optical audio out... what happened to it?

Micah Cohen

I won't go into my whole bluray vs SD-DVD thing here. But I've just noticed that there's not one SD-DVD player on the shelves that has the OPTICAL AUDIO OUT jack no more. (Even non-HDMI players don't have this jack no more.)

Why is this? Where did this output go?

MC

Polkersince85

Face it, you're getting old. I said the same thing when transistors came out. Where's the tubes?

hoosier21

the newer hi res formats will onl have analog out or hdmi, they do this to stop piracy

where have you been for ummmm like 6 years lol

it started with SACD

disneyjoe7

If you blink things will change. Just remember....


It's BETTER!

Serendipity

Coax is still available on most DVD players.

As for why, high-res formats = analog out or HDMI.

treitz3

Polkersince85 wrote: »

Face it, you're getting old. I said the same thing when transistors came out. Where's the tubes?

WAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

BlueFox

I think even analog is slated to be removed in the near future for hi-res output.

treitz3

Uh-huh. Analog has way to many aspects of the video and HI-FI outlay for the manufactures to completely abolish. I call Shenanigan's.

acmf74

I know that SACD isn't supported through a digital coaxial. It it because of piracy issues or it can't handle the flow of data?

TNRabbit

I believe it can't handle the data flow..

Micah Cohen

where have you been for ummmm like 6 years lol

Perfectly happy sitting in the dark watching a perfectly calibrated Pio SD-DVD player from the stone age that has an optical audio out.

Is Optical a "bad" technology? I can't believe that a coax is a better audio carrier. Is it?

MC

zingo

I think coax is just easier for the manufacturer, and 99% of people don't know or care about the difference.

TECHNOKID

Micah Cohen wrote: »

Perfectly happy sitting in the dark watching a perfectly calibrated Pio SD-DVD player from the stone age that has an optical audio out.

Is Optical a "bad" technology? I can't believe that a coax is a better audio carrier. Is it?

MC

Optical is not bad technology but it had a hard time to succeed due to the cost. Optical is also a lot more fragile and prone to failure then copper.

billbillw

Micah Cohen wrote: »

Perfectly happy sitting in the dark watching a perfectly calibrated Pio SD-DVD player from the stone age that has an optical audio out.

Is Optical a "bad" technology? I can't believe that a coax is a better audio carrier. Is it?

MC

Actually, many do believe that digital coax is a better connection than optical. It typically has lower jitter and provides a more secure connection ( toslink does pull out too easy IMO)

Of course, if your trying to isolate electrical noise or a ground hum, then its a different story.

BTW, many of the manufacturers are completely dropping SD-DVD players and are only producing BluRay players. I have seen some of those with optical connections (the Oppo 80 has it, as does the Panny 60)

treitz3

Micah Cohen wrote: »

Is Optical a "bad" technology? I can't believe that a coax is a better audio carrier. Is it?

I can't go so far as to say that it's bad technology but from experience? RCA [not coax] is the way to go. Why? The end result in sound as to what hits your ears and the ability to tweak your "soundscape", if you will.

With optical, in my experience, you are limited to one [as I would put it] digitally edged sound. As with most things, there are attributes and there are deficiencies. Run with what you like but I will never again have an optical cable for sound.

Face

With newer DAC's and quality optical and coax cables, the difference is minimal or none at all.

zingo

The strongest argument of toslink to me is electrical isolation which is why I run it on my PC music system. However, it can also theoretically run as far as you want without signal degradation also.

cnh

I would imagine that Toshiba (link) products might feature their toslink cable hook ups for as long as they can? As said above, Panasonic also, seems to still like them?

But the future is HDMI.

cnh

Face

cnh wrote: »

But the future is HDMI.

cnh

Not necessarily: http://www.pcworld.com/article/200301/new_technology_could_replace_hdmi_with_ethernet_cables.html

disneyjoe7

Optical was capped at 96k I wonder if this is what killed it. I know for a fact optical could go as fast as we could push it But saying this I wonder what we consumers would do if they upgraded optical speed making the old no workie. Look how we began to feel about all the HDMI variations they seem to come out every so often to mess with us.

Micah Cohen

Without a receiver with HDMI-in capabilities, there'd be no way to run component video out to the TV (for unprocessed video) and HDMI (for audio only) to the receiver for audio processing, correct? (Could I do something like that?)

I think HDMI is really getting on my nerves.

MC

FTGV

zingo wrote: »

The strongest argument of toslink to me is electrical isolation which is why I run it on my PC music system.

