Expensive optical cables worth it?

[wab]

Today I saw some more expensive optical cables at a local HiFi-shop. I can understand analog interconnects need some good shielding etc, so it's worth investing in those.
But with optical cables? What's the difference between a cheap one and a more expensive one?

BTW. I am using an optical cable for recording from my CDP to My portable Minidisc.

 

[dhwilkin]

I guess the optical cable maybe has more pure glass or something that won't screw up the bits getting transmitted as much as a cheap one. I've actually heard differences between digital coaxial cables, so I could see the optical cables differing in sound quality as well. Of course, the only way to know if there's any difference would be to try it for yourself.

Now, don't ask me why I heard differences between the digital coaxial cables, I really couldn't explain what cable property made the difference. That's not my area of expertise.

 

[DanG]

When recording to a minidisc, I'd suggest you just get any optical cable that is the right length and doesn't cost too much. The differences among optical cables are not noticeable when recording to minidisc.

However, when connecting transports to DACs, you may notice differences among optical digital cables. Since optical digital cables transfer the 0s and 1s as light signals, distortion is possible if there is dust on either side of the cable or if the fiberglass within the cable isn't perfectly pure. That is, just like with an old window whose glass has begun to slide down and warp (because yes, glass is a liquid), light in a low-quality optical cable might be distorted. Thus, 0s might be read as 1s and vice versa. That is also why it is not a good thing to twist up your optical cables or to play around with them. Try to leave them alone as much as possible, though I doubt coiling them will have any adverse effects.

 

[Jacobh]

From what I understand, glass is technically not a liquid. It is an amorphous solid. Basically there are sections of cyrstaline structure, but overall, there isn't an overall regular structure. The pockets can then wind up shifting causing the warping in old windows.

I have no clue as to the structure of fiberglass, but based on it's uses, I wouldn't think it had the same properties are regular glass. Anybody know about fiberglass?

 

[spanimal]

glorified plastic

 

[spanimal]

you cannot shatter fibre glass like glass. it isnt hard like glass, it is bendable like plastic and when you cut it up there is like a netting inside. carbon composite also feels like plastic. even kevlar feels like plastic when painted over.

 

[spanimal]

fantastic plastic - i hate new cars

 

[spanimal]

ummm i feel that if two different fibre optic cable does not interfere with the i and o then the sound should be the same.

 

[spanimal]

ummm specifically if i had spare cash i would pay a bit more just for the sense of security

 

[iriverdude]

I have a cable talk optical cable, the ends are metal, and locks into place more securely than any other plastic tipped optical cable. It has a thicker sheath so better protection for the core.

 

[Currawong]

spanimal: You should consider clicking on the "Edit" button and changing your post, rather than post 4 times in a row.

I can clearly hear the difference between a cheap optical cable and my Van Den Hul Optocoupler with some DACs. As I understand it, while only 1's and 0's are being sent, it's possible that the electrical signal could still be distorted such that you don't get a perfect square wave when they are transmitted. Unless a DAC has some means of dealing with this and timing jitter in the signal, it's suceptable to the quality of the source feeding it and the quality of the cable. The cheaper DACs I've owned seem to be very susceptable to this, while my current expensive one doesn't seem to be affected by it so much.

 

[apatN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanimal /img/forum/go_quote.gif you cannot shatter fibre glass like glass. it isnt hard like glass, it is bendable like plastic and when you cut it up there is like a netting inside. carbon composite also feels like plastic. even kevlar feels like plastic when painted over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanimal /img/forum/go_quote.gif fantastic plastic - i hate new cars

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanimal /img/forum/go_quote.gif ummm i feel that if two different fibre optic cable does not interfere with the i and o then the sound should be the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spanimal /img/forum/go_quote.gif ummm specifically if i had spare cash i would pay a bit more just for the sense of security

Are you trying to post in the FS forums? Meh...

Back on topic. I keep reading that theoretically there should be no difference as they carry a digital signal. But then I have also read of people that can hear a difference between digital cables. I don't know; you really should try for yourself.

