it the bit in between that matters Marco ;) :lol:
This could be an interesting little project :)
Remember though that everyone has different benchmarks in terms of cables and, not to mention different systems, so don't expect results to be in any way conclusive ;)
Marco.
That won't work at all!!!
They'll ALL be odd! :lolsign:
Not if you give him two the same and one different, but they all look similar.
He knew which was his preferred cable last time 'cause he already owned it !
All he did was audition an unknown cable and pass comment.
It's his ears and brain that needs testing, not the cables, and you can do that with 3 cables.
In all of these tests, you have to test the listeners, to see whether their response is genuine or imagined. :)
Not if you give him two the same and one different, but they all look similar.
He knew which was his preferred cable last time 'cause he already owned it !
All he did was audition an unknown cable and pass comment.
It's his ears and brain that needs testing, not the cables, and you can do that with 3 cables.
In all of these tests, you have to test the listeners, to see whether their response is genuine or imagined. :)
True!
Having cables (or whatever) assessed by as many different people as possible could also be helpful.
Keep in mind that in this case I am the skeptic!..... my 'views' on digital cables are completely at odds with those I have on analogue cables.
:confused:
JC,
I take your point, but I'm not 'imagining' anything, so let's not go down that road as it's been done to death elsewhere and it causes all sorts of aggro and ill-feeling. If I see this thread remotely going like that it will be locked. Let me make this absolutely clear.
I judged Mike's digital cable fairly and squarely based on my experience with listening to cables - and it is extensive I can assure you. I know what to listen for with these things. So by all means offer an alternative opinion but please don't allow your scepticism in these matters to detract from my perfectly valid observations.
You may wish to read my second sentence above again before replying.
Marco.
Steve Toy
14-04-2008, 16:25
Not if you give him two the same and one different, but they all look similar.
He knew which was his preferred cable last time 'cause he already owned it !
All he did was audition an unknown cable and pass comment.
It's his ears and brain that needs testing, not the cables, and you can do that with 3 cables.
In all of these tests, you have to test the listeners, to see whether their response is genuine or imagined.
jcbrum,
This is a subjectivist forum. This means that we trust our ears rather than trust the 'opinions' of someone (or his mate) who has an agenda, the agenda in this instance being to sell a particular fashionable and yet, in terms of performance, mediocre (IMHO) lifestyle product.
Lifestyle products are simply not compatible with the social stigma of owning a hi-fi system designed and assembled to play truly involving and emotionally satisfying music.
If Marco prefers the sound of his own digital interconnect then I'll take his word over yours every time for two reasons:
1) He's pretty discerning.
2) If the cheaper DIY option was better to his ears and tastes, he'd sell the expensive one and put money in the bank, which is exactly what both he and I are doing respectively with our amplifiers.
Marco,
I wouldn't be locking, I'd be pruning...
OK Ladies & Gentlemen.... let's not fall out over this, it's supposed to be fun! :lolsign:
Now, can we get back to pissing about with bits of wire please? :eyebrows:
Anymore volunteer Guinea Pigs around?
If the cheaper DIY option was better to his ears and tastes, he'd sell the expensive one and put money in the bank,
I wonder if he thinks the Transparent cable is forty times better? ;)
Steve Toy
14-04-2008, 16:43
I wonder if he thinks the Transparent cable is forty times better?
The law of diminishing returns will always apply.
I wonder if he thinks the Transparent cable is forty times better?
No I definitely don't, Mike, which is pretty much what I wrote in my review :)
I'll echo what Steve has said: no locking but pruning instead if things get out of hand.
What needs to be remembered is this discussion is about what the *differences* are between Mike's cable and other more expensive professionally made digital cables, such as my Transparent digital interconnect, not that differences heard don't exist because of supposed 'imagination'.
As long as everyone contributing respects this there will be no problems. If you have a problem with that, don't bother contributing.
Marco.
The law of diminishing returns will always apply.
Sure will..... with a vengeance!
I'll give it a go Mike, I'm coming from the opposite end of the scale to Marco!
I currently use a 12cm long bit of CT100 satellite cable! ;) :lolsign:
Sand Dancin Donkey Walker
14-04-2008, 16:50
Hi Mike
If you have the time and inclination I would like to opportunity to get a listen to one of your digital cables. Always open to something new and love the chance to disprove my own opinions, makes you think about things doesn't it. Quite a challenge to the mind really, to put aside previously held beliefs. Not sure if the above makes any sence, but it sort of does to me anyway. I have a couple of things to compare it with, Digital RCA, XLR and AT&T Optical.
Andy - SDDW
Always open to something new and love the chance to disprove my own opinions, makes you think about things doesn't it. Quite a challenge to the mind really, to put aside previously held beleifs.
