Why does Toslink suck? - Page 2

My pre/pro has a multitude of coax S/PDIF inputs, as well as Toslink S/PDIF inputs. I cannot distinguish sound in A/B comparisions from source components which have both Toslink  and coax outputs.  It all sounds awesome. Still,. I have been told I can improve the sound by replacing my plastic Toslink cable with glass cable.  Interestingly, my professional Sony PCM-7010F DAT recorders have AES-EBU XLR digital i/o, and coax S/PDIF i/o, but no Toslink. I don't know what that's all about, but, to connect these recorders to my pre/pro, to allow for play from recorder, as well as digital copy to recorder, requires an M-Audio CO2 interface. Although input/output gain sometimes needs to be adjusted, to avoid distortion or low dynamic range, the conversions do not sound different or worse than SACD direct.

My pre/pro has a multitude of coax S/PDIF inputs, as well as Toslink S/PDIF inputs. I cannot distinguish sound in A/B comparisions from source components which have both Toslink  and coax outputs.  It all sounds awesome Still, I have been told I can improve the sound by replacing my plastic Toslink cable with glass cable.  Interestingly, my professional Sony PCM-7010F DAT recorders have AES-EBU XLR digital i/o, and coax S/PDIF i/o, but no Toslink. I don't know what that's all about, but, to connect these recorders to my consumer pre/pro, to allow for play from recorder, as well as digital copy to recorder,  requires an M-Audio CO2 coax to optical/optical to coax interface. Although input/output gain sometimes needs to be adjusted to avoid distortion or low dynamic range, the conversions do not sound different or worse than SACD direct.

Let's try this again.

When you use the toslink, you're using the computer's soundcard.

When you use the USB, the Maverick is the soundcard.

I think toslink has its pros and cons. I only like toslink with a glass cable, a 6 ft sonicwave one, otherwise I find usb and coaxial both preferable in most ways.

I use the  AES/EBU  connection between digital devices and they are transformer decoupled so that I should not have any grounding loop issues.

In other cases USB being better than SPDIF actually has something to do with the PSU than the signal. My SuperPro 707 before gets 5v for the receiver and DAC chip via USB, and the wallwart is left alone to power the analog stage. Somebody told me I'd get the same high-gain output if I used a higher voltage PSU, since that unit can actually take more than what the cheapo bundled PSU gives it. Then again, for the most part this was more of "louder" rather than "better" outright.

An interesting read is the Lampizator page on digital transports. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by batphink 

Let's try this again.

When you use the toslink, you're using the computer's soundcard.

When you use the USB, the Maverick is the soundcard.

No.

Toslink is a digital signal, 1's and 0's.

AES/EBU are XLR digital i/o''s. They are seen on professiional audio equipment where  such a connection is appropriate for long cable runs, as well as dellivery of  certain digital data.  These connections are also exempt from SCMS.

Remember, even if it is 1's & 0's, those 1's and 0's have to be programmed and there are different ways to do it.  Also, remember there are transitions where the data move from digital to analog signal representing digital data.  There really is a lot going on behind the surface.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemalter 

Remember, even if it is 1's & 0's, those 1's and 0's have to be programmed and there are different ways to do it.  Also, remember there are transitions where the data move from digital to analog signal representing digital data.  There really is a lot going on behind the surface.

A helluva lot that cannot be easily explained by known convention. There is quite a grey area that has products and ideas running the gamut from sensible to out and out BS. The hard part is sorting the wheat from the chaff when sizing up gear (using technology outside of the norm). In reality the norm is likely the cause of mistakes being repeated over and over again degrading what can be a very realistic result provided one knows what to tweak, remove or add.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Currawong 

An interesting read is the Lampizator page on digital transports. 

One must read Lampy's entire page for the full lowdown as he does a number of about faces over time (the AES/EBU conclusions are right on the money). Mass loading, vibration damping...excellent overbuilt PSU sections, proper isolation of critical low V lines and "the less is more" approach are the correct aspects with which to evaluate your transport of choice (as either being worthy of further tweaking or junking for a more suitable base candidate). That being said Kingwa's CD transports are a perfect example of doing it right without getting into ridiculous levels of detail which end up costing thousands more in the end for little or no aural benefit. A lot of regular (present day cheapish consumer) CDP/DVDP's make for very poor dedicated transports (because of the poor laser mechs used in them and the lack of any damping/mass loading, no FIFO buffering, poor DSP error correction etc). It's interesting to note that Lampy does recommend anything made past 1995 (more or less) to use as project dedicated transport. I have to agree if all one is looking for is a mid fi CDP/DVDP...there are always exceptions but they usually cost a fair amount. Again nothing of quality comes cheap. All IMO of course.

Peete.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pricklely Peete 

A helluva lot that cannot be easily explained by known convention. There is quite a grey area that has products and ideas running the gamut from sensible to out and out BS. The hard part is sorting the wheat from the chaff when sizing up gear (using technology outside of the norm). In reality the norm is likely the cause of mistakes being repeated over and over again degrading what can be a very realistic result provided one knows what to tweak, remove or add.

 

Peete.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying or trying to get at.  My original post was to point out that when people reduce the conversation about digital to the notion that it's all 1's and 0's, they are missing some important details; one the 1's and 0's are the data, but the programming to handle that data has sonic consequences and two, as data move from platter to cable to DAC to cable to player, at various times the data is out of it's binary world and into the analog world of signals which has a different set of physics.

The point is that there is more to it than 1's and 0's and the benefit of knowing that is a more informed perspective which can assist in the search for better sound.