 

[Phyltre]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanG /img/forum/go_quote.gif That is, just like with an old window whose glass has begun to slide down and warp (because yes, glass is a liquid),

This is believed by modern science to be categorically false. Wikipedia has some good information to offer:

Quote:

Behavior of antique glass The observation that old windows are often thicker at the bottom than at the top is often offered as supporting evidence for the view that glass flows over a matter of centuries. It is then assumed that the glass was once uniform, but has flowed to its new shape, which is a property of liquid.[23] In actuality, the likely reason for this is that when panes of glass were commonly made by glassblowers, the technique used was to spin molten glass so as to create a round, mostly flat and even plate (the Crown glass process, described above). This plate was then cut to fit a window. The pieces were not, however, absolutely flat; the edges of the disk became thicker as the glass spun. When actually installed in a window frame, the glass would be placed thicker side down both for the sake of stability and to prevent water accumulating in the lead cames at the bottom of the window.[24] Occasionally such glass has been found thinner side down or thicker on either side of the window's edge, as would be caused by carelessness at the time of installation. Mass production of glass window panes in the early twentieth century caused a similar effect. In glass factories, molten glass was poured onto a large cooling table and allowed to spread. The resulting glass is thicker at the location of the pour, located at the center of the large sheet. These sheets were cut into smaller window panes with nonuniform thickness. Modern glass intended for windows is produced as float glass and is very uniform in thickness. Several other points exemplify the misconception of the "cathedral glass" theory: Writing in the American Journal of Physics,[25] physicist Edgar D. Zanotto states "...the predicted relaxation time for GeO2 at room temperature is 10^32 years. Hence, the relaxation period (characteristic flow time) of cathedral glasses would be even longer". (10^32 years is much longer than the estimated age of the Universe.) If medieval glass has flowed perceptibly, then ancient Roman and Egyptian objects should have flowed proportionately more — but this is not observed. Similarly, prehistoric obsidian blades should have lost their edge; this is not observed either (although obsidian may have a different viscosity from window glass).[18] If glass flows at a rate that allows changes to be seen with the naked eye after centuries, then the effect should be noticeable in antique telescopes. Any slight deformation in the antique telescopic lenses would lead to a dramatic decrease in optical performance, a phenomenon that is not observed.[18] There are many examples of centuries-old glass shelving which has not bent, even though it is under much higher stress from gravitational loads than vertical window glass. Some glasses have a glass transition temperature close to or below room temperature. The behaviour of a material that has a glass transition close to room temperature depends upon the timescale during which the material is manipulated. If the material is hit it may break like a solid glass, but if the material is left on a table for a week it may flow like a liquid. This simply means that for the fast timescale its transition temperature is above room temperature, but for the slow one it is below. The shift in temperature with timescale is not very large however as indicated by the transition of polypropylene glycol of -72 °C and -71 °C over different timescales.[15] To observe window glass flowing as liquid at room temperature we would have to wait a much longer time than any human can exist. Therefore it is safe to consider a glass a solid far enough below its transition temperature: Cathedral glass does not flow because its glass transition temperature is many hundreds of degrees above room temperature. Close to this temperature there are interesting time-dependent properties. One of these is known as aging. Many polymers that we use in daily life such as rubber, polystyrene and polypropylene are in a glassy state but they are not too far below their glass transition temperature. Their mechanical properties may well change over time and this is serious concern when applying these materials in construction.

Essentially it is a function of temperature. Given normal atmospheric temperatures, glass is functionally solid even if it does not meet a scientific definition of that word--being technically an amorphous solid rather than a gel or liquid. Interestingly, plastics are also considered amorphous solids.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhwilkin /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess the optical cable maybe has more pure glass or something that won't screw

glass fiber is not toslink.

toslink is plastic, baby. cheap junky plastic.

yet it gets the job done JUST FINE!

glass is not needed (or wanted, even) in this case.

 

[linuxworks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanG /img/forum/go_quote.gif When recording to a minidisc, I'd suggest you just get any optical cable that is the right length and doesn't cost too much. The differences among optical cables are not noticeable when recording to minidisc.

true.

Quote:

However, when connecting transports to DACs, you may notice differences among optical digital cables. Since optical digital cables transfer the 0s and 1s as light signals, distortion is possible if there is dust on either side of the cable

false. link to support this view of 'dust getting in the way' please?

light bends around obstacles. even in photography if you have dust on your lens, it won't affect things because its out of focus compared to the point of actual focus.

toslink is VERY robust. I've never seen it fail or falter.