Digital Coaxial vs Optical Toslink

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: TVNoob

The weird part is for those "golden ears" it should be moot anyway, since they should probably be using HDMI and lossless, or else analogue outputs.

Are you implying there is a difference between the digitally encoded sound signal on HDMI (lossless) and the digitally encoded sound signal on co-ax? I don't think this is true.

the only way to get the lossless audio formats is via analog 5.1/6.1/7.1 connections or HDMI. They can't be transmitted via digital coax or optical.

Can you explain the "lossless audio formats via analog"? to me. I was under the impression that digital is always better than analog (but I have admitted that I am new to this). Is it becuase the source is originally analog, converted to digital and then back to analog? (If so, is this always the case?)

Thanks for helping me understand

 

[montypythizzle]

Originally posted by: Exterous

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: TVNoob

The weird part is for those "golden ears" it should be moot anyway, since they should probably be using HDMI and lossless, or else analogue outputs.

Are you implying there is a difference between the digitally encoded sound signal on HDMI (lossless) and the digitally encoded sound signal on co-ax? I don't think this is true.

the only way to get the lossless audio formats is via analog 5.1/6.1/7.1 connections or HDMI. They can't be transmitted via digital coax or optical.

Can you explain the "lossless audio formats via analog"? to me. I was under the impression that digital is always better than analog (but I have admitted that I am new to this). Is it becuase the source is originally analog, converted to digital and then back to analog? (If so, is this always the case?)

Thanks for helping me understand

Sound files are LARGE!!! They are compressed to fit on DVDs to a certain extent. With the new HD formats they have lossLESS audio soundtracks. This mean they are not lossy and no compression is used.

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: montypythizzle

Originally posted by: Exterous

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: TVNoob

The weird part is for those "golden ears" it should be moot anyway, since they should probably be using HDMI and lossless, or else analogue outputs.

Are you implying there is a difference between the digitally encoded sound signal on HDMI (lossless) and the digitally encoded sound signal on co-ax? I don't think this is true.

the only way to get the lossless audio formats is via analog 5.1/6.1/7.1 connections or HDMI. They can't be transmitted via digital coax or optical.

Can you explain the "lossless audio formats via analog"? to me. I was under the impression that digital is always better than analog (but I have admitted that I am new to this). Is it becuase the source is originally analog, converted to digital and then back to analog? (If so, is this always the case?)

Thanks for helping me understand

Sound files are LARGE!!! They are compressed to fit on DVDs to a certain extent. With the new HD formats they have lossLESS audio soundtracks. This mean they are not lossy and no compression is used.

I understand about the new HD and HDMI lossless formats, it was the phrase "lossless audio via analog" that I am not understanding

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Exterous
I understand about the new HD and HDMI lossless formats, it was the phrase "lossless audio via analog" that I am not understanding

If the conversion from digital to analog occurs in the source device you can feed it analog into your preprocessor/receiver via analog inputs. We went though this with DVD-A and SACD.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: montypythizzle

Originally posted by: Exterous

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: TVNoob

The weird part is for those "golden ears" it should be moot anyway, since they should probably be using HDMI and lossless, or else analogue outputs.

Are you implying there is a difference between the digitally encoded sound signal on HDMI (lossless) and the digitally encoded sound signal on co-ax? I don't think this is true.

the only way to get the lossless audio formats is via analog 5.1/6.1/7.1 connections or HDMI. They can't be transmitted via digital coax or optical.

Can you explain the "lossless audio formats via analog"? to me. I was under the impression that digital is always better than analog (but I have admitted that I am new to this). Is it becuase the source is originally analog, converted to digital and then back to analog? (If so, is this always the case?)

Thanks for helping me understand

Sound files are LARGE!!! They are compressed to fit on DVDs to a certain extent. With the new HD formats they have lossLESS audio soundtracks. This mean they are not lossy and no compression is used.

No, there IS compression used. Just compression that keeps all of the original information in tact. Look at FLAC files for a similar comparison. 1/3 the size....but lossless. That's still compression.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: montypythizzle
OK then
Optical has bandwidth capabilities that dominate copper in networking, whether that pertains to audio isn't up to me. Copper can also suffer from ground loop problems as well.

Toslink has bandwidth of 10 Mbs. That's pretty pathetic in all honesty. You can't compare toslink to communications - completely and totally different things.

Coax has much, much higher bandwidth from a physical medium standpoint than optical and that matters in digital transmission. You need to remember that digital is really analog.

Coax IS better than toslink.

But the information is exactly 100% the same. Therefore you do not get any benefit using one over the other.