Many DAC's have pulse transformers at there 75ohm coax inputs which afford them essentially the same level of isolation from ground loops etc.

TECHNOKID

treitz3 wrote: »

I can't go so far as to say that it's bad technology but from experience? RCA [not coax] is the way to go. Why? The end result in sound as to what hits your ears and the ability to tweak your "soundscape", if you will.

With optical, in my experience, you are limited to one [as I would put it] digitally edged sound. As with most things, there are attributes and there are deficiencies. Run with what you like but I will never again have an optical cable for sound.

Odd, from what I've read and IMHO RCA was the worse, most unreliable connector of its time. The only reason it was chosen is simply because it was cheap. IMHO BNC would have done a much better job and would have been a lot more reliable than RCA but cost was an issue. If optical used the same type of connector as what is used in proffessional installation or equipment, RCA would be long gone. Again cost is the only reason for optical cable with proper connections for not being widely used.

Zero wrote: »

Optical isn't a bad technology at all. I don't have any definitive answer on the topic. All I can do is 'guess' that the reason is two fold. 1) HDMI has largely replaced Optical cables. 2) Its cheaper for a manufacturer to produce a piece that uses one type of digital output. Optical introduces yet another circuit that must take a digital signal, convert that to light, then the other component must reconvert that signal back to digital, until finally converting it back to analog.

Dunno, thats my lamens guess.

That is the keyword; CHEAPER!

cnh wrote: »

I would imagine that Toshiba (link) products might feature their toslink cable hook ups for as long as they can? As said above, Panasonic also, seems to still like them?

But the future is HDMI.

cnh

Face wrote: »

Not necessarily: http://www.pcworld.com/article/200301/new_technology_could_replace_hdmi_with_ethernet_cables.html

I like the idea however, again an unreliable connector (in this case the connector locks and while this is a good thing the leaf spring action from the female connector will loose its effectiveness over time).

If toslink was using good quality connector for home product, IMHO there is no doubt of its effectiveness and reliability.

Below is a quality connector I remember when fiber was introduced in the military.

Obsolete Connectors

SMA

Amphenol developed the SMA from the "Subminiature A" hence SMA, microwave connector. The model 905 had a machined ferrule exactly 1/8 inch in diameter that mated in a machined adapter. When the adapters were not precise enough for better fibers, a necked-down ferrule that mated with a Delrin adapter for better insertion loss performance. These connectors are still in use on some military and industrial systems.

http://www.thefoa.org/tech/connID.htm

jefcully

First let me clarify a few things for you. The optical output is capable of carrying at least 5.1 audio channels (the .1 is your subwoofer in the reality of his 6-channel audio, actually). The same goes for digital coaxial cable capable of carrying at least 6-channel audio. The difference between the two is that coaxial digital signal carries a digital electronics (two voltage levels - 1 or 0) to multi-channel receiver. With optical, it does not carry an electronic signal or analog of any transaction, or digital instead it carries a laser light beam of high freqency intensity trends as a function of the sound wave. Once you receive the multichannel optical signal, then converts it into a cable box signal.your electronic obtained optical audio output to connect directly to the receiver multi-channel, cable TV is not going your video cable (DVI, HDMI , Component, S-Video, Composite, Coaxial). If you connect HDMI make sure you turn the TV speakers turn your TV volume to a minimum since the HDMI carries sound as I said well.What above applies to all sources 5.1 output even your DVD player with speakers or television optical digital.Your not give your Dolby Surround Sound, so its useless to include the TV for audio. Hopefully it disappears.

treitz3

TECHNOKID wrote: »

Odd, from what I've read and IMHO RCA was the worse, most unreliable connector of its time. The only reason it was chosen is simply because it was cheap.

Hold on. Stop right there....What? Are you kidding me? Please tell me you are kidding.

Do you have any actual experience to back that up?

tonyb

Ha...Micah bailed on this thread allready and you guys are still pissin' in the wind over RCA's.

Tom...school that boy will ya please.

VR3

BNC is a far superior connection to a RCA - it goes in and twist lock - no pressure needed to keep it in and just reverse it to release.

Just like NL4 is far superior to a standard 1/4 jack

Optical out DVD player? Ever heard of a XBOX 360?

Face

BNC and XLR are both vastly superior than RCA.

VR3

Face wrote: »

BNC and XLR are both vastly superior than RCA.

I forgot about XLR, XLR smokes RCA

TNRabbit

treitz3 wrote: »

Hold on. Stop right there....What? Are you kidding me? Please tell me you are kidding.

Do you have any actual experience to back that up?

Tom, I agree with him.

BNC should have been THE connector of choice.