325xi;184284 Wrote: > Eric mentioned that consumer Toslink does have higher jitter, but > because of his assumption we can't perceive jitter less then > ridiculously high :) +-0.5ns (that were nanoseconds, right?) he > expressed his little concern about that. I've already said what I think > about inaudibility assumptions. I'm somewhat concerned with that massive > feedbacks that people don't like Toslink, we may define it BS, but I'm > not sure those complains are totally baseless... So I'm Googling to > find out...
Please don't misquote me. I didn't say that at all. I am saying the following: 1. toslink works. 2. Issues with plastic fibre and connectors were problems with consume grade equipment over a decade and half ago. These kinks have been resolved. 3. there is no *data* to support it does not work that I have seen, and I have looked. 4. S/PDIF is a protocol that runs almost the same on fibre, coax and balanced lines (AES/EBU). If S/PDIF is broken then all three are broken. No audiophile argues that coax is broken, just toslink (S/PDIF on fibre). 5. There is no engineering rationale to argue that fibre is worse than coax even on plastic fibre. 6. SD PUBLISHES their S/PDIF jitter tolerance for the Transporter. It is 35ps. This is stunningly low. 7. SD measured the jitter of the SB2 and published it in this forum. It was around 65ps as I recall. 8. Much of this whole discussion was triggered by Stereophile article quoted above. See the Audio Critic rebuttal. And I didn't say nanoseconds, I say microseconds. And, by the way, its not an assumption, I said there are papers on this issue. For example, 'here is a paper on this issue.' (http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ast/26/1/50/_pdf). There are others I don't have handy right now. In other words, if you accept scientific investigation of this issue, then the achieved jitter of S/PDIF using the SD equipment is many orders of magnitude better than the requirement. I have not yet seen an audiophile arguement on this issue backed up by actual data or a study of any kind. I have only seen claims of personal listening preference and the Stereophile article, both of which echo around alot. If you "don't believe" in audibility testing and don't accept the scientific basis of looking into this issue, then we don't have common ground for further discussion. Feel free to select whichever one you have a personal preference for. Right now we are at the edge of the subjectivist/objectivist argument, and I won't enter into that. > > Good! Can you guys tell me why didn't you replaced all your coax > connections with Toslink - theoretically Toslink blows coax out of the > water? I preferentially use toslink, but a) it is more expensive b) not all my gear has optical connections c) not all my gear has coax connections d) some of my gear has more of one than other So I use both. -- Eric Carroll Transporter-Bryston 3B SST-Paradigm Reference Studio 60 v.4 SB3-Rotel RB890-B&W Matrix 805 SB3-Pioneer VSX-49TXi-Mirage OM7+C2+R2 ReadyNAS NV+ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Carroll's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9293 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=33146 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
