I use TOSLINK to connect my TV to the stereo receiver, it works really well. I live not far from Nottingham and there is the "Sherwood Observatory", there was a regiment called "Sherwood Foresters" and there is Sherwood Forest of course.
Being in IT for almost 19 years. Fiber is essentially packet collision free. The backend of my core network is all fiber. Fiber is the way to go for sure.
The advantage of fibre optics is that it does not suffer from capacitive effects from packed cables, and limitations on frequency that occurs on copper that affects square ware digital (ie loss of high frequency terms in the square wave - look at the effects on digital square waves in copper cables). That is why we are moving optical fibre links for the digital in general, but hifi is left behind.
Toslink does support Dolby Digital 5.1 and even DSD in most modern equipment if allowed by their software. The original limitations can be stretched. The outer casing is plastic but the inner core is glass fibre cable.
Implying that if PS Audio were to implement their own standard of fiber optic interface and sub-license it to the public for a small fee (of course the higher standard would be better by a grandiose measure) so they would expand the functionality of the original protocol. There you go Paul, be the expanded functionality and support.
Don't worry about the non-starter bit, just come to a usable number/design, start making it along with adapter boxes for those the don't have it, and it's now a starter - just like your digital audio over HDMI plugs, if you got it eight others will follow.
Maybe it's an opportunity to create this new standard for high end audio. If no one else is doing it, why shouldn't you? Would be a highly valued contribution to the audiophile community!
@@trebep These already exist since a long time. In the automotive industry you have TOSLINK connections with 125 Mbit/s data rate which should be enough for DSD.
What Paul did not address was the letter writer's assertion about "jitter", the writer apparently claiming that TOSlink, and by implication similar fiber connections, don't have to worry about jitter. Indeed, on PSAudio's forum there is a thread about this and how the DS samples the incoming TOSlink signal to try and avoid the jitter problems.
Maybe it's time to think about "typical usage' ... Everyone is on this high bit rate thing, right now. But have any of you actually used it? Almost all music is at 44.1ksps movies stretch that to 48ksps ... when is the last time you got over 96ksps for anything except the novelty of trying it out? I have a drive here with close to 6,000 songs and over 1,200 movies on it... it's all 44.1/16 and 48/16 ... In my day to day use, that's it, 2 speeds... and to be honest, it's plenty good enough. Now, the point is that if we are only using these lower speeds... would it not make more sense to develop them to perfection rather than constantly stretching for more and more stuff we will never use? I get that a recording studio needs more... but what about your living room... what does it need?
Every one can introduce a standard. (similar to DSD over HDMI cable) The first supplier dan define it to their needs. But it is neccesary to publish the definition for free to open it for the use to others. This definitions will become the "standard" - maybe updated later on to cover additional needs.....
I always preferred coax over toslink. I recall reading that toslink had issues in longer lengths and reflections could be an issue. I think there are plenty of more important things in audio then coax vs toslink. both can work fine for home audio.
Have fiber into the house for the brain and then cat 6 private network cables to my sound system. Maybe eventually it's fiber all the way when the machines get up to date for audio. I have smurf tube in the walls so can remove cat 6 for the fiber when it becomes a thing.
I have been using tolink for years to provide isolation between my audio and video in my system. Without toslink i get hum and noise in my system. Its time that we come up with a new optical interface for consumer use. Im sure that Paul has associtions with others companys that may be willing to work together. PS Audio came up with the I2S over HDMI to transfer digital audio. There are other companies out ther who are doing the same. How about a new optical connection that could seperate the clock and data into separate opical cables and making use of higher frequancy leds etc.
I still remember, AES, BNC, AT+T glass fibre, if your DAC didnt have these it was not high end, RCA and Toslink wre lesser quality, with less control over the cables used, there were even papers on trans modal dispertion in fiobre optics, length concerns and transceiver, reciever issues, not to mention the appaling quality and lack of QC when it came to plugs and cable ends. I quite like Toslink, but the quality and effort from equipment to cables means it will always be a budget afterthought.
