Digital Coaxial vs Optical Toslink

[spidey07]

LOL!

I already know all that. What does that have to do with TOSLINK's proven, measurable jitter?

 

[JAG87]

That its a thing of the past, were not in the 90s anymore. Face it, Toslink is indistinguishable from Coax, and its a better medium today.

http://www.audioholics.com/edu...connect-history-basics

 

[spidey07]

Thanks for proving my point. It specifically addresses bandwidth of the cable and it's affect.

So it shows toslinks shortcomings. Good article.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: JAG87

http://www.audioholics.com/edu...connect-history-basics

That's exactly what I meant from the beginning. I just could not say it quite as elegantly as that. Well done.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL!

I already know all that. What does that have to do with TOSLINK's proven, measurable jitter?

Again, show me where this measurable jitter affects the signals transmission.

That's the advantage of digital. It has inherent error correction. So who cares if the signal's state change from a 0 to a 1 is .1uS from ideal? Provided that it still reaches that state before the sampling occurs...the signal remains perfect. And, contrary to your concern over jitter, these possible side effects are taken into account by the engineers who designed the transmission technology and adequate setup and hold times are always given to allow for non-ideal conditions.

So, your concern about reflections was incorrect earlier. Prove that jitter does cause uncorrectable errors in DVD audio. Then we will all bow down before your vast use of the word "jitter".

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL!

I already know all that. What does that have to do with TOSLINK's proven, measurable jitter?

Again, show me where this measurable jitter affects the signals transmission.

That's the advantage of digital. It has inherent error correction. So who cares if the signal's state change from a 0 to a 1 is .1uS from ideal? Provided that it still reaches that state before the sampling occurs...the signal remains perfect. And, contrary to your concern over jitter, these possible side effects are taken into account by the engineers who designed the transmission technology and adequate setup and hold times are always given to allow for non-ideal conditions.

So, your concern about reflections was incorrect earlier. Prove that jitter does cause uncorrectable errors in DVD audio. Then we will all bow down before your vast use of the word "jitter".

C'mon Purdue, it's the error and jitter correction that is the problem. Sure there are no bitwise errors. You're baiting me with the use of DVD audio and I ain't gonna bite. It's all about the jitter with no reference clock. You know this, I know you do.

I'm specifically addressing the true bandwidth of the medium and it's affects on state transition. Yes, affects. This is a technical forum and should be addressed as such.

What I asked earlier regarding bandwidth of a medium has yet to be answered. What limits a mediums bandwidth? It's time and state change. What does the bandwidth (by the way it's measured in Hz, not bits) have to do with it?

Nobody can answer this. Therefore I can only conclude that people don't have a freaking clue regarding digital transmission. If you could, then you would understand.

I've given all the clues. Core size, toslink specifications, etc. But nobody has really caught on to the clues I've given.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL!

I already know all that. What does that have to do with TOSLINK's proven, measurable jitter?

Again, show me where this measurable jitter affects the signals transmission.

That's the advantage of digital. It has inherent error correction. So who cares if the signal's state change from a 0 to a 1 is .1uS from ideal? Provided that it still reaches that state before the sampling occurs...the signal remains perfect. And, contrary to your concern over jitter, these possible side effects are taken into account by the engineers who designed the transmission technology and adequate setup and hold times are always given to allow for non-ideal conditions.

So, your concern about reflections was incorrect earlier. Prove that jitter does cause uncorrectable errors in DVD audio. Then we will all bow down before your vast use of the word "jitter".

C'mon Purdue, it's the error and jitter correction that is the problem. Sure there are no bitwise errors. You're baiting me with the use of DVD audio and I ain't gonna bite. It's all about the jitter with no reference clock. You know this, I know you do.

I'm specifically addressing the true bandwidth of the medium and it's affects on state transition. Yes, affects. This is a technical forum and should be addressed as such.

What I asked earlier regarding bandwidth of a medium has yet to be answered. What limits a mediums bandwidth? It's time and state change. What does the bandwidth (by the way it's measured in Hz, not bits) have to do with it?

Nobody can answer this. Therefore I can only conclude that people don't have a freaking clue regarding digital transmission. If you could, then you would understand.

I've given all the clues. Core size, toslink specifications, etc. But nobody has really caught on to the clues I've given.

So you're saying there are no bit errors....so the transmission occurs perfectly. Thank you for your time and have a great day.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL!

I already know all that. What does that have to do with TOSLINK's proven, measurable jitter?

Again, show me where this measurable jitter affects the signals transmission.

That's the advantage of digital. It has inherent error correction. So who cares if the signal's state change from a 0 to a 1 is .1uS from ideal? Provided that it still reaches that state before the sampling occurs...the signal remains perfect. And, contrary to your concern over jitter, these possible side effects are taken into account by the engineers who designed the transmission technology and adequate setup and hold times are always given to allow for non-ideal conditions.

So, your concern about reflections was incorrect earlier. Prove that jitter does cause uncorrectable errors in DVD audio. Then we will all bow down before your vast use of the word "jitter".

C'mon Purdue, it's the error and jitter correction that is the problem. Sure there are no bitwise errors. You're baiting me with the use of DVD audio and I ain't gonna bite. It's all about the jitter with no reference clock. You know this, I know you do.