Andy,
How refreshing! I just wish everyone thought that way. It would be good if some of the stubborn closed-minded objectivists out there would adopt your policy! ;)
I totally agree, incidentally. It's something I often do to prove what I'm hearing is genuine. It's one of the reasons why I'm so satisfied with my system - because I know that I've made the right decisions and that every single cable and component does the job it was bought to do extremely well :)
Mike, I'll post the lead back to you tomorrow (along with your valves) so that someone else can have a go.
Marco.
Ian Walker
14-04-2008, 17:00
Count me in .....as soon a i get me DAC.
Not wanting to go anywhere near a cable war, but
I cannot think of a reason why it should be good, bad or indifferent. If a digital cable works, then that should be it, there is no reason why it should have any sound.
But the signal being transmitted is entirly analog, sp/diff is a analog representation of a 2Mb/s (ish) digital sequence of bits. The reciever has to decide when to consider a particular voltage has gone from 0 to 1, any reflections due to termination problems, or rounding off of edges due to bandwidth issues will make the reicevers job harder when it decides just when to change from 1 to 0 and back again, so the properties of the cable can have a direct impact on the timing of the sequence of pulses. And the fact its a biphase encoding and the clock is extracted doesn't help this process at all as the spectrum will vary with the data being transfered.
At least thats my take on it, and why (for example) BNC often seems to be reported as sounding better.
Now if this is the case, the next question is why doen't the DAC cope with this and reclock the signal. That I don't know, maybe it depends on the DAC. But I just wanted to suggest a "how"
Certainly gents....
Marco, could you send it Neil (NRG) when you've done with it please?
Neil, likewise, could you forward on to Andy in due course please?
etc. etc.
(first come, first served) I'll leave it you you folk to PM address etc. if thats ok?
This could be great, no doubt lots of different opinions from which no conclusions can be drawn. Brilliant!!! :lolsign:
:D
Not wanting to go anywhere near a cable war, but
But the signal being transmitted is entirly analog, sp/diff is a analog representation of a 2Mb/s (ish) digital sequence of bits. The reciever has to decide when to consider a particular voltage has gone from 0 to 1, any reflections due to termination problems, or rounding off of edges due to bandwidth issues will make the reicevers job harder when it decides just when to change from 1 to 0 and back again, so the properties of the cable can have a direct impact on the timing of the sequence of pulses. And the fact its a biphase encoding and the clock is extracted doesn't help this process at all as the spectrum will vary with the data being transfered.
At least thats my take on it, and why (for example) BNC often seems to be reported as sounding better.
Now if this is the case, the next question is why doen't the DAC cope with this and reclock the signal. That I don't know, maybe it depends on the DAC. But I just wanted to suggest a "how"
I couldn't agree with you more Nick.
But see my comments above (somewhere) about all the bits arriving 'correctly'. Once you achieve BER=0, then thats it, job done as regards a cable's performance. That my take on it anyway.
Now!... I'm not saying that there cannot be a difference between digital cables that can do this, I'm just trying to get my head round it.
Bugger!.... I'm going to have to get a DAC now! :(
The only way you might get a semi-worthy conclusion is for me to loan out my Transparent interconnect so that people can compare it to your cable, just as I did. Obviously system anomalies will come into play, but it would be interesting to see whether people could hear the difference between the cables themselves in their own system.
Sadly though it's not going to happen as I don't trust you buggers (and the PO) with my expensive interconnect :lolsign:
Nick,
Some excellent points there. No doubt JC or Ashley will be along to attempt to disprove that in some way ;)
Marco.
P.S Neal, PM me your addy and I'll send you the cable.
But see my comments above (somewhere) about all the bits arriving 'correctly'. Once you achieve BER=0, then thats it, job done as regards a cable's performance. That my take on it anyway.
Yes, but if your definition of BER=0 means that a transition happened within the time frame, then you can still get 0 errors but have an imbedded jitter like error. It depends on what you intend to do with that data as to what effect (if any) that jitter will have.
i2s (for example) avoids that entirely by having a monotonic bit clock, so as long as the word data is set up by the bit clock transition it don't matter.
I guess the associated question is why does reclocking make a difference if timing errors can't be introduced.
jcbrum,
This is a subjectivist forum. This means that we trust our ears rather than trust the 'opinions' of someone (or his mate) who has an agenda, the agenda in this instance being to sell a particular fashionable and yet, in terms of performance, mediocre (IMHO) lifestyle product.
Lifestyle products are simply not compatible with the social stigma of owning a hi-fi system designed and assembled to play truly involving and emotionally satisfying music.
If Marco prefers the sound of his own digital interconnect then I'll take his word over yours every time for two reasons:
1) He's pretty discerning.
2) If the cheaper DIY option was better to his ears and tastes, he'd sell the expensive one and put money in the bank, which is exactly what both he and I are doing respectively with our amplifiers.
Marco,
I wouldn't be locking, I'd be pruning...
Steve that's a load of unnecessary twaddle, have you got SOH failure again ?