10Mb/s is faster than most home internet connections and most people have no trouble streaming audio through their ISP. 10Mb/s is even enough to stream VGA quality video. 28Mb/s is enough for 1080p. 10Mb/s is almost overkill for audio

Assuming high resolution audio needs 250Kb/s per channel and you have 10 channel audio, that equates to 2.5 Mb/s.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: montypythizzle
OK then
Optical has bandwidth capabilities that dominate copper in networking, whether that pertains to audio isn't up to me. Copper can also suffer from ground loop problems as well.

Toslink has bandwidth of 10 Mbs. That's pretty pathetic in all honesty. You can't compare toslink to communications - completely and totally different things.

Coax has much, much higher bandwidth from a physical medium standpoint than optical and that matters in digital transmission. You need to remember that digital is really analog.

Coax IS better than toslink.

But the information is exactly 100% the same. Therefore you do not get any benefit using one over the other.

10Mb/s is faster than most home internet connections and most people have no trouble streaming audio through their ISP. 10Mb/s is even enough to stream VGA quality video. 28Mb/s is enough for 1080p. 10Mb/s is almost overkill for audio

Assuming high resolution audio needs 250Kb/s per channel and you have 10 channel audio, that equates to 2.5 Mb/s.

First of all Spidey, both coax and fiber are 10 mb/s when it comes to audio transmission. its because of the SPDIF interface system. theoretically both coax and fiber have much more badnwith. all we need to do is kick sony and philips right where it hurts and make a new digital transmission system, and both coax and fiber will shine. whether you like electricity or light, thats up to you. Ill stick to light, we have enough electrical wires.

Second of all, Googer, 10 mbit is not enough for audio, not uncompressed audio at least. 5.1 PCM at 48khz takes up 4608 kb/s, 5.1 PCM at 96 Khz takes up 9216 kb/s, and were pretty much done. Think of HVD and holographic, and what is to come in the next decade. its clear that SPDIF is no longer a viable solution. Lets say we want to do a 7.1 track or 8.1 track in 96khz (sounds crazy, but trust me this will happen with the next gen disc format), and we end up over 10 mb/s.

 

[spidey07]

I was talking about physical bandwidth of the cable. TOSLINK uses an exteremely large fiber core with a LED - tremendously limiting it's bandwidth. So coax does indeed have a much higher bandwidth. This comes into play with jitter as jitter is a known problem with toslink.

 

[montypythizzle]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I was talking about physical bandwidth of the cable. TOSLINK uses an exteremely large fiber core with a LED - tremendously limiting it's bandwidth. So coax does indeed have a much higher bandwidth. This comes into play with jitter as jitter is a known problem with toslink.

Hmm, never experienced that.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I was talking about physical bandwidth of the cable. TOSLINK uses an exteremely large fiber core with a LED - tremendously limiting it's bandwidth. So coax does indeed have a much higher bandwidth. This comes into play with jitter as jitter is a known problem with toslink.

not diameter vs diameter!

if you compare diameter vs diameter, for a given diameter of coax, you can put multiple strands of fiber and completely own coax. lets compare oranges with oranges shall we. obviously a single strand of fiber has less bandwidth then coax, but its also a lot thinner.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: spidey07
I was talking about physical bandwidth of the cable. TOSLINK uses an exteremely large fiber core with a LED - tremendously limiting it's bandwidth. So coax does indeed have a much higher bandwidth. This comes into play with jitter as jitter is a known problem with toslink.

not diameter vs diameter!

if you compare diameter vs diameter, for a given diameter of coax, you can put multiple strands of fiber and completely own coax. lets compare oranges with oranges shall we. obviously a single strand of fiber has less bandwidth then coax, but its also a lot thinner.

Honesty, how does TOSLINKs piss-poor implmentation of fiber apply?

Coax is only a few mm in diameter. When you add in the core/cladding/buffer for fiber it comes about to be to even diameter wise.

It's toslink's implementation and design that I have a problem with. I understand they had to use such a large core and LEDs due to price but it would have been better if they put a little more thought into it.

 

[Rubycon]

The fiber optical component of SPDIF isn't true fiber optics. Light pipe is more like it. The attack and decay times of LED's is good enough for a few MHz TTL signal. If you want more bandwidth use a direct injection semiconductor laser and glass fiber. You can get into the multi gigabyte/sec range with no problem.

You can get the bandwidth with coax too but both are going to require hardware ends that you're not going to find on your atypical made in China consumer equipment!

Compressed audio is exactly why DVD (movie) sound is rather piss poor. Anyone remember laser disc? They sounded good because the audio was NOT compressed. At least with HD-DVD and BluRay we don't have this limitation!