Hi Paul - question: You introduced the I2S to the world, and others follow after. Why not do the same for a new, optical standard that - for now - only works with PS Audio products, and then freely can get implemented by others? Or even better, why not get a couple of other producers on board to do the same thing simultaneously? In my ethernet switch set-up, I use optical between two high-quality fiber-optic-media-converters, with GREAT result.
For a standard it’s confusing. I got some old DACs off eBay with this connection and twice I’ve ordered cables out of curiosity to compare and none fit, I can’t find these bloody things.
Question for the group - To connect my streamer to my DAC I have the option of optical or coax. I read in various places that coax is a better choice. I have experimented with both. Not sure I can tell a difference. But want to use what is technically best regardless. Any input on this would be appreciated. Thanks.
The material is a restriction for the length due to damening. Toslink is not at its technical end (in regards for the data rate) - there is simply no definition how to cover higher bit rates or DSD in to the bus communication .... Someone needs to start with it, maybe for a master tesis in a university for example.
@DerElektriker1 So, for short distances like 6 feet , plastic will do ? I guess my question is that if I have a choice between using the coaxial digital out , or optical Spdif, or adat , on my audio interface , which is best for audio quality ?
@@LukeSchneiderEWI Optical is better as Paul already mentioned. Here, we hab the electrical isolation between components. For example: PS Audio producs are using optical interfaces within their components to isolate different parts and functions electrically (e.g. opto coupler). And yes, I think 6 feet - the most tolink are used in theis area are sufficiant. But there is also a field of new input for research available due to new wavelength and laser technology to enhance the capability further with the same optical "cable". In the earlier days, onls RED LEDs were available cheaply for commercial applications. Now, we have a whide rage of wafe length and also chap laser diodes available. there is a huge potencial available, to be used with toslink...... 😉
There is a company named Lifatec making excellent glass toslink cables. They’re not an audio company, they make cables for fiber infrastructure. Their toslink cables are much cheaper than what I paid for the plastic Audioquest toslink cables I own, and they definitely retrieve more information from the signal. They’re very flexible and easy to route as well.
It would appear Nagra uses some sort of proprietary optical standard that seem to look awfully similar to ATT ST optical cables. I haven’t looked into it though. I bet it sounds amazing, but Nagra is prohibitively expensive for me 😮💨
Why are you talking about 96KHz bandwidth for optical and then comparing to "megahertz today"? Optical TOSLINK has a bandwidth in the megahertz, Paul. You know this! YOU KNOW THIS!! 96000Hz * 24 * 2 = 4.6MHz. Why are you comparing apples and oranges like that?
What do you mean, “there is no standard”. I assume you are referring to no accepted standard within the AV consumer industry. Why does that matter? PSA, of all companies, was the company that brought us I2S. While sadly not embraced industry wide, it is embraced by several high end oem’s around the world. I wonder if the PSA sales and accounting departments have determined that interface cost the company sales and losses as consumers were hesitant to buy a product with a ‘non-standard’ interface. The point is, if we wait for AV industry, particularly the high end audio industry, to develop new digital interface, it will never happen. The fact is there are fiber optic interface standards embraced globally. The SC connector, both single and duplex is the global standard. The MPO, aka MTP, multiplex interface is newer but also found commonly throughout the world. How exactly hard is it to have a dac or streamer with an SC port for fiber optic cable in addition to the current wired standard of I2S and USB? Your streamer could plug directly into a NAS with SC port. You’d be setting a new standard yet be backward compatible to USB and I2S devices without constraints of Toslink limitations. Much as I2S utilized an existing HDMI interface, there’s no reason AV industry needs to invent a new proprietary interface when a widely available existing interface delivering 100Gbps of jitter free data is available licensing free.
Fibre is pointless as an audio interconnect. The bit rates for audio.are very very very low. Fibre is used for the multiple mile gigabit connection to your house, its not used for the short range gigabit Ethernet connections within a building. Copper is cheaper and does the job. The only application for fibre within a building are for 100Gbit Ethernet and Infiniband. Every modern copper, i.e USB and Eternet, and wireless standard exceeds the requirements of audio communication by orders of magnitude. Jitter is an analog concept, it doesn't apply to digital. As long as the data rate is sufficient the local buffers smooth thngs out.