My remarks are not intended to be offensive, and after the last dust up you guys should know better.
In my world it's perfectly reasonable to test the listener, and if Marco is too wimpy lets test you !
It's all a bit of fun and you take yourself too seriously.
As for this locking and pruning, wassamarra with you lot, can't you take a bit of ragging ?
As for the opinions of "someone and his mate" your living in the past.
Get a life and move on you touchy buggers ;)
:lolsign::lolsign::lolsign::lolsign::lolsign: :lolsign: :lolsign::lolsign::lolsign::lolsign:
Steve Toy
14-04-2008, 18:02
have you got SOH failure again ?
What do you mean, 'again?' :dummy:
Ali Tait
14-04-2008, 18:03
Mike,are you going to Owston? I'd like to give one of your cables a go.I recently got a Beresford,and bought a Gotham Swiss i/c of te'bay.Seems well made and with Neutrik connectors all for a tenner.Sounds very good to me,but not having heard any expensive commercial ones I'd like to hear how yours stacks up against the GS.
Regards,Ali.
Excellent post Nick......
I believe we are getting to what is (IMO) the big problem with digital transfer within audio systems. Why do they not use a synchronous system?
In Telecommunications, SDH (Synchronous Digital Hierarchy) system have been around for yonks, it's old hat.
I can (and do, and have done many times) take a 2meg tester and inject data into a 'port', this is then multiplexed together with a load more to make what is know as an STM-1, theres are transmitted at 155.52Mbits/s (electrical or optical). Those can be bundled together to make an STM-4 (622Mbits/s) which can etc, etc, up to STM-1024 (159,252Mbits/s).
This can be multiplexed up and down many times, converted from optical to electrical and back many times and sent as many kilometres as you like, looped back on itself, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, Until arriving back to where it was originally injected and back into the tester. I can run this test for many days if I like and I can fully expect to see an error count of zero!
It's all about the clocking strategy!!!
Now!... Why can't the audio industry send a bit of music ONE BLOODY METER without 'errors' or 'jitter' or whatever other bit of crap is the enemy?
The more I think about digital audio the more it pisses me off!
Where's my Luddite membership card gone.........
Mike, have you heard any difference between your digital cables ?
I've NEVER heard a digital cable....
You really should read the thread properly John! :lolsign:
:ner:
You mean you really don't have any digi-kit ! :doh: :scratch: :mental: :lol:
I can't believe this :confused::confused::confused: :(:(:(
Not even a laptop or an old PC ?
You mean you really don't have any digi-kit ! :doh: :scratch: :mental: :lol:
I can't believe this :confused::confused::confused: :(:(:(
Not even a laptop or an old PC ?
Of course I have.
Just not a seperate DAC.
You must get one of these immediately £135
http://www.roland.com/products/en/ua-25/
Or if you're bereft atm this £25
http://www.behringer.com/UCA202/index.cfm
Buy the Edirol if you can, the controls are much better and its 24/96.
Don't bother with a benchmark, this stuffs much better.
JC,
It's not a matter of being 'wimpy' (if you knew me you would never accuse me of that ;)) or having a sense of humour failure, it's about ensuring the thread doesn't take a certain unwanted direction!
I thought you might have commented on what Nick wrote, you being the 'digital expert' and all?
Marco.
Mike,are you going to Owston? I'd like to give one of your cables a go.I recently got a Beresford,and bought a Gotham Swiss i/c of te'bay.Seems well made and with Neutrik connectors all for a tenner.Sounds very good to me,but not having heard any expensive commercial ones I'd like to hear how yours stacks up against the GS.
Regards,Ali.
It looks like I won't be able to make Owston unless I can arrange an on-call swap at work. Lunchtime enquiries fell on deaf ears, however!
:(
Perhaps Marco could take the cable along with him?
Yep, no problem.
Who gets it first, though, Ali or Neal? :)
Pity you can't make it, Mike. It would've been good to have hooked up :smoking:
Marco.
JC,
It's not a matter of being 'wimpy' (if you knew me you would never accuse me of that ;)) or having a sense of humour failure, it's about ensuring the thread doesn't take a certain unwanted direction!
I thought you might have commented on what Nick wrote, you being the 'digital expert' and all?
Marco.
I think you should let the thread go where the forum members want it to.
If you want to control what people think and say, then join politics, not hifi ;)
Don't worry about aggro, it won't be me that starts it, although some people are a bit over sensitive to what I say.
As far as what nick said I think I could usefully elaborate on it, but I decided to keep schtum in case Steve wet his pants with indignation again. ;)
So, how about putting you're "golden ears" to the test if Mike wants to make 3 cables ? (this is not sarcasm or critism, it's friendly banter for those who can't tell, - steve)
JC,
Given your recent 'input' elsewhere, and the resultant consequences, we'll be the judge of what direction this thread takes as far as your influence is concerned. The matter is not up for debate.
