# Is Toslink or Coaxial best?



## 11B2P (May 18, 2006)

I am curious how others on the forum feel about…

Do you get better audio from Toslink or coaxial cable? I see some advantages with Toslink: no magnetic or RF interference. Is there any signal degradation from the electrical to light from light to electrical conversion?

Your opinions would be greatly appreciated.

-Bill M.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

Personally I've never been able to tell even the slightest difference, but then again my ears ain't the best in the barn. :huh:


----------



## ACGREEN (Feb 23, 2007)

Coaxial cables can handle more data, faster, so it is suppose to be better. But Toslink is pretty much interference proof, so you actually might get better results with them. 

I haven't been able to notice difference.


----------



## Danny (May 3, 2006)

You would have to have pretty good gear to hear a difference (if any). In my experience there is not much difference between cables, so long as you're not using really low quality discount store stuff. Both of these formats have advantages and disadvantages, most likely the best cable will depend on the environment in which it is used.

D.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

I prefer optical because it won't allow you to pass a ground loop or any self noise created in the unit sending the signal.


----------



## bobgpsr (Apr 20, 2006)

Possibly less clock recovery jitter due to the sharper rise/fall times of the signals on the coaxial interface. But like Steve says with Toslink you don't have to worry about adding a groundloop. In practice most often there is no audible difference.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

For audio only devices, the ground loop possibility may be an advantage for optical. For units with other connections for video, there is still a ground path, so it is not an advantage there. Optical conversion should have no effect on the signal, but it is one more thing to fail. Optical cables are more fragile and the connections are often less solid. With well shielded coaxial connections, we have found that we get significatnly better reliability in most systems, so we prefer to use coaxial where we can. In hundreds of installs, I have never serviced one for a problem on a coaxial audio link, but have serviced quite a few for problems on optical links.

The signal is the same as long as interference is not an issue, which it should not be with a quality cable.


----------



## spin (May 2, 2006)

I tried ABing both the coaxial and optical connections from my CD player to my AVR, but couldn't hear a difference at all.

That said, I'm using the analog outs of my CD player, since I want to use its DAC rather than the AVR's.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

So does the CD conversion sound better than the AVR? Which units are you using? 

There are other reasons to use the analog outs also. Some receivers with multizone operation need an analog signal for zone 2 or 3.


----------



## spin (May 2, 2006)

My observation is that using my AVR's DAC gave a slightly brighter sound, which I didn't prefer. My CDP is a NAD C542, while the AVR is an Onkyo 797.


----------



## SteveCallas (Apr 29, 2006)

Icaillo said:


> For units with other connections for video, there is still a ground path, so it is not an advantage there


For keeping a ground loop out of your audio chain, assuming you don't route video through your processor, it still is.


----------



## majorloser (May 25, 2006)

From personal experience I like coax because it's cheaper and easy to DIY make yourself. Just takes some RG-6 cable and some compression RCA connectors and you have custom length cables.


----------



## brandonnash (Sep 11, 2006)

I'm an optical advocate. I have an Acoustic Research optical cable and a Monster cable THX coax. I can hear a difference. The optical sounds better. I guess the only way to describe it is cleaner sounding. Sounds more open.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

To what do you attribute the difference? Do you realize that it is exactly the same signal witht he exception of the convertion to optical at the source end and the conversion from optical at the destination? There is no difference except in the case of noise that might be transferred over the gounds and interference that might occur if the shielding is poor. What units are you using?


----------



## brandonnash (Sep 11, 2006)

I don't know all the answers to the questions you have just asked. Maybe the quality of the monster cable isn't as good as the AR optical. I've ran them both from the same dvd player into the same receiver, and the only advantage I'd give the coax is in the midrange. Of course this could be because the treble and bass were brought out more with the optical. 

When I say I like the optical better, It's not by a huge margin, just barely noticeable. But it is noticeable.


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

Could something be set up differently between the two inputs? 

What's the rest of the system look like?


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

brandonnash said:


> I don't know all the answers to the questions you have just asked. Maybe the quality of the monster cable isn't as good as the AR optical. I've ran them both from the same dvd player into the same receiver, and the only advantage I'd give the coax is in the midrange. Of course this could be because the treble and bass were brought out more with the optical.
> 
> When I say I like the optical better, It's not by a huge margin, just barely noticeable. But it is noticeable.



What are the models of the units and is there any other connection between the source and the receiver? Have you done blind comparisons?