I agree. Like many audiophile things, fiberoptic networking is massive overkill. However; you should know that TosLink is not fibre-optic networking. It's a cheap encoder/decoder system using a short plastic fibre link that runs into problems about 10 feet. From the perspective of a network engineer it would be deemed "massive underkill" ... but for audio it works pretty good. There are problems with the encoding scheme in that the transmitter is responsible for clocking the receiver. That is... the timing is embedded into the signal which can be problematic in cases where the transmitter has trouble following the source (CD problems are a good example here). Please allow me to suggest you do a little research on it's actual structure and operations. You will find that it's a good setup... for audio.
@Douglas_Blake It's a relic of a bygone world. In the digital world everything is just data which we can move around cheaply and reliably. In an audio system it doesn't become analog again until the DAC, everything before that stage is just moving data. At the DAC you present the samples at the required rate. It's controlled by a crystal clock which is far more accurate than is required for audio.
I had pangea & wire world toslinks that sounded great Until I broke down & bought a audioquest vodka optical cable and it opened up streaming I never heard before even with my expensive Kimber coax cable. I'm not much of tech guy and measuring I can only go by my ears and again for me "Hearing is Believing"💯👍
Placebo that's all that is dude , toslink supports up to 24-bit 192khz. The notion that you can hear that double blind test that you'd fail like everybody else has that has tried that.
Toslink never requires an upgrade ,its not susceptible for RF. For any outside influences. It's a thin single wire you can do it all. What is there to be improved. Toshiba I did something really unique and special there and still relevant over 40 years later And per usual paul is half assed with his information again. Toslink suppors 24-bit 192khz.. No audiophile ears will need more ill call bs on that all day long. The only fallacy it has it's not able to do multi-channel. DTS DTS Master etc, which is for the audio guy not relevant anyways
If we were able to go to quality fibre or toslink for inner connects and such what the pricing would be compared to what we can pay for what we are using in hifi now. Would it stay an inexpensive standard or would it start another new financial arms race in hifi???
I use TOSLINK to connect my TV to the stereo receiver, it works really well.
I live not far from Nottingham and there is the "Sherwood Observatory", there was a regiment called "Sherwood Foresters" and there is Sherwood Forest of course.
Being in IT for almost 19 years. Fiber is essentially packet collision free. The backend of my core network is all fiber. Fiber is the way to go for sure.
I like it! No ground faults possible.
I too live in Sherwood, which is a suburb of Nottingham, England. There used to be a lovely hifi shop there called "Forum Hifi". Nice place.
The advantage of fibre optics is that it does not suffer from capacitive effects from packed cables, and limitations on frequency that occurs on copper that affects square ware digital (ie loss of high frequency terms in the square wave - look at the effects on digital square waves in copper cables). That is why we are moving optical fibre links for the digital in general, but hifi is left behind.
Optical fibers have the same issues with pulses getting wider over distance.
@EraYaN they have degeneration issues, but this is easier to manage in digital circuits than capacitance and square wave rounding
@@EraYaN hence multi mode vs single mode.
Toslink does support Dolby Digital 5.1 and even DSD in most modern equipment if allowed by their software. The original limitations can be stretched. The outer casing is plastic but the inner core is glass fibre cable.
And one other thing. It supports up to 24 bit 192 kHz stereo also.
Implying that if PS Audio were to implement their own standard of fiber optic interface and sub-license it to the public for a small fee (of course the higher standard would be better by a grandiose measure) so they would expand the functionality of the original protocol. There you go Paul, be the expanded functionality and support.
The inner core is usually not glass. It's plastic optical fibers for most consumer cables. Only high-end cables use quartz glass optical fibers.
I had a DVD player that could do DTS 5.1 on certain DVDs across toslink. It was awesome.