As for my "golden ears", I'll gladly listen to anything and report on it, so bring it on :)
However, in the meantime I think Mike is keen to let others hear his cable before I conduct any more shenanigans.
Let's see you usefully elaborating on Nick's post.
Marco.
Meanwhile, as you say, back on topic I actually enjoyed your review of Mikes cable, and would like to hear more of your comments. Thats why I suggested he provide a more useful test. There was no criticism of you whatever, in my earlier remarks. I just think an even more interesting test could be applied.
As for NRG I suspect that if he replace his 120cm of sat cable with 1.5 metres of the same stuff, he might hear an improvement. I assume he is using rca/phono plugs but might be using BNC, in which case they require an expert scrutiny. I expect Mike knows why.
p.s. all my posts are to be regarded as an attempt at useful input, or an attempt at humour or mild piss-taking. NO MALICE IS EVER INTENDED, AND NONE MUST BE ASSUMED !!!!
Do you like my new signature ?
JC,
Before we go any further, I must ask you to remove your comments about "bent" mods on other forums, etc. We cannot host those kind of comments.
We have no opinion on the matter one way or the other but we certainly will not allow disputes from other forums brought to this one. And I'm being nice about this by asking you. I don't expect to see those comments when I look back at the forum later. I hope I've made myself clear ;)
I appreciate your comments about my review and I'm sure there will be much more to say on this matter in due course :)
Oh, your new signature is wonderful!
Marco.
:) Steve wrote:
This is a subjectivist forum. This means that we trust our ears rather than trust the 'opinions' of someone (or his mate) who has an agenda, the agenda in this instance being to sell a particular fashionable and yet, in terms of performance, mediocre (IMHO) lifestyle product.
I would just like to say, in respect of equipment which I actually own and use, and as a completely un-biased independent hobbyist hifi person, :)
AVI ADM9's are not a life-style product. :lol:
The rest of the comment is WUTB as far as I am concerned. :steam:
These, however ARE lifestyle products, and both have been evaluated by me, NOT on a "subjective" basis, but on a careful audition, and they are not as good in terms of sound quality IMHO.
http://bwmedia.keycast.com/med/Libraries/3/BW_Zeppelin_ipodspeaker_l2_w357_h268.jpg?dm=0
http://www.thef80.com/Assets/Mains/Gallery-0049.jpg
It is very important for future discussions that anyone is able to tell the difference.
btw the B&W Zeppelin costs £400 (I think) and the Meridian F80 costs £1500. my adm9's cost £1000.
I just want to bring a sense of perspective and reality to the discussions. :)
JC,
I won't ask you again. Get that stuff deleted!
Marco.
Sorry Marco I was watching telly, I've only just seen your post !
Right away, Mr Mannering, er... Captain, er... Sir ! yeah that's it, Sir, (ouch, biting my lip)
There, done, are you happy now ?
Don't tell me it's never happened to you ? ;)
I just want to bring a sense of perspective and reality to the discussions. :)
That's fine by me. But this thread was supposed to be discussing coax Vs optical connections. Not ADM9's (yet again).
Please, please, please, at least try and stay on-topic. Pretty please!
Sorry Marco I was watching telly, I've only just seen your post !
The reason I mentioned it again, JC, is that I noticed you posted directly after my earlier request, so it appeared you were ignoring it ;)
We're very pro-active in terms of managing the forum, which may differ from other places you've visited, but you'll find that moderation is carried out strictly but fairly. As long as you respect our ethos, and appreciate who is ultimately in charge, I'm sure you'll find your experience here fun and (hopefully) enlightening :)
Marco.
P.S Thank you for complying with my request.
Yep, no problem.
Who gets it first, though, Ali or Neal? :)
Errr... good question, everything seems to have gone a bit pear shaped! :scratch:
I'm sure such fine gents as they can arrange that between themselves. In the meantime I'll knock up another one and get than circulating too, should cut down on waiting.
If anyone takes a liking to them I'll be happy to put one together for them for the price of a pair of plugs (of their choice). I'm not trying to make sales here! :)
Cheers,
Mike.
That's fine by me. But this thread was supposed to be discussing coax Vs optical connections. Not ADM9's (yet again).
Please, please, please, at least try and stay on-topic. Pretty please!
I didn't raise 'em, Steve did, trying to muscle in again talking about those unmentionables which Captain Marco says I can talk about coz I own 'em and he wanted us back.
So there ! ;)
And I did talk about co-ax, I told NRG how to make his sound better, maybe.
If you had a dac, you could join in properly ;)
I agree with Mike - back on topic please. However, I find this rather intriguing:
These, however ARE lifestyle products, and both have been evaluated by me, NOT on a "subjective" basis, but on a careful audition...
Could you explain exactly how you did this?
What constitutes as a "careful audition", in the world of JC, and exactly how is it not subjective?
Marco.
