Optical vs Coax

kdrives
kdrives Posts: 13
edited February 2003 in Basic Hookup/Wiring Questions
Good Day
Just got the Onkyo SP800 DVD player & the Onkyo SR800 Receiver... Have hooked up the 6 RCA jacks for 5.1.
Was wondering what is better for Sound: Optical vs Coax??
And what is better for picture:S-Video vs RCA??
Curious about your opinions...
Thanks
Dave

ps - had posted a thread a couple months ago about poor dialogue in the center channel... problem gone with this new equipment (believe it was a bad 5.1 & DTS processor in my old receiver, name I'll leave out for now- JayVeeSee)...
Post edited by kdrives on
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • nellis8166
    nellis8166 Posts: 292
    edited February 2003
    IMO optical is way better than coax. Component calbles for video will give you the best picture, S video is not far behind. I would use RCA's as a last resort.

    Regards,
    Nat
    RTi10
    CSi5
    RTi28
    SVS PB12-ISD2

    Denon 2106(pre/pro)
    Adcom 5503(200x3)

    Audioquest Diamondback ICS
    Kimber Kable 8tc biwire(mains and center)

    "Don't let your silly dreams fall in between the crack of the bed and the wall."
    -J. James
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Ron-P
    Ron-P Posts: 8,519
    edited February 2003
    I've ran both and can honestly say, I hear no difference. I use coax because it's more durable, cheaper than optical and less prone to signal jitter.

    Use S-Video over composite.

    Peace Out~:D
    If...
    Ron dislikes a film = go out and buy it.
    Ron loves a film = don't even rent.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • kberg
    kberg Posts: 974
    edited February 2003
    I've tried both as well and decided on coax - I seemed to detect a *slightly* "warmer" sound than the optical connection, and I do mean *slightly*.
    Mains: polkaudio RTi70's (bi-wired)
    Center: polkaudio CSi40 (bi-wired)
    Surrounds: polkaudio FXi30's
    Rear Center: polkaudio CSi30
    Sub: SVS 20-39 PC+
    Receiver: ONKYO TX-SR600
    Display: JVC HD-56G786
    DVD Player: SONY DVP-CX985V
    DVD Player: OPPO DV-981HD 1080p High Definition Up-Converting Universal DVD Player with HDMI
    