----------



## brandonnash (Sep 11, 2006)

Pioneer vsx-d411 receiver and an older phillips dvd player when the tests were done. I did better than blind listening tests. I did a wife listening test. Without telling her which was which she was able to tell which sounded better. No other sound connections were made.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

What about video connections? Is there a ground path between the units, even through your display? I wonder if there might be some common mode noise that might account for the difference. If there is no connection from the display to the audio, then you might be getting a ground loop or noise in the gound conection with the coax that you are not with the optical. Just trying to figure out why there might be a difference...there should not be, but you are obviously experiencing something.


----------



## brandonnash (Sep 11, 2006)

Not sure. I'm pretty sure that quality isn't an issue with the optical cable, being they all shoot light and receive the same. It could be a quality issue with the coax cable. I know that they both send digital signals, and I know that it's 1's and 0's that are transmitted. I'm clueless too as to why one could sound better than the other. My best guess is that there was something with either the receiver or the dvd player. One of the plugs where the connections are made could've been better than the other. Or another option is that the coax is sending a low level electrical signal and not all the 1's and 0's are coming thru properly. Don't know. I guess it could all attribute back to the guy who spends $50 on cables and the guy that spends $10,000 on the same type and length of cable. Some may actually be better than others. 

Either way, I'll stick with the optical for most if not all my future connections because of my experience with them.


Oh, and can't really recall the video connections at the time. Don't know if I had the tv on for both tests but I know I had just a composite video connection running from the DVD player and being switched thru the receiver. I was running a test with a Mellencamp CD and then the Queen "A night at the opera" DVD audio on the DTS setting. 

I know this may sound out in left field all this talk. I really understand why all this sounds a little questionable, mainly because I thought the same thing when I first heard it. I thought it's digital. The signal either makes it there and decodes or it doesn't. Couldn't figure out why the optical had a more appealing sound, just know that it did. 

Anyway just gonna wait for the 1.3 HDMI receivers to become more prevelant and buy one of those for all the connections.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2007)

If you cannot hear the difference, then it really does not matter. If you do not have a setup that can help you hear the difference, same thing, it does not matter. 

IMO, with a very good setup Coax will out perform Fiber especially the non-glass fiber. When getting into the real glass fiber, then you get a better optical cable, but they cost more. Try out some better brand Coax Cables, not Monster, and see if you like it better.

But over all, the general opinion for very decerning audiophiles is Coax. Again only you can make the best choice for cables in your setup.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

What do you base this opinion upon. Is there some reason to believe that grades of fiber affect transmissions of these signals?


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2007)

Tried both, and the real glass cables I liked better than the non-glass. You will also find if you do some reading on other audio forums that the real glass cables are generally prefered over the non-glass. But you need to listen for yourself and decide for yourself as with any cable purchase. Cables are very system and user specific that there is no correct, right, or perfect cable out there.


----------



## bobgpsr (Apr 20, 2006)

dtb300 said:


> But over all, the general opinion for very decerning audiophiles is Coax. Again only you can make the best choice for cables in your setup.


And the only scientific reason that I have ever heard/read is because it is possible that there is less clock recovery jitter as mentioned in post #6. But I am not one of those "golden eared" who are able to personally claim to have heard a difference.


----------



## MakeFlat (Mar 30, 2007)

The clock jitter problem is no longer a problem in today's optical cabling and interface. It was, as I read, a problem in earlier optical audio input/output. The perception that coaxial would be better than toslink, remains, even though today's toslink is as good as coaxial. Reference: Toshiba Co. Sorry I don't have the URL handy but if I find it I will post it.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

I have never seen any evidence of jitter being affected by cables. Let me state clearly, I am not one of those who scoffs at every suggestion that cabling can make an audible difference. I have been listening to and testing cables for nearly three decades. I do, however, try to make some connection between the experience people report and the underlying electrical theory and application that might explain it. I have yet to see even a mildly convincing speculation as to why one or the other might be better, other than the possibility of grounds carrying noise in coaxial systems.

Saying that you hear a difference begs some obvious questions that anyone with curiosity would be interested to understand. Given the degree to which expectation effects and placebo effects have been documented, I think it is reasonable to expect someone to at least present a reasonable hypothesis for how the experience can be accounted for by something other than psychoacoustical effects.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2007)

Technical evidence, underlying theory, psychoacoustical effects, double-blind listening, etc. etc. All of this is fine for those interested in this aspect of cables and find it a requirement to justify the changes that might be there or not. But the bottom line is if you can (or think you can) hear a difference then good for you. If you cannot hear any differences, then stick with the lowest cost product.