I didn't raise 'em, Steve did, trying to muscle in again talking about those unmentionables which Captain Marco says I can talk about coz I own 'em and he wanted us back.
Don't flatter yourself. As you know, I was in email discussion with Ashley (where he was yet again unsuccessfully trying to 'convert' me to his way of thinking on hi-fi - bless, he will but try ;)) and I asked if he would like to reconsider his decision not to post. He thought about it and decided he would, and brought you back with him.
It's good to have you both back because you appear to have learnt from your experiences here before and also elsewhere in the interim to your return here. I think we understand each other better now and look forward to a more fruitful relationship in future and some robustly argued debates!
Marco.
I listened to 'em and cracked 'em open to see what bits they were made of and asked the makers how they thought they should be used and used 'em like that and listened to 'em again and thought they were ok but not proper kit like AVI makes which sounds really good 'cause they know what it's supposed to sound like 'cause Martins really brilliant and clever.
oops., I'm not supposed to talk about "unmentionable" spkrs, BUT YOU DID ASK !! ;)
p.s. I used a calibrated mic, and a "hill & dale" analysis as well but you can't talk about that stuff on a "subjective" forum.
I listened to 'em and cracked 'em open to see what bits they were made of and asked the makers how they thought they should be used and used 'em like that and listened to 'em again and thought they were ok...
That sounds pretty subjective to me! :lol:
Oh, I just noticed your edit!!
Pray tell what a "hill & dale" analysis is. It sounds like a whole bunch of fun.
Marco.
Are you implying that "my" subjectivism, is inferior to "yours" ?
I didn't raise 'em, Steve did, trying to muscle in again talking about those unmentionables which Captain Marco says I can talk about coz I own 'em and he wanted us back.
So there ! ;)
And I did talk about co-ax, I told NRG how to make his sound better, maybe.
If you had a dac, you could join in properly ;)
Good point.
But everything felt like it was heading down a certain, err, 'well trodden path' shall we say? I was just trying to do a bit of 'steering', so to speak! ;)
You're forgiven Mike, I always forgive mods.
Are you implying that "my" subjectivism, is inferior to "yours" ?
No, not at all. I was just pointing out that your auditioning process is indeed subjectivist and not the opposite, as you implied earlier. Excluding this fascinating "hill & dale" analysis, of course ;)
Marco.
Marco,
It's a modulated, swept analysis, wrt to freq, time, and amplitude.
It produces a 3d plot which looks like a mountain range, or your furniture in the middle of the room with a bedsheet over it when you're doing the decorating.
Ash reckons they don't tell you much that the amplitude plots of the drivers will, but I like 'em and are useful to avoid being categorized as a "subjectivist"
You also need some kit to do 'em with, which makes it all seem dead posh. :smoking:
Why have you all stopped talking about co-ax, and Mike, are you considering my suggestion of a UA25 ?
Mike, are you considering my suggestion of a UA25 ?
Not really.
;)
Thanks for that, JC :)
Just so we're clear, I'm not 'anti-measurements' or 'anti-science' - far from it. I think some valuable information can be gained with properly conducted experiments. It's just that unlike others I don't need them to confirm something I hear subjectively with hi-fi. What my ears tell me is always good enough.
Marco.
Mike,
IIRC your deck and amp and spkrs are fairly close together and you don't want a computer in the listening area.
am I right ?
Marco, I'll be at the meet on Saturday, not sure if you are still coming? Otherwise I'll PM my address...
Hi Neal,
I'll be there on Saturday at around 12 noon. So I'll bring the cable with me :)
Marco.
P.S JC, you didn't allow me to finish editing the thread. I think you'll see it reads more clearly now ;)
Yup, I'm buying at the bar :cool:
Marco.
[quote = Marco]"What my ears tell me is always good enough."
I can understand why you feel like that. In the absence of a scientific analysis, they're all you've got.
That approach doesn't get you very far when you have to design and manufacture something though.
I'm happy if you're happy though. I can live with subjectivists.
That approach doesn't get you very far when you have to design and manufacture something though.
Indeed. And that'll be why I don't design or manufacture anything! The approach is plenty good enough though for auditioning equipment in a domestic hi-fi system. Some people like to make life too bloody complicated.
I'm happy if you're happy though. I can live with subjectivists.
Thanks. I feel honoured ;)
Marco.
Mike,
IIRC your deck and amp and spkrs are fairly close together and you don't want a computer in the listening area.
am I right ?
Correct..... and if you mention running a cable from my PC to my HiFi system I'll shoot you in the head! :ner:
And if you mention wireless I'll shoot you in both feet. It's easier but only slightly less annoying! :ner:
All right, all right, I could use the laptop, but...... I'll think of something!
Hint,
http://www.roland.com/products/en/UA-25/images/image_02_L.jpg
http://www.roland.com/products/en/UA-25/images/image_01_L.jpg
http://www.roland.com/products/en/UA-25/specs.html
Anyone got any idea where my cable has got to? :scratch:
:)
Neal had it the last time, mate, when I gave it to him at Owston, but he's not been on the forum for ages... :confused:
Marco.
