Optical connection - inferior by default?

[opaqueice]

have you truly claimed analog transmission elements that do *not* affect SPDIF bit integrity still have an effect? i could imagine reasons why that´s that case in a real world implementation, but that has little to do with the SPDIF protocols...

Yes of course they do, and it has everything to do with the S/PDIF protocol. That´s a basic fact about synchronous digital transmission; it´s called jitter. It can have a dramatic and easily audible effect (although it can also be controlled and rendered inaudible with modern techniques).

No offense, but you´ve demonstrated a rather basic ignorance of this subject numerous times in this thread. I suggest you do some research before posting again.

[AndyC_772]

It's as if you're pointing at the sky screaming "it's red" and expecting a meaningful argument. I wonder if you're just trolling, and the joke is on me.

I'm sorry - if everyone understands all this already and I'm the ignorant one for not realising it, then I humbly apologise. But, as an outsider looking in, I sometimes read stuff on hi-fi forums that (to me!) seems to illustrate a lack of understanding of the fundamentals behind how a digital system works.

That's not meant as a criticism BTW; I've been reading car tuning forums for the last few years and have a reasonable idea about how people go about getting more power from an engine - but that doesn't mean I could actually tune my own car, and I certainly couldn't design a better engine from scratch. I greatly admire those people who can.

[opaqueice]

I'm sorry - if everyone understands all this already and I'm the ignorant one for not realising it, then I humbly apologise. But, as an outsider looking in, I sometimes read stuff on hi-fi forums that (to me!) seems to illustrate a lack of understanding of the fundamentals behind how a digital system works.

Could you be more specific about what you don´t understand? If it´s how an S/PDIF stream with no bit errors can produce a distorted signal, read any article about jitter in digital audio. Possibly you´re used to asynchronous digital protocols like TCP/IP (which are very different).

[seanadams]

I'm sorry - if everyone understands all this already and I'm the ignorant one for not realising it, then I humbly apologise. But, as an outsider looking in, I sometimes read stuff on hi-fi forums that (to me!) seems to illustrate a lack of understanding of the fundamentals behind how a digital system works.

That's not meant as a criticism BTW; I've been reading car tuning forums for the last few years and have a reasonable idea about how people go about getting more power from an engine - but that doesn't mean I could actually tune my own car, and I certainly couldn't design a better engine from scratch. I greatly admire those people who can.

That was to pablolie, not you. Sorry, I should have quoted.

Your explanation was fine. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

[Eric Carroll]

Guys,

I think your postings all crossed in mid-write and we are having a clock slip here ;-)

I think sean was responding to pablolie not Andy.

I think Andy's response to sean was because he thought it was to him not pablolie (sean's posts overlapped a couple).

And opaqueice did you mistake Andy's posting for the subthread you were having with pablolie?

I suggest a quick look backwards - I am just forcing the clock resync.

:-)

[pablolie]

(disclaimer: I'm a professional electronic engineer specialising in communications systems... so I ought to know what I'm talking about!)

I am an electrical engineer myself, but went off into the marketing side of things. So I am paid to make overzealous claims. :-)

[AndyC_772]

D'uh! I'm easily confused, especially after a hard day at work and a beer or two... thanks guys

[pablolie]

... do not make the phenomenon cease to exist. ...

what phenomenon? i can't recall anyone talking about a phenomenon. other than possible you carrying a grudge over being caught making too generic a claim about memories. which would be disappointing.

[P Floding]

325xi wrote:
> Eric mentioned that
> consumer Toslink does have higher jitter,
[snip]

> I've already said what I think about inaudibility assumptions. I'm
> somewhat concerned with that massive feedbacks that people don't like
> Toslink, we may define it BS, but I'm not sure those complains are
> totally baseless...

I can detect zero different when my SqueezeBox was feeding my Benchmark
DAC-1.

I believe the bad reputation is more caused by the fact that consumer
Toslink is designed and used in consumer products. Quality is not the
driver in that market, price and features are.


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimse...msoftware.html

Isn't the Benchmark DAC1 supposed to reject all jitter due to propritary (correct!?) use of its ASRC? Unfortunately my TacT 2.2x uses the same ASRC but in a different mode which won't reject jitter very well.

[pablolie]

Yes of course they do, and it has everything to do with the S/PDIF protocol. That´s a basic fact about synchronous digital transmission; it´s called jitter.

Yeah, and SPDIF carries the data to overcome it. It is not a matter of the protocol, it's a matter of implementation. And that's why DACs have an input buffer. Jitter at the SPDIF layer should not be an unsurmountable issue. But no one disputes it can be an issue with a flawed design.

# It can have a dramatic and easily audible effect

It can. With a well implemented design it shouldn't. Someone else out there can tell us whether the good DAC chipes have an input buffer or not to avoid starvation. Basic voice communication codecs from 10 years ago did, so I am pretty sure DAC designers would take starvation issues into account.

# I suggest you do some research before posting again

Thanks. I suggest you provide useful information instead of just going ad hominem, because I haven't seen you make a point.