Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 10:45:58 GMT
I honestly thought the reason for optical was that it was taken straight from the optical laser and not converted. Seems pointless chopping back and forth.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 10, 2016 12:31:25 GMT
Just to correct a couple of misconceptions, optical is just another form of sending data using the S/PDIF (Sony/Philips Digital Interface Format) protocol. This is the same as sending it via co-ax cable. There is no inherent degradation by sending via optical cable except that they have different maximum lengths and differences in how the waveform is gradually distorted. Both should reconstitute perfectly back into the data given short lengths and ideal cables.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2016 18:56:18 GMT
Must say I haven't notice a significant difference between coax or optical. My Cambridge tuner outputs via both and if anything the optical might have a slight edge. This is with a 1m Fisual Hollywood cable which I've found to be very good for such a budget price (and using glass optic so I'm told...) From the Mac to my Q-Dac though I prefer USB rather than the optical out ....
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 10, 2016 22:50:41 GMT
It can be down to earthing arrangements when comparing co-ax versus optical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 11:20:24 GMT
There is a very simple formula for quality digital play:-
Preservation of the signal integrity from point of exit to point of conversion nothing more nothing less.
However this leads to a whole mountain of variables that can and do cause degradation from the onset, the key is to address as many as possible and reduce to a point where they pose no real threat to data transmission as much as humanly possible.
|
|
|
Post by John on Jan 11, 2016 12:01:22 GMT
I guess that where the skill of the designer comes in
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Jan 11, 2016 13:11:10 GMT
There is also RF to be concerned about. This does not change the data but it bleeds into analogue sections via ground connections.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 13:13:45 GMT
Clive
I could have listed so many variables but chose simply to be broad brush, however RF has a direct effect on many data pathways it is how you deal with it, ideally at source.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Jan 13, 2016 0:06:33 GMT
There is a very simple formula for quality digital play:- Preservation of the signal integrity from point of exit to point of conversion nothing more nothing less. However this leads to a whole mountain of variables that can and do cause degradation from the onset, the key is to address as many as possible and reduce to a point where they pose no real threat to data transmission as much as humanly possible. Wondered what your thoughts on Mr Lampizator's view on the SP/DIF connection might be. Not qualified to conjecture myself, but I do find it an interesting read: www.lampizator.eu/LAMPIZATOR/TRANSPORT/CD_transport_DIY.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2016 5:46:08 GMT
Being honest Mr L's products having been inside a few of them do little to boost my confidence on quality would be nice to see a full CE test suite from a UK or German testing house
SPDIF properly implemented can sound very good as with all things digital as long as all aspects of signal transmission are equally addressed then and only then can you begin to genuinely assess one digital signal medium against another IMHO
For all those those about to go but my AES/SPDIF/toslink/AT&T/BNC/FireWire sounds better than my A/B/C output I would say all long as every care was taken with each data pathway then you can make that statement, let us remark that not all manufacturers go to the same lengths with all of the data outlets as others
Cost, space in casework, proximity to other possible contaminants, physically locality to non ideal board placement due to aesthetics etc the list is long
Debates will rage over which PCM/DSD Tx/Rx method is the best some interesting papers within the AES community over the years
The care taken in keeping data integrity IMHO is totally paramount in delivering quality digital sounds
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 13, 2016 6:51:39 GMT
The care taken in keeping data integrity IMHO is totally paramount in delivering quality digital sounds Not just data integrity, but timing integrity too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2016 17:15:30 GMT
Evening from midly warm Kraków
For me Martin data integrity does cover timing as if the timing is crompromised to such a degree that the data being transferred integrity is compromised by its inability to be 'correctly reconstructed ' at the conversion end then the point of the excerise is wasted IMHO
We did discus holding a digital day and maybe nail so commonly held myths regarding digital first and second weeks in Februray are looking fine at the moment some different faces would be welcome to.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 14, 2016 17:28:00 GMT
You can store the data in a format such that pretty much any player can play it, i.e. no CRC or Reed-Solomon errors, so that they get the same ones and zeros. How it sounds is entirely dependent on the playback chain, jitter, timing etc. Which is another way of saying that bits are not the whole story otherwise all digital replay would sound close to identical.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 14, 2016 17:29:14 GMT
Of course, timing integrity can be inherent in the data, we know this by playing back treated discs versus plain discs, for instance.
I think it's a case of semantics.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Jan 14, 2016 22:33:17 GMT
…I think it's a case of semantics. Are you sure? Did you look inside the case to see if it was actually semantics that was in there?
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 14, 2016 22:38:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mr Whippy on Jan 16, 2016 23:13:36 GMT
Being honest Mr L's products having been inside a few of them do little to boost my confidence on quality would be nice to see a full CE test suite from a UK or German testing house SPDIF properly implemented can sound very good as with all things digital as long as all aspects of signal transmission are equally addressed then and only then can you begin to genuinely assess one digital signal medium against another IMHO For all those those about to go but my AES/SPDIF/toslink/AT&T/BNC/FireWire sounds better than my A/B/C output I would say all long as every care was taken with each data pathway then you can make that statement, let us remark that not all manufacturers go to the same lengths with all of the data outlets as others Cost, space in casework, proximity to other possible contaminants, physically locality to non ideal board placement due to aesthetics etc the list is long Debates will rage over which PCM/DSD Tx/Rx method is the best some interesting papers within the AES community over the years The care taken in keeping data integrity IMHO is totally paramount in delivering quality digital sounds Would you say there is any one area in particular where commercial designs, below a certain price point, compromise themselves? I suppose power supplies might be an obvious one.
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jan 17, 2016 10:59:46 GMT
Power supplies would have been my answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2016 11:06:47 GMT
I would say speakers myself.
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jan 17, 2016 22:44:41 GMT
I would say speakers myself. I have been struggling with this one all day. You do realise that this is in the source component section, don't you? And with this in mind I am in full agreement with Martin; after all, what you're doing is modulating the mains.
|
|