Video Asylum

Posted by Lasermeister (A) on August 20, 2002 at 13:02:44

In Reply to: Todd, could you elaborate? posted by 2x6spds on August 20, 2002 at 11:53:20:

Audiophiles have recognized for years that the Toslink digital interface leaves a lot to be desired because of its poor bandwidth and crummy jack design. This makes the interface more prone to digital jitter, which some people feel has a detrimental effect on sound. Others feel this is nonsense.

I don't do that much critical listening anymore, but when I was a hardcore audiophile, I did some comparisons on Toslink vs. coax, and also different types of Toslink cables. There did seem to be a difference, even between different types of Toslink cables. I tried out an expensive AudioQuest Toslink cable, and it did sound different from the Kimber I typically use. The Kimber also sounded a little different from a Monster. Assuming the differences I heard were legitimate and not just in my head (as many would claim), digital jitter is the only reasonable explanation for the difference in sound quality. Lower jitter is generally associated with better sound quality.

So what one can do is use a device such as the Monarchy 24/96 DIP (available from Audio Advisor for $249.95 plus shipping) to convert the jitter prone Toslink signal to the wider bandwidth, lower jitter coaxial digital interface. I use this to convert the Toslink-only digital outputs from my Pioneer CLD-95 and LD-S2 laserdisc players to coax. This device also reclocks the signal to lower the jitter coming in from the damned Toslink cable. I then used a relatively high quality but not terribly expensive coax digital cable--Illuminations DV-30 for around $70--to run into my preamp/processor.

If you are not unhappy with your system's performance with Toslink, you can just keep using it, however. The AudioQuest cable you mentioned is a decent product that will get the job done without costing an arm and a leg.

Todd