Each person needs to decide if there is a sonic difference or not, and go from there. In other words if the little Red/White cables that come with your component sounds fine to you, then use it. If Rad Shack and Home Depot cables do it for you, then use them. Remember it is YOUR system, and YOUR ears, and YOUR wallet, so let each person decide on what is best.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

The problem with this perspective is the well known and many times replicated effect of expectation. People are convinced all the time that they here something that is simply not there. People who come to these forums looking for advice and real information may not realize how easily perception is affected by what they are told that they might hear.

Asking the obviousl questions is the responsible and sensible thing to do.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2007)

lcaillo said:


> The problem with this perspective is the well known and many times replicated effect of expectation.


Expectation based on someones opinion or tastes, especially posted in a public internet forum is foolish. It all should be taken with a grain of salt, and base your own opinion. If the majority says that "X" is better than "Y", then there is a possibility that "X" is better, but not absolutely. Just becuase I like Coax better than Toslink does not mean a thing, other than I like it better. Each person should audition some and see which one they like better.



> People are convinced all the time that they here something that is simply not there. People who come to these forums looking for advice and real information may not realize how easily perception is affected by what they are told that they might hear. Asking the obviousl questions is the responsible and sensible thing to do.


There is some truth that people want to hear a difference based on cost or the "EGO" factor alone. "I paid $1k for this cable, and it is the best in the world!!!" This statement alone follows your statement, and is seen a lot, not only in audio but in many aspects of life.

Asking obvious questions is fine, but responses are just opinions and should be treated as such. 

Dan


----------



## brandonnash (Sep 11, 2006)

If this is, and I think it's well into it, a debate about digital cables, then what makes one cd better than another, if they're both using a digital connection? They're both _Suppose_ to be outputting the same digital signal, yet I can guarantee that there's not a person in this forum that'll stand by a, say, brand new $75 KLH cd player opposed to a possibly Onkyo $500 cd player. I believe that an audible difference would be easy to tell, yet they use the same type of lasers to pick up the signal from the cd and output via the same optical digital output. It _should_ be outputting the same signal, but, like I said, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who will say that a cheap KLH cd player will sound the exact same as the more expensive Onkyo. 

I read a review on audioholics.com of some very menacing looking RBH speakers, and he had something he had to be mindful of..."I recalled a paper I once read authored by Dr. Floyd Toole. In this paper, he stated human perception of sound can be influenced by appearance or first impression of the product before any sound is actually outputted." This is what the reviewer wrote, and at first glance, I thought that reason may have had an affect on what I was hearing, but the result of my listening was exactly opposite. 

I know marketing has something to do with a lot of purchases, and I can see no reason to pay $200 for an optical cable the same length as a $30 optical from the same company. I didn't really have an opinion about which would be a better cable when I bought my coax and my optical cables. Truth be told, I really thought that I would like the Monster coax better, just because of the "THX" tag on it. I didn't. It may possibly be something with my electronics or something else, but there has to be something there that would make at least a slight discernable difference in two cables that are designed to do the exact thing, but get to the point in totally different ways.


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Some of us just want to understand the reason behind what we hear, whether it is due to psychoacoustic effects or due to actual differences in the sound. Some of us aalso hope to keep people from making assumptions that are not justified based on the personal observations and perception of others. We do not need to engage in the endless and pointless debate over whether there are audible differences or not. We do need to be clear about personal impressions vs factual evidence or even reasonable specualation based on a clear understanding of the theory. 

For instance, I sould not assume that a cheap CD player would sound worse than a much more expensive one. There are many variables involved, it could go either way. If someone hears a difference, then the immediate and obvious question is why. Then we begin to learn something...


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2007)

lcaillo said:


> Some of us just want to understand the reason behind what we hear, whether it is due to psychoacoustic effects or due to actual differences in the sound. Some of us aalso hope to keep people from making assumptions that are not justified based on the personal observations and perception of others. We do not need to engage in the endless and pointless debate over whether there are audible differences or not. We do need to be clear about personal impressions vs factual evidence or even reasonable specualation based on a clear understanding of the theory.


I agree with you. There are some people that need to know why a component or cable sounds different. Then there are some that do not care about LRC, THD, etc. they just care how it sounds and which is better to them. I cannot sit here and type a response to you, in technical terms (LRC), of why I like Coax better than Toslink. So, for people like you, my statements are meaningless and carry no weight.