I'm specifically addressing the true bandwidth of the medium and it's affects on state transition. Yes, affects. This is a technical forum and should be addressed as such.

What I asked earlier regarding bandwidth of a medium has yet to be answered. What limits a mediums bandwidth? It's time and state change. What does the bandwidth (by the way it's measured in Hz, not bits) have to do with it?

Nobody can answer this. Therefore I can only conclude that people don't have a freaking clue regarding digital transmission. If you could, then you would understand.

I've given all the clues. Core size, toslink specifications, etc. But nobody has really caught on to the clues I've given.

So you're saying there are no bit errors....so the transmission occurs perfectly. Thank you for your time and have a great day.

Have you ever heard a scratched CD or talked on a Digital Cell phone on a fading signal? That garble is the sound of jitter. Errors do occur, thats why we have ECC, parity, TCP (vs UDP), MD5, FEP, CRC, etc.. if digital signal transmission were perfect, then why do we have so many schemes to prevent, dectect, and fix signal errors?

Digital may be good, but it aint perfect or correct all of the time.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: Googer

Have you ever heard a scratched CD or talked on a Digital Cell phone on a fading signal? That garble is the sound of jitter. Digital may be good, but it aint perfect or correct all of the time. Errors do occur, thats why we have ECC, parity, TCP (vs UDP), MD5, FEP, CRC, etc.. if digital signal transmission were perfect, then why do we have so many schemes to prevent, dectect, and fix signal errors?

You forgot CIRC.

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: Rubycon

Originally posted by: Googer

Have you ever heard a scratched CD or talked on a Digital Cell phone on a fading signal? That garble is the sound of jitter. Digital may be good, but it aint perfect or correct all of the time. Errors do occur, thats why we have ECC, parity, TCP (vs UDP), MD5, FEP, CRC, etc.. if digital signal transmission were perfect, then why do we have so many schemes to prevent, dectect, and fix signal errors?

You forgot CIRC.

Hey smarty pants, that's covered under the etc clause.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PurdueRy

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL!

I already know all that. What does that have to do with TOSLINK's proven, measurable jitter?

Again, show me where this measurable jitter affects the signals transmission.

That's the advantage of digital. It has inherent error correction. So who cares if the signal's state change from a 0 to a 1 is .1uS from ideal? Provided that it still reaches that state before the sampling occurs...the signal remains perfect. And, contrary to your concern over jitter, these possible side effects are taken into account by the engineers who designed the transmission technology and adequate setup and hold times are always given to allow for non-ideal conditions.

So, your concern about reflections was incorrect earlier. Prove that jitter does cause uncorrectable errors in DVD audio. Then we will all bow down before your vast use of the word "jitter".

C'mon Purdue, it's the error and jitter correction that is the problem. Sure there are no bitwise errors. You're baiting me with the use of DVD audio and I ain't gonna bite. It's all about the jitter with no reference clock. You know this, I know you do.

I'm specifically addressing the true bandwidth of the medium and it's affects on state transition. Yes, affects. This is a technical forum and should be addressed as such.

What I asked earlier regarding bandwidth of a medium has yet to be answered. What limits a mediums bandwidth? It's time and state change. What does the bandwidth (by the way it's measured in Hz, not bits) have to do with it?

Nobody can answer this. Therefore I can only conclude that people don't have a freaking clue regarding digital transmission. If you could, then you would understand.

I've given all the clues. Core size, toslink specifications, etc. But nobody has really caught on to the clues I've given.

So you're saying there are no bit errors....so the transmission occurs perfectly. Thank you for your time and have a great day.

Have you ever heard a scratched CD or talked on a Digital Cell phone on a fading signal? That garble is the sound of jitter. Errors do occur, thats why we have ECC, parity, TCP (vs UDP), MD5, FEP, CRC, etc.. if digital signal transmission were perfect, then why do we have so many schemes to prevent, dectect, and fix signal errors?

Digital may be good, but it aint perfect or correct all of the time.

I never said it was perfect all the time. Keep in mind I am talking about DVD audio streams not PCM.

Jitter is simply not an issue here.

 

[montypythizzle]

Never heard jitter with optical, and apparently no one else has either in this thread, besides maybe Spidey with his stethoscope eardrums, but they have heard the ground loop noise.

HMM.

 

[montypythizzle]

Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL!

I already know all that. What does that have to do with TOSLINK's proven, measurable jitter?

I have never "measured" it with my ears.

 

[montypythizzle]

Note that there are no differences in the signals transmitted over optical or coaxial S/PDIF connectors?both carry exactly the same information. Selection of one over the other rests mainly on the availability of appropriate connectors on the chosen equipment and the preference and convenience of the user. Connections longer than 6 meters or so, or those requiring tight bends, should use coaxial cable, since the high light signal attenuation of TOSLINK cables limits its effective range. On the other hand, TOSLINK cables are not susceptible to ground loops and RF interference like coaxial cables. One deciding factor for many is cost?any standard 75 O A/V cable can be used for coaxial connectivity, while TOSLINK requires a specific cable which until recently was not very affordable.

Hmm, about everything we have said, except Spidey still has some kind of notion that makes coax WAI moar 1337er than TOSLINK....