Don't worry about the non-starter bit, just come to a usable number/design, start making it along with adapter boxes for those the don't have it, and it's now a starter - just like your digital audio over HDMI plugs, if you got it eight others will follow.
High-quality networking equipment already uses fiber cables for SFP ports between switches. They're readily available and not over-the-top expensive.
Elon's not your buddy, Paul.
because he's a green energy and free speech advocate?
Maybe it's an opportunity to create this new standard for high end audio. If no one else is doing it, why shouldn't you? Would be a highly valued contribution to the audiophile community!
Exactly. Propose a newer standard for Toslink and I2S. Someone has to lead the way!
@@trebep These already exist since a long time. In the automotive industry you have TOSLINK connections with 125 Mbit/s data rate which should be enough for DSD.
What Paul did not address was the letter writer's assertion about "jitter", the writer apparently claiming that TOSlink, and by implication similar fiber connections, don't have to worry about jitter. Indeed, on PSAudio's forum there is a thread about this and how the DS samples the incoming TOSlink signal to try and avoid the jitter problems.
Jitter only happens when the clock sync is out.
TOSLINK has so much potential if they kept updating standards and processing but its all about licensing garbage and money
Only thing that limits data transfer over fiber is the color of the laser which is the frequency/data density determinant.
Actually, it’s the rate at which the light can be “cycled”, or turned on and off.
Nah we’re saying Sherwood like Sherwood the comparative budget hi-fi gearing the 80s/90s in Australia lol
My PS Audio Sprout 100 is connected via toslink to an Apple Airport Express 2. Sounds fab. Long live toslink.
Maybe it's time to think about "typical usage' ...
Everyone is on this high bit rate thing, right now. But have any of you actually used it?
Almost all music is at 44.1ksps movies stretch that to 48ksps ... when is the last time you got over 96ksps for anything except the novelty of trying it out?
I have a drive here with close to 6,000 songs and over 1,200 movies on it... it's all 44.1/16 and 48/16 ... In my day to day use, that's it, 2 speeds... and to be honest, it's plenty good enough.
Now, the point is that if we are only using these lower speeds... would it not make more sense to develop them to perfection rather than constantly stretching for more and more stuff we will never use?
I get that a recording studio needs more... but what about your living room... what does it need?
Every one can introduce a standard. (similar to DSD over HDMI cable) The first supplier dan define it to their needs. But it is neccesary to publish the definition for free to open it for the use to others. This definitions will become the "standard" - maybe updated later on to cover additional needs.....
I always preferred coax over toslink. I recall reading that toslink had issues in longer lengths and reflections could be an issue. I think there are plenty of more important things in audio then coax vs toslink. both can work fine for home audio.
Recently, I found that Toslink has been more reliable than HDMI for my needs. It seems as though "it just works." But again, that's just me.
Have fiber into the house for the brain and then cat 6 private network cables to my sound system. Maybe eventually it's fiber all the way when the machines get up to date for audio. I have smurf tube in the walls so can remove cat 6 for the fiber when it becomes a thing.
I have been using tolink for years to provide isolation between my audio and video in my system. Without toslink i get hum and noise in my system. Its time that we come up with a new optical interface for consumer use. Im sure that Paul has associtions with others companys that may be willing to work together. PS Audio came up with the I2S over HDMI to transfer digital audio. There are other companies out ther who are doing the same. How about a new optical connection that could seperate the clock and data into separate opical cables and making use of higher frequancy leds etc.
Toslink on current tv can be set to output Bitstream to enable DD5.1 and 7.1.
According to Rob Watts of Chord DAC, the Toslink is still the preferable connectivity source vs USB.
I still remember, AES, BNC, AT+T glass fibre, if your DAC didnt have these it was not high end, RCA and Toslink wre lesser quality, with less control over the cables used, there were even papers on trans modal dispertion in fiobre optics, length concerns and transceiver, reciever issues, not to mention the appaling quality and lack of QC when it came to plugs and cable ends.
I quite like Toslink, but the quality and effort from equipment to cables means it will always be a budget afterthought.