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: JAG87

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: montypythizzle
OK then
Optical has bandwidth capabilities that dominate copper in networking, whether that pertains to audio isn't up to me. Copper can also suffer from ground loop problems as well.

Toslink has bandwidth of 10 Mbs. That's pretty pathetic in all honesty. You can't compare toslink to communications - completely and totally different things.

Coax has much, much higher bandwidth from a physical medium standpoint than optical and that matters in digital transmission. You need to remember that digital is really analog.

Coax IS better than toslink.

But the information is exactly 100% the same. Therefore you do not get any benefit using one over the other.

10Mb/s is faster than most home internet connections and most people have no trouble streaming audio through their ISP. 10Mb/s is even enough to stream VGA quality video. 28Mb/s is enough for 1080p. 10Mb/s is almost overkill for audio

Assuming high resolution audio needs 250Kb/s per channel and you have 10 channel audio, that equates to 2.5 Mb/s.

First of all Spidey, both coax and fiber are 10 mb/s when it comes to audio transmission. its because of the SPDIF interface system. theoretically both coax and fiber have much more badnwith. all we need to do is kick sony and philips right where it hurts and make a new digital transmission system, and both coax and fiber will shine. whether you like electricity or light, thats up to you. Ill stick to light, we have enough electrical wires.

Second of all, Googer, 10 mbit is not enough for audio, not uncompressed audio at least. 5.1 PCM at 48khz takes up 4608 kb/s, 5.1 PCM at 96 Khz takes up 9216 kb/s, and were pretty much done. Think of HVD and holographic, and what is to come in the next decade. its clear that SPDIF is no longer a viable solution. Lets say we want to do a 7.1 track or 8.1 track in 96khz (sounds crazy, but trust me this will happen with the next gen disc format), and we end up over 10 mb/s.

Where did you get those figures from? I have no problems with multiple audio streams over my 6Mb/s cable connection to the internet as I have recorded 10 simultaneous radio stations at the same time with no breakup using RaimaRadio.


Internet over COAX has potential to hit 50Mb/s.

But the newer firewire interconnect that is being implemented on newer AV components will pretty much solve most bandwidth problems 400Mb/s is nearly overkill.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Googer

Internet over COAX has potential to hit 50Mb/s.

Docsis 3.0 is 152Mbps downstream and 108Mbps upstream IIRC. Supposed to be around the corner.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Googer

Internet over COAX has potential to hit 50Mb/s.

Docsis 3.0 is 152Mbps downstream and 108Mbps upstream IIRC. Supposed to be around the corner.

Already trials for the big MSOs. They could go even higher because of the sheer bandwidth of the cable but it's the DSP aspect that can't keep up. That will change as it only get more powerful.
:thumbsup:

Is coax better than TOSLINK? Yes.
Is coax better than fiber? No.

 

[montypythizzle]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Googer

Internet over COAX has potential to hit 50Mb/s.

Docsis 3.0 is 152Mbps downstream and 108Mbps upstream IIRC. Supposed to be around the corner.

Already trials for the big MSOs. They could go even higher because of the sheer bandwidth of the cable but it's the DSP aspect that can't keep up. That will change as it only get more powerful.
:thumbsup:

Is coax better than TOSLINK? Yes.
Is coax better than fiber? No.

It passes the same signal.

Would you rather have a audible hum or an inaudible jitter?

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Googer

Internet over COAX has potential to hit 50Mb/s.

Docsis 3.0 is 152Mbps downstream and 108Mbps upstream IIRC. Supposed to be around the corner.

I cannot wait, FiOS was just installed in the town 12 miles from me but it may be another few years before it hits my street. The sheer competition between cable and Verizon will be an awesome sight to behold!

EDIT: Thanks for the update.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Googer

Internet over COAX has potential to hit 50Mb/s.

Docsis 3.0 is 152Mbps downstream and 108Mbps upstream IIRC. Supposed to be around the corner.

Already trials for the big MSOs. They could go even higher because of the sheer bandwidth of the cable but it's the DSP aspect that can't keep up. That will change as it only get more powerful.
:thumbsup:

Is coax better than TOSLINK? Yes.
Is coax better than fiber? No.

What does not make sense in your statement is that the DSP cannot keep up. Firewire operates at 400Mb/s and 1394b has no trouble reaching nearly 800Mb/s those DSPs work fine. Perhaps what you meant to say was current networks may not handle the flood of data or demand, but that will change as technology improves.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Googer

Internet over COAX has potential to hit 50Mb/s.

Docsis 3.0 is 152Mbps downstream and 108Mbps upstream IIRC. Supposed to be around the corner.

