One comment said that the optical cable actualy sounds "thinner" than the coax and that there was no perfect explanation. The explanation is actually quite well understood. It is because the optical fibre is actually thinner than the coax. In this particular case you will find that a micrometer is a even bettter measuring instrument than the ear.

By "thinner" I meant less bass (to put it simply).
I don't really care that much as to why. Some of us can't hear as well as others, so lets take all the rhetoric down a notch and just say to Tom that the coax sounds a bit better.

To reiterate what has been said before to all those who don't get it yet: D-I-G-I-T-A-L. Anything comming through a DIGITAL connection is, by definition, EXACTLY THE SAME EVERY TIME. Again, this is a DIGITAL connection, and the CABLE DOESN'T MATTER (although I cannot confirm, but the explanation of noise being introduced to other components from the coax cable sounds plausible).

The entire argument is moot, and reading some of these messages has been extremely entertaining. I especially liked the one about smoothed out 0s and sharper 1s.

Use Coax, reason? It's cheap. Use any Video cable to hook up the digital connection and you're all set. I was one time shocked by a sales who wanted to sell me a true glass fibre Optical Cable with a price tag $300. Get real...

Mark is right! I use a 0/1 splitter to send the 0's to a coax and the 1's to an optical cable. Check it out at www.dreamon.com

It will be very hard for anyone who realy understands digital transmission to believe that there can be any sonic difference between an electrical and an optical interconnect given that both are passing data properly. Any performance degradation will come in the form of bit errors which will have a detremental effect on all frequencies not just the bass.

Comparisons should always be done blindfolded, with someone else swapping the inputs or the cables when the listener is not looking. Also make sure the levels are exactly the same etc.

I think that poor comparitive listening techniques are often at the root of some of these amazing sonic diferences that make no physical sense.

For a good laugh read the claims on Kimber's website for some of their "Digital" interconnects. I would like someone to explain to me how it is that a cable can be "Directional". I have worked as an RF and Telecomunications engineer for over 30 years and have bought cables and test equipment from manufacturers like HP, Tektronix etc. Never once has an instruction sheet came with a cable claiming that the cable should be used in a specific direction or needed to be "broken in".

[Link: kimber.com]

These guys expect us to pay close to $600 for a piece of coax and two phono plugs based on this sort of horse C**P. Good grief -- Yes Get real !

I agree with Dave. The most likely reason for exclamations of great diferences is a faulty comparitive technique. I agree with Adams' logic as well but, under the best of conditions the coax
always wins by a nose. Illogical as it seems. I recommend spending $100 or less on digital cables and putting the money saved towards something more signficant.

I recommend spending $5 or less and using the remaining $95 on analog cables where an improvement might actually be made. Five or six new DVD's would also be a good investment. Under the best of conditions, there is still no difference in performance with the exception that the fiber allows for no possible means of potential ground loops (if even possible in the data path) and shielding is not an issue. Fiber is the digital interconnect of the future. The evolution of audio electronics has migrated from predominately coax to predominately optical. My new Denon AVR-3300 has three optical inputs to one coax.

The fact that so many of the major quality cable manufacturers are lieing to the general public on this issue raises serious questions regarding thier credibility with respect to thier analog cable science.

Because the consumer electronics industry has become increasingly more competitive, profit margins have dwindled making add-ons like surge protection, extended warranties, and overly expensive cabling the only method of recovering the profit lost on an item sold at 5% or 10% over cost. Don't look to them for a fair evaluation of thier importance.

Your system is no better than the weakest link in the chain. Seldom will this be interconnect.

Ron --

Very well put. As another piece of info - I spoke with a couple of guys in our companies computer services department about what they spend for the optical interconnects that run throughout the building connecting the e-net backbone. I was told it is about $0.40 per foot. The connectors are about $1.50. There you have it. The materials cost for a good quality (real glass fibre) cable is about $4.00 per meter. The stuff in the stereo stores if going for about 10x that. That is where the margin is.

I agree with Dave and Ron in theory, but have you guys actally tried a listening test of these two types of cable? I have, and the coax sounded a bit better whether you like it or not. I wanted there to be no difference but there was. I don't spend money on hype.I am sure that the esoteric cables fall into the diminishing returns category but I guarantee that blindfolded and under any condition you specifiy that you would find an improvement in sound quality between ultra cheap cable and most cables between $30 and $100. I think there may be a little too much science here and not enough unbiased listening.

As this is a Home Theater forum I believe we must put into perspective the types of source material we are trying to recreate, being true to the original source, in our homes. When we listen to a movie soundtrack how much of what we are hearing is unequalized dialog, music vocals, orchestrated music, digitally sampled music, digitally synthisized music, digitally sampled sound effects, digitally synthisized sound effects, etc.? Certainly it must vary from movie to movie but if half of what we are hearing is digitally synthisized, then our quest to be true to the original source will be eternally elusive.

The human ear is not at all dependable as an instrument of measure with witch to draw conclusions that apply to the masses. Just as all speaker products have thier own caracteristics and response curves, the differences between what we hear as individuals is influenced by the shape of our ears, ear canal wax build-up, and suggestion(advertising), to name just a few.

In response to Tom's original question, If you are going to go to the trouble to audition digital cables you might also listen to the differences between the DA converters in the CD player vs. the surround receiver. You are in a position to hook up your CD player in all three fasions simultaniously and should be able to have someone switch between the 3 sources for you (don't peek) providing us with your opinions.

Even so, these opinions will provide for us information regarding your personal taste and will in no way influence my decision to build my systems on a solid foundation of scientific fact, even if the result is that some of the links in my chain are "ultra-cheap".

My experience with "blindfold" tests is that most people will commit to a choice rather than admit that they can't hear a difference. Even a yawn or a deep breath will significantly affect the response curve of your ear and to a much greater degree than there is any scientific data to support any audible differences as to how the bit stream gets to the DA converter.

So you're saying for digital, optical or coax, don't matter, go cheap.

But for analog, spend a little more.

I made a comment earlier in this thread about directionality in cables. Those little signal flow arrows that are on monster and others. I took apart a pair of Interlink 300 II cables and it looks like they use the red wire as the hot lead running between the center conductor of the two phono plugs on the ends of the cable. They use the black wire as the return connecting it to the phono plug shield at both ends. They only connect the shield of the twisted pair cable at the "source" end that is the end oposite the arrow heads.

This actually makes sense from an electrical standpoint. Breaking the shield at one end and grounding at the other allows it to still act as a shield but does not allow any ground loop to be set up.

This is real good for subwoofer cables where there is usually 30 feet of cable between the receiver and the active speaker amp input and they plug into seperate power outlets.

Note that this only makes sense for audio cables (not digital cables) that are shielded, twisted-pairs where the shield is only that a shield. The shield on a coaxial cable sould never be cut since it is a conductor and part of the signal path.

Martin --

I have a CD player that has both an Optical output and a Coaxial output I have used both at different times and I have never noticed a difference in frequency response. However, I have never sat down and specificaly A/B tested this for the purpose of comparison. Now that I have a Pronto I can probably program a macro to make the AVR-3300 do this easily. When I get time I will try it.