BajaGringo
25-05-2008, 20:13
I have tried both types of connections and always felt like the optical connection performed best. I have only used high end quality cables...
I use coax because someone on the internet said it produces less jitter -- timing errors measured in pico seconds, thrown at a brain measured in long, slow minutes...
I'm sure I would not hear the difference if I switched to AES or optical. My attention span is not resolving enough. :)
Tim
Filterlab
02-06-2008, 11:42
...timing errors measured in pico seconds, thrown at a brain measured in long, slow minutes...
Hehehehe :)
Hehehehe :)
It seems I can't stop joking, even when I'm quite serious.
Here's the serious version (perhaps I should publish a manifesto): I've come to a new, overarching objective in my listening life -- To not hear these things; the barely (if) audible differences between cables, the unimportant gaps between competent DACs, the bit of elegant upper midrange coloration that's missing when there are no tubes around, the ubiquitous background "woosh" of vinyl that sounds so much like the ambiance of an empty room, should be so wrong but is somehow right, the pinpoint placement of instruments in the "stage" that never exists when listening to an actual band, in an actual, imperfect room, on a real stage.
There are many other things, unrelated to equipment, that I need to not hear, things that have to do with listening as a musician instead of a listener. But none of this means that I should listen to an iPod through ear buds or that these small differences do not exist. Not hearing them is not technological, it is psychological. I need to not listen for them. I'm learning. It's a journey.
Tim
Filterlab
02-06-2008, 14:05
It seems I can't stop joking, even when I'm quite serious.
Doesn't matter mate! :)
Optical has far higher pulse corruption due to the speed capability of switching light on and off and the start and decay properties of that light source.
And one other thing not yet mentioned: jitter. Because light is bouncing around the inside of a light pipe, and because most optical cables are made of plastic and not glass, there is room for different bundles of photons to arrive at different times because of the different paths taken. This variable time delay causes smear or jitter in the signal and it gets worse the longer the cable length. Co-ax suffers very much less from this effect. I remember Paul Miller a few years ago demonstrating 100ft of co-ax versus a metre of optical and the co-ax sounded better. A little extreme, perhaps, but many of the audience heard the effect. Of course, it's dependent on the DAC's performance too and what kind of anti-jitter/buffering it includes.
Filterlab
15-07-2008, 19:50
Blimey, 100ft is a heck of a piece of cable, and Toshiba themselves recommend cable no longer than 5 metres be used. I personally have found that glass optical cable is far far superior to plastic (which is why I use what I use) but with my system I am unable to do a comparison with a coaxial cable.
One that sounds good! ;)
Read as: does as little to mess up the signal as possible, such as the one below which I use:
http://transparentcable.com/products...tal_cable.html
In my experience, good sounding digital coaxial cables, such as I have described above, start around the £200 mark. Below this level they are sonically compromised.
Marco.
Could you please try this cable (at 5m long)?
Belden 1694A - http://www.bluejeanscable.co.uk/store/digital-audio/index.htm
£11.90 :P
Yom, send me one and I'll gladly test it! ;)
PM me and I'll give you my address.
Marco.
Covenant
30-10-2008, 09:40
To me the thing that is better about coaxial is the connection. Optical connectors seem to easily fall out. (HDMI are even worse):(
Filterlab
30-10-2008, 09:51
To me the thing that is better about coaxial is the connection. Optical connectors seem to easily fall out. (HDMI are even worse):(
Blimey, I've never had a problem with either. On cheaper optical connectors there's no locking tab, but any decent optical cable should have the tab in place. What HDMI gear have you got? My PS3 and plasma tv have HDMI connections that need both hands to remove the cable.
muffinman
30-10-2008, 10:45
I'm all confused now (a common problem these days).I have a 6/3. Are there 2 different upgrades available - 6/4 & the + variant? Feel free to tut and call me 'joey' if this question has previously been answered. I'm having a smashing time with my standac and only want to send it away once.
Could you please try this cable (at 5m long)?
Belden 1694A - http://www.bluejeanscable.co.uk/store/digital-audio/index.htm
£11.90 :P
I have recently had some, shall we say, very interesting results with the cable you mention and others from Belden!
Stand by for an 'amazing new discovery' thread in the coming weeks once I have fully analysed my findings. This one could be a real shocker ;)
Marco.
StanleyB
30-10-2008, 10:58
I'm all confused now (a common problem these days).I have a 6/3. Are there 2 different upgrades available - 6/4 & the + variant? Feel free to tut and call me 'joey' if this question has previously been answered. I'm having a smashing time with my standac and only want to send it away once.
Wake up and smell the coffee:lolsign:.