Problem is, as you have stated, some posts just say "I like X better" and do not expand on why that is. Even if they say I like it better because the bass or mids or high end sound better to me, still does not tell another person much. It is all personal preference and tastes when getting an opinion from a forum such as this. 

The nature of the internet has spawned this type of "go find it knowledge". While it can be of great assistance, it can also make things even more confusing for those not in the know. Then they may go out to a local store, and depending on the quality of the salesperson, either get totally snowballed or find someone who really cares about the consumer (harder and harder to find these days). It is really a viscious circle for consumers not in the know.

Dan


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with saying "I like xyz best, and don't care about any explanations." Just don't expect that the questions will not be raised. This is a forum with lots of DIYers and people with great curiosity about how things work. There are also casual readers who should be afforded a reasonable perspective if they are uninformed. We try to stick to the facts as much as possible, while allowing the free flow of opinion. Personally, I find the relation between perception and the underlying physics and electromagnetic theory fascinating, and I ask lots of questions to get at the nature of that relationship. Having decades of electronics sales, system design, and repair experience, and an advanced degree in motor behavior, I tend to be very curious about the matter.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2007)

lcaillo said:


> Exactly. There is nothing wrong with saying "I like xyz best, and don't care about any explanations." Just don't expect that the questions will not be raised. This is a forum with lots of DIYers and people with great curiosity about how things work. There are also casual readers who should be afforded a reasonable perspective if they are uninformed. We try to stick to the facts as much as possible, while allowing the free flow of opinion. Personally, I find the relation between perception and the underlying physics and electromagnetic theory fascinating, and I ask lots of questions to get at the nature of that relationship. Having decades of electronics sales, system design, and repair experience, and an advanced degree in motor behavior, I tend to be very curious about the matter.


I know there are two camps out there for audio decisions. There is the camp that has to have statistics and information to justify the reason for the sound they are hearing. Then there is the camp who goes out and listens to equipment and purchases the one they like the sound of the best irrelevant of the statistics.

Which is correct? Neither really - and both can be used to make a purchase.

One thing that has to be noted is the general "newbie buyer" has to be careful not to get caught up in the numbers games of marketing statistics and such to make a purchase. Sometimes these figures can be a starting point, but which sounds better is really the final and ultimate deciding point, agreed?

If people bought purely on statistics, would a Tube Amp ever be purchased?

Dan


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

"Newbie buyers" are more likely to be caught by the hype and ridiculous claims of improved performance with expensive cables and conditioners that have no "numbers" to back them up, or by the classic sales technique of "prediction-proof."

There is a third group who acknowledge that there are some differnces and understand that most are exaggerated and undocumented, or are due to expectation or bias effects. We have a healthy skepticism, but do not deny that there may be differences that we just have not figured out how to account for. You might call us the rational middle. I have heard and seen the differences in cables, and even measured some. They are greatly overestimated in their effect, however, and psycho-acoustic and psycho-visual perceptual effects are far more easy to induce.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2007)

lcaillo said:


> "Newbie buyers" are more likely to be caught by the hype and ridiculous claims of improved performance with expensive cables and conditioners that have no "numbers" to back them up, or by the classic sales technique of "prediction-proof."


But again numbers to back them up is still not the solution to prove what they sound like. Again, I will state to look at numbers/stats for Tube Amps - pretty poor compared to SS Amps, so by numbers, all SS amps should crush Tube Amps in sound quality. But each each one has its plus and minues as to how it does things (sound reproduction), and each one of us has to decide which they like better, as neither is better.

Get away from the marketing hype, get away from the sales pitches and traps and get the component or item home and listen to it yourself and decide: "Is the sound I am getting an improvement or not for the price that I have to pay?"

We could go on with this discussion forever  but my point is people need to listen in their own homes with their own setups and decide from there. That is the real bottom line.


----------



## FireWalker877 (May 14, 2007)

I've been running my music off of my PC for almost a year now. For an application like this, the optical connection is the only way to go.

As was mentioned before, the coax has a tendency to pick up interference in close quarters with a significant amount of electromagnetic radiation. Every now and then the signal from my soundcard would drop out on its way to the receiver. I am assuming that some of the data was being knocked into the noise margin. I'm not entirely sure. But it was a decent shielded Monster cable, and nothing I could do would fix the problem. One of my local radioshacks was closing, and I found a 12 ft optical cable for a dollar. I plugged it up, and no more interference! 

Part of the decision definitely depends on your application!


----------