Paul, you’re teasing us again with new equipment in the background. New Perfect wave player coming soon?
Why not Toslink 2.0? 🤔
Toslink is such an ancient standard and limits what can be done. I've had 10Gb fiber in my home network for over 15 years. Get with the times.
I still use Toslink to this day from my CD transport to my DAC. Honestly, though, if everything went to USB and HDMI eARC, I wouldn't mind.
Hi Paul - question: You introduced the I2S to the world, and others follow after. Why not do the same for a new, optical standard that - for now - only works with PS Audio products, and then freely can get implemented by others? Or even better, why not get a couple of other producers on board to do the same thing simultaneously?
In my ethernet switch set-up, I use optical between two high-quality fiber-optic-media-converters, with GREAT result.
I love optical. It has its limitations, but I use it several connections in my systems. Sound has slightly less 'edge' when using optical to my ears
Yes, couldn't agree more 😊
well for the same reasons no 1 wanted to do i2s but then someone did and now everyone is
Who makes stardarts. Sony and Philips? Also every optic same or are there quality differences?
There is a standard, the old Wadia AT&T ST optical glass standard. I think it is still being used by Playback Designs and EMM Labs.
For a standard it’s confusing. I got some old DACs off eBay with this connection and twice I’ve ordered cables out of curiosity to compare and none fit, I can’t find these bloody things.
Question for the group - To connect my streamer to my DAC I have the option of optical or coax. I read in various places that coax is a better choice. I have experimented with both. Not sure I can tell a difference. But want to use what is technically best regardless. Any input on this would be appreciated. Thanks.
I can't tell the difference... Both connectivity types sound wonderful to me.
Either is just fine. Seriously. I'd be very suspicious of anyone claiming they can hear any difference.
Thanks
Are most adat/toslink cables now made of plastic ? Is glass even made anymore ?
The material is a restriction for the length due to damening. Toslink is not at its technical end (in regards for the data rate) - there is simply no definition how to cover higher bit rates or DSD in to the bus communication .... Someone needs to start with it, maybe for a master tesis in a university for example.
@DerElektriker1 So, for short distances like 6 feet , plastic will do ? I guess my question is that if I have a choice between using the coaxial digital out , or optical Spdif, or adat , on my audio interface , which is best for audio quality ?
@@LukeSchneiderEWI Optical is better as Paul already mentioned. Here, we hab the electrical isolation between components. For example: PS Audio producs are using optical interfaces within their components to isolate different parts and functions electrically (e.g. opto coupler). And yes, I think 6 feet - the most tolink are used in theis area are sufficiant. But there is also a field of new input for research available due to new wavelength and laser technology to enhance the capability further with the same optical "cable". In the earlier days, onls RED LEDs were available cheaply for commercial applications. Now, we have a whide rage of wafe length and also chap laser diodes available. there is a huge potencial available, to be used with toslink...... 😉
There is a company named Lifatec making excellent glass toslink cables. They’re not an audio company, they make cables for fiber infrastructure. Their toslink cables are much cheaper than what I paid for the plastic Audioquest toslink cables I own, and they definitely retrieve more information from the signal. They’re very flexible and easy to route as well.
I just bought a 280 strand glass toslink for $40 on ebay. It does 24/192 without issue
The disadvantage of fibre optics in the battery range is that volume changes are not really possible.
If you’re chasing convenience, yeah.
But if you’re chasing max quality, it’s better if your amp does the range volume vs the thing feeling the amp.
It would appear Nagra uses some sort of proprietary optical standard that seem to look awfully similar to ATT ST optical cables. I haven’t looked into it though. I bet it sounds amazing, but Nagra is prohibitively expensive for me 😮💨
Why are you talking about 96KHz bandwidth for optical and then comparing to "megahertz today"? Optical TOSLINK has a bandwidth in the megahertz, Paul. You know this! YOU KNOW THIS!! 96000Hz * 24 * 2 = 4.6MHz. Why are you comparing apples and oranges like that?