Already trials for the big MSOs. They could go even higher because of the sheer bandwidth of the cable but it's the DSP aspect that can't keep up. That will change as it only get more powerful.
:thumbsup:

Is coax better than TOSLINK? Yes.
Is coax better than fiber? No.

What does not make sense in your statement is that the DSP cannot keep up. Firewire operates at 400Mb/s and 1394b has no trouble reaching nearly 800Mb/s those DSPs work fine. Perhaps what you meant to say was current networks may not handle the flood of data or demand, but that will change as technology improves.

Digital Signal Processing. Remember digital is really analog. Does firewire cover an entire subdivision? There's a BIG difference between broadband and baseband.

-edit-
What I mean to say is DOCSIS 3.0 achieves it's speed thanks to more advanced DSP on silicon. There's a big difference between broadband (DOCSIS/DSL) and baseband (ethernet and any other short distance communications like firewire and 1394).

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Googer

Internet over COAX has potential to hit 50Mb/s.

Docsis 3.0 is 152Mbps downstream and 108Mbps upstream IIRC. Supposed to be around the corner.

Already trials for the big MSOs. They could go even higher because of the sheer bandwidth of the cable but it's the DSP aspect that can't keep up. That will change as it only get more powerful.
:thumbsup:

Is coax better than TOSLINK? Yes.
Is coax better than fiber? No.

What does not make sense in your statement is that the DSP cannot keep up. Firewire operates at 400Mb/s and 1394b has no trouble reaching nearly 800Mb/s those DSPs work fine. Perhaps what you meant to say was current networks may not handle the flood of data or demand, but that will change as technology improves.

Digital Signal Processing. Remember digital is really analog. Does firewire cover an entire subdivision? There's a BIG difference between broadband and baseband.

-edit-
What I mean to say is DOCSIS 3.0 achieves it's speed thanks to more advanced DSP on silicon. There's a big difference between broadband (DOCSIS/DSL) and baseband (ethernet and any other short distance communications like firewire and 1394).

Digital is analogue.. HHaaaa! Now I have heard it all.

1394 is a protocol and can be implemented over longer distances if equipment were engineered to do so. 1394 is not just limited to copper, but can be implemented in fiber and radio too. Equipment does exist to extend it to 700 meters, that's almost DSL territory.

Before we had DVI, engineers were contemplating with using firewire as the defacto standard for digital displays.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Googer

Internet over COAX has potential to hit 50Mb/s.

Docsis 3.0 is 152Mbps downstream and 108Mbps upstream IIRC. Supposed to be around the corner.

Already trials for the big MSOs. They could go even higher because of the sheer bandwidth of the cable but it's the DSP aspect that can't keep up. That will change as it only get more powerful.
:thumbsup:

Is coax better than TOSLINK? Yes.
Is coax better than fiber? No.

Dude, holy shit you must have a granite forehead. You are comparing an interface system to a medium, you do understand? You cannot compare TOSLINK to generic COAX. TOSLINK is the SPDIF implementation of fiber. You are comparing that directly to the COAX medium in general, when the COAX used for audio passes the very same SPDIF signal that TOSLINK passes, as montypythizzle has been trying desperately to tell you.

So on what grounds do you base your argument that COAX is better than TOSLINK when it passes the same SPDIF signal? COAX is in no way better than FIBER, not even in the audio implementation, since both mediums carry an SPDIF coded bit stream, and both have a 10 mbit/s cap imposed by the SPDIF coding system.

 

[spidey07]

The grounds is the fact that TOSLINK has more jitter and it's measurablle. This is audible. The reason for more jitter is the low bandwidth of the phyiscal medium. I don't know how to make it any more clearer.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: spidey07
The grounds is the fact that TOSLINK has more jitter and it's measurablle. This is audible. The reason for more jitter is the low bandwidth of the phyiscal medium. I don't know how to make it any more clearer.

I agree it's measurable. How do you plan to prove it's audible?

 

[Eug]

Yes, it's measurable.

However, I've never seen a blinded study that has shown it is audible.

In any case, I can't hear a difference, so my decision is easy. I stick with optical, because of the very real problem of ground loops with coaxial.

 

[JAG87]

Originally posted by: spidey07
The grounds is the fact that TOSLINK has more jitter and it's measurablle. This is audible. The reason for more jitter is the low bandwidth of the phyiscal medium. I don't know how to make it any more clearer.

so what you are saying is that the fiber cable used to make TOSLINK cables doesn't have enough bandwidth to keep up with the SPDIF specification which streams a maximum of 10 mb/s. Spidey, perhaps you should stop buying the $2.95 optical cables at your local surplus store.

Let me give you 2 quick links so you can shut up for the rest of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S/PDIF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biphase_mark_code