To repeat: the MK6/4 is the MK6/3 plus the MOD21. The MOD21 is not an absolute must have. It is only noticeable if you have a decent system with an amp that has good drive capability and speakers that are revealing and exhibit a wide frequency response. So if you got some small bookshelf speakers with a 4 inch bass/mids and ceramic tweeter, being driven by an Akai amp fitted with a couple of SKTxxx output ICs, then save your money and buy a pint instead.
Covenant
30-10-2008, 11:25
Blimey, I've never had a problem with either. On cheaper optical connectors there's no locking tab, but any decent optical cable should have the tab in place. What HDMI gear have you got? My PS3 and plasma tv have HDMI connections that need both hands to remove the cable.
I have a twenty year old optical from Richer Sounds I think-no locking tab. HDMI is a good one though from Scorpion.
Hahaha Standac, I like that.
I have recently had some, shall we say, very interesting results with the cable you mention and others from Belden!
Stand by for an 'amazing new discovery' thread in the coming weeks once I have fully analysed my findings. This one could be a real shocker ;)
Marco.
I've been using one of the Belden's for a few years now.
Not heard anything better.
Its a hi-def transmission cable which is ENGINEERED not to drop signal over a very very long length of cable.
I just fitted it and forgot about it.
its old news!
Perhaps to some Gaz, but trust me, amongst the high-spending cable buying audiophile fraternity it would be a major surprise ;)
Have you tried some Belden stereo interconnects? They're quite incredibly good and ridiculously cheap for the performance on offer! Apparently they're used by the likes of the BBC and studios for TV and broadcasting purposes.
http://www.tm3connections.com/displayproduct.php?product_id=10&category_id=8
or:
http://markgrantcables.co.uk/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=43_1&products_id=1&zenid=oui9c42qn6r57vncm65rs2c525
They're listed as "Canare", but Canare and Belden seem to go hand-in-hand under the one banner.
Marco.
Hi Marco,
Yeah, I have the Canare I/C as well, its very very good.
I used it between CDP and Amp for a while, sounded great. Actually I bought my 1649a from Mark Grant and my Canare from TM3!
Both great people to buy from. Sensible prices sensible kit.
The 1649a digital cable is AMAZING as an interconnect, better than thre LV16s in my system, more incisive and clearer sounding.
I went through a time where I was trying out budget "giant-killing" cables to see what was best for me.
I tried different flavours of Gotham, Van Damme and other E-Bay specials and what I settled on was both interconnect AND speaker cables that did things "differently" from other manufacturers.
Both came from Forum posts from people being "wowed" by them - I bought them and was wow'ed too.
I/C: NVA Sound Cords
Speaker Cable Anti-Cable's
Works the best in my system by quite a margin.
Perhaps my experience with different cables can be useful for your findings?
G.
Lightweight
31-10-2008, 15:17
We use the Belden 1694A coaxial cable to transmit High Def SDI (serial digital interface - a professional broadcast video standard) at data rates of up to 1500 MHz over distances of 100m. Compare this to the standard CD SPDIF data rate of 5.6448 MHz, and you can see that cable easily handles the data.
Theoretically, optical transmission should be perfect as it doesn't pick up any electrical noise. In practice dirty fibre ends and badly constructed or poor quality interconnects cause data dependant errors that the receiver has to error correct (or guess what the missing data should have been!) and this guess work can often be heard. This is probably why coaxial connections are seen as better.
I have my doubts about the claims made for fancy interconnects, as I know what professional audio companies use in studios and production trucks. Most professional gear uses balanced line signals as well that remove a lot of the sources of imperfect signals.
Just my thoughts, Ian.
Filterlab
31-10-2008, 16:53
I have my doubts about the claims made for fancy interconnects, as I know what professional audio companies use in studios and production trucks. Most professional gear uses balanced line signals as well that remove a lot of the sources of imperfect signals.
Just my thoughts, Ian.
Well said Ian, I've done a lot of studio recording in my short time and never seen a high end cable in ANY studio, mostly it's been black rubbery bendy cable with an XLR connector at each end - ironically the end sound quality has always been superb. However studio equipment has a lot more voltage (read 'shove') behind it than domestic unbalanced hi-fi so the potential for signal loss is less.
Swings and roundabouts, but I'll happily admit that my interconnects were cheap and yet sound better in comparison to auditioned cables many many times the price.
Does anywhere in the UK sell Belden 1694A by the meter?
Covenant
31-10-2008, 17:35
I have recently had some, shall we say, very interesting results with the cable you mention and others from Belden!
Stand by for an 'amazing new discovery' thread in the coming weeks once I have fully analysed my findings. This one could be a real shocker ;)
Marco.
Hmmm... memo to self-get one of these Belden cables to try before everyone else sends off for one and the price goes up-could be the next Gotham....
hang on I thought Gotham was crap so why would the Belden be any better?
