Optical vs Coax

[kdrives]

Good Day
Just got the Onkyo SP800 DVD player & the Onkyo SR800 Receiver... Have hooked up the 6 RCA jacks for 5.1.
Was wondering what is better for Sound: Optical vs Coax??
And what is better for picture:S-Video vs RCA??
Curious about your opinions...
Thanks
Dave

ps - had posted a thread a couple months ago about poor dialogue in the center channel... problem gone with this new equipment (believe it was a bad 5.1 & DTS processor in my old receiver, name I'll leave out for now- JayVeeSee)...

[nellis8166]

IMO optical is way better than coax. Component calbles for video will give you the best picture, S video is not far behind. I would use RCA's as a last resort.

Regards,
Nat

[Ron-P]

I've ran both and can honestly say, I hear no difference. I use coax because it's more durable, cheaper than optical and less prone to signal jitter.

Use S-Video over composite.

Peace Out~:D

[kberg]

I've tried both as well and decided on coax - I seemed to detect a *slightly* "warmer" sound than the optical connection, and I do mean *slightly*.

[dbournival]

Onkyo reccomends Coax vs Optical (At least they did a year ago). Onkyo states that since there is less processing in theory Coax should be superior. I've tried both and cannot say one is better than the other. My system 1 uses optical, system 2 coax.

S-Video is superior to composite.

[HBombToo]

I have my Cal CL-20 used as a transport with xlr to an Audio Research DAC5 and IMO... if there is no damage expect not much difference on the digital connections. I will agree with Ron in that coax is very cost effective. Jitter on the other hand is for a different subject.

HBomb

[RuSsMaN]

Why would you want to take the extra steps to convert the digital signal to light, and back again?

I'm in the Coax camp, fwiw.

Cheers,
Rooster

[HBombToo]

at only a few feet it makes NO sense!

evil twin

[phuz]

Originally posted by RuSsMaN
Why would you want to take the extra steps to convert the digital signal to light, and back again?

I'm in the Coax camp, fwiw.

Cheers,
Rooster

Is there really a conversion? It's all 0's and 1's - and the light is either on or off right? Seems like it's the purest way to transmit a digital signal to me. I could easily be wrong though.

Optical for me when using outboard DACs.

[RuSsMaN]

Is there a conversion?

Umm, changing an electrical signal to light (and back again), you be the judge.

Cheers,
Rooster

[danger boy]

i've used both. i could not tell the difference.. i use both in my HT system

dvd player uses coax and dish network hooked up with optical. both sound good.

S-video is better than RCA (composite). component (three RCA) is superior to both

[phuz]

Originally posted by RuSsMaN
Is there a conversion?

Umm, changing an electrical signal to light (and back again), you be the judge.

Cheers,
Rooster

Right but is it a conversion in the sense of the common digital to analog conversion is what I meant.

Anything that is digital is just binary, 0's and 1's. I could be wrong about this but the way an optical cable transfers the signal is by flashing light right? On is 0 and off is 1 or vice-versa. Even if that is not true you get the point. It is read by the receiving component as 0's and 1's. It's not like it turns into 1.2's or .03's. Sure if there was a bit (read, 0 or 1) missing then there would be problems. I've heard this happen with bad quality optical cables or with a partial optical connection. There is data loss, but as long as your component sends those 0's and 1's and they make it to the other end there should be no degredation or coloration of the signal. I mean, if I knew the binary code and my receiver could read hand signals then I could sit here and play my favorite CD's without degredation all while I rub one out.

Theoretically, at least. :)

If fiber were not superior to copper then it woudn't be one of the highest quality connections available for large data systems and networks. Electrical signals sent over copper are subject to interferance etc. 0's and 1's as light aren't. Of course, I could be wrong. :)

[mantis]

Optical vs coax?????????
this debate has been going on since DVD came out.Whcih one is better.....well here it is.....there both good.
I personally did this vs battle untill I turned blue/purple/black/green (you pick it) and came to the conclusion that there is no audio difference.My tests where done with good quality cables on both sides.
Some people feel coax is better due the sturdy build quality.I say who cares,it just hangs behind your gear.Some people feel Toshink is better due to "lightSpeed",I say can you hear a difference?I can't.
The long and short of this debate is......whatever you can use to hook up your gear,use it.....meaning if your gear has only coax or digital don't even sweat it.
If it has both,go look at high quality cables and which ever one tickels you,buy that one......it doesn't matter.

Now S vs composite????Not true that everytime you get a better picture with S video,It depends on the source and monitor.
Again,good quality cables will yield better performance.

[danger boy]

s-video is much better than composite video. component beating them both out in video quality. yeah good quality cables do make a difference.

[HBombToo]

Originally posted by mantis
Some people feel Toshink is better due to "lightSpeed",I say can you hear a difference?I can't.


This is actually a very common misperception... the phase velocity is actually slower in lightguide verse coax.

Assuming that the electrical data stream is fully converted to light then there should be no difference in sound quality when compared to coax. If there is an EMI issue the TOSLink will minimize the noise.

HBomb

[Jargan04]

I use both optical and coax in HT system. I cast hear a difference, also with good cables. When it comes to video I use s-video because my TV dosent have component video. But yeah s-video beats composite anyday. How many of you have used DVI compared to componet video?

[PETERNG]

If the distance between the DVD player and receiver is 3 ft or less, use coax (more durable), if more 3 ft, use optical (travel by light), you won't be able to tell the different any way if you use good decent cables.

[izafar]

Some time people do hear difference between the two, but thats mainly due to associated electronics in the equipemnt, i-e on your DVD player the circuitry with optical out might be slightly different than the one on Coaxial output. I would suggest to try both and chose the one that sounds best to you. In my case I couldnt hear any differnce between the two.

[madmax]

I would try both but I think the coax is better. Nothing is ever just ones and zeros, so it seems.
madmax

[mantis]

You'll be hard pressed to hear a difference with the same player and same preamp/recever......do the test and report.

[Sumflow]

Which to use? Well, most experts prefer coaxial connections for the majority of applications, except for situations where there is a great deal of electromagnetic interference, in which optical cables, immune to such interference, work better.

Fiber optic cables do not conduct electricity, so they are not susceptible to electrical interference.

Isn’t using the Cheap Coaxial allot like putting Firestone tyres on a Cayenne (http://www3.us.porsche.com/english/usa/cayenne/cayenneturbo/bilder/intro_foto1.jpg) or using Petroleum Oil in a Ferrari, Lexus or Corvette.

DVD :cool:

Simply put, for the best picture quality, you should use component-video whenever available, then choose S-video over composite for most other applications.

The Panasonic DVD player says progressive-scan only works with component-video on a high-definition or HD-ready TV.

Running your gear off "clean" power lines will result in less interference, and therefore better sound and a clearer picture. You can have an electrician install a separate dedicated circuit for your home theater.