What do you mean, “there is no standard”. I assume you are referring to no accepted standard within the AV consumer industry. Why does that matter? PSA, of all companies, was the company that brought us I2S. While sadly not embraced industry wide, it is embraced by several high end oem’s around the world.
I wonder if the PSA sales and accounting departments have determined that interface cost the company sales and losses as consumers were hesitant to buy a product with a ‘non-standard’ interface.
The point is, if we wait for AV industry, particularly the high end audio industry, to develop new digital interface, it will never happen. The fact is there are fiber optic interface standards embraced globally. The SC connector, both single and duplex is the global standard. The MPO, aka MTP, multiplex interface is newer but also found commonly throughout the world. How exactly hard is it to have a dac or streamer with an SC port for fiber optic cable in addition to the current wired standard of I2S and USB? Your streamer could plug directly into a NAS with SC port. You’d be setting a new standard yet be backward compatible to USB and I2S devices without constraints of Toslink limitations. Much as I2S utilized an existing HDMI interface, there’s no reason AV industry needs to invent a new proprietary interface when a widely available existing interface delivering 100Gbps of jitter free data is available licensing free.
Fibre is pointless as an audio interconnect. The bit rates for audio.are very very very low. Fibre is used for the multiple mile gigabit connection to your house, its not used for the short range gigabit Ethernet connections within a building. Copper is cheaper and does the job. The only application for fibre within a building are for 100Gbit Ethernet and Infiniband.
Every modern copper, i.e USB and Eternet, and wireless standard exceeds the requirements of audio communication by orders of magnitude.
Jitter is an analog concept, it doesn't apply to digital. As long as the data rate is sufficient the local buffers smooth thngs out.
Optical sonics better 😊
I agree. Like many audiophile things, fiberoptic networking is massive overkill. However; you should know that TosLink is not fibre-optic networking. It's a cheap encoder/decoder system using a short plastic fibre link that runs into problems about 10 feet. From the perspective of a network engineer it would be deemed "massive underkill" ... but for audio it works pretty good.
There are problems with the encoding scheme in that the transmitter is responsible for clocking the receiver. That is... the timing is embedded into the signal which can be problematic in cases where the transmitter has trouble following the source (CD problems are a good example here).
Please allow me to suggest you do a little research on it's actual structure and operations. You will find that it's a good setup... for audio.
@Douglas_Blake It's a relic of a bygone world. In the digital world everything is just data which we can move around cheaply and reliably. In an audio system it doesn't become analog again until the DAC, everything before that stage is just moving data. At the DAC you present the samples at the required rate. It's controlled by a crystal clock which is far more accurate than is required for audio.
Most current TVs have it, but one only gets stereo out, and none of the surround formats.
It's basically dead for TV with HDMI ARC and eARC replacing it.
Kimber V21 digital is brighter
DH Labs Glass Master is smooth
I had pangea & wire world toslinks that sounded great Until I broke down & bought a audioquest vodka optical cable and it opened up streaming I never heard before even with my expensive Kimber coax cable. I'm not much of tech guy and measuring I can only go by my ears and again for me "Hearing is Believing"💯👍
Yes, Kimber V21 vs DH Labs😊
👍
I still find coaxial to give more rich, full and more warm in audio quality than toslink which I think is a bit compressed in its audio quality.
Placebo that's all that is dude , toslink supports up to 24-bit 192khz.
The notion that you can hear that double blind test that you'd fail like everybody else has that has tried that.
Toslink never requires an upgrade ,its not susceptible for RF. For any outside influences. It's a thin single wire you can do it all. What is there to be improved. Toshiba I did something really unique and special there and still relevant over 40 years later
And per usual paul is half assed with his information again. Toslink suppors 24-bit 192khz..
No audiophile ears will need more ill call bs on that all day long. The only fallacy it has it's not able to do multi-channel. DTS DTS Master etc, which is for the audio guy not relevant anyways
If we were able to go to quality fibre or toslink for inner connects and such what the pricing would be compared to what we can pay for what we are using in hifi now.
Would it stay an inexpensive standard or would it start another new financial arms race in hifi???
USB is much better you trolling