Yes but it might be....but its only a digy interconnect, it wont make any difference......:steam:
Lightweight
31-10-2008, 21:39
Leo,
I can't think of anywhere off hand, but if it's just a couple of meters you want to try I can probably rustle some lengths up with no termination.
Ian.
Covenant
01-11-2008, 10:24
Stanleys turn round time is second to none-Dac posted to him on Wednesday and delivered on Saturday!
Burning in nicely for a good listem tonight.....;)
Leo,
I can't think of anywhere off hand, but if it's just a couple of meters you want to try I can probably rustle some lengths up with no termination.
Ian.
Ian,
Thanks mate, 1m or 2m would be fine, I've got a couple of 75R BNC's I tend to use so can fit those no problem.
If you've got a bit spare let us know what I owes ya:)
Leo
Lightweight
03-11-2008, 13:03
Leo,
I've found a length a bit over 2m surpluss to requirements. I'll pop it in the post if you give me an address to send it to. £10 should cover it.
Cheers, Ian.
I seem to have quite a bit of Belden YR46940 'Video Brilliance' cable. Probably a couple of kilometre's in fact! :scratch:
It's a 3GHz 'miniature precision video cable'. Sort of a skinny 1694A if you see what I mean.
Free to any interested party. In sensible lengths that is! ;)
For information.
Belden 1694A is available from both Farnell and Canford, by the metre.
Filterlab
05-11-2008, 08:54
I seem to have quite a bit of Belden YR46940 'Video Brilliance' cable. Probably a couple of kilometre's in fact! :scratch:
It's a 3GHz 'miniature precision video cable'. Sort of a skinny 1694A if you see what I mean.
Free to any interested party. In sensible lengths that is! ;)
I'd like four metres please Mike if that's ok. I love a reason to get my soldering iron out, it's a little slow for doing my shirts though.
I never realized Farnell sold it by the meter, thanks Al!
Next time I'm ordering some bits for the dac I'll get some
I seem to have quite a bit of Belden YR46940 'Video Brilliance' cable. Probably a couple of kilometre's in fact! :scratch:
It's a 3GHz 'miniature precision video cable'. Sort of a skinny 1694A if you see what I mean.
Free to any interested party. In sensible lengths that is! ;)
If its thin enough to be used inside a dac I wouldn't mind a bit ta, been trying to find something decent but thinner than normal types to use with the Sabre dac
Leo,
I've found a length a bit over 2m surpluss to requirements. I'll pop it in the post if you give me an address to send it to. £10 should cover it.
Cheers, Ian.
Thanks Ian but it seems Farnell sell it by the meter so I could add a couple of meters next time I'm ordering some parts, theres going to be a few bits and pieces I'll need from there soon
Cheers,
Leo
I'd like four metres please Mike if that's OK. I love a reason to get my soldering iron out, it's a little slow for doing my shirts though.
If its thin enough to be used inside a dac I wouldn't mind a bit ta, been trying to find something decent but thinner than normal types to use with the Sabre dac
No Problem Gents, PM me with your address's please.
Any colour prefs?... I have white, red, blue, green. :)
Which colour sounds better?
Marco.
StanleyB
05-11-2008, 19:05
It depends. White only sounds good indoors.
Ali Tait
05-11-2008, 22:21
Mike,is this the thin stuff you sent me?
Filterlab
06-11-2008, 09:39
Which colour sounds better?
Marco.
White ;)
It depends. White only sounds good indoors.
LOL! You lot are mad.
White please for me Mike, but only because I'm a tart and it matches my Apple stuff. ;) Address PM on its way.
No, come on now be honest, you and I both know it's because it matches your little tennis shorts (which by all accounts you parade around with on a regular basis in front of the mirror) :lol:
;)
Marco.
Filterlab
06-11-2008, 09:46
No, come on now be honest, you and I both know it's because it matches your little tennis shorts (which by all accounts you parade around with on a regular basis in front of the mirror) :lol:
;)
Marco.
LOL! They are actually pale green (and Versace in fact), but they're a touch on the tight side these days, however they are excellent as boxer shorts.
You love 'em! ;)
Mike,is this the thin stuff you sent me?
Ali, One of the thin ones I sent you was this stuff. At least I 'think' I sent you more than one thin coax, no?
Ali Tait
06-11-2008, 21:06
Hi Mike,
No,just one type of the thin stuff.Has 3002 ris-5 0601 written on it.That the stuff? You also sent the thicker stuff with 2003 hce 02 0798 written on it.
Regards.
Doh!...
Sorry Ali, I thought I'd sent some of this Belden stuff... Would you like some? :)
Ali Tait
06-11-2008, 22:00
Yes please! How about Owston on Sunday?
I should be there on Saturday... But can't make it for Sunday (On-call) so PM me your addy again and I'll pop some in the post.
Cheers...
Ali Tait
07-11-2008, 16:43
No that's fine,I'll be there Sat,Just thought you were only there Sun.You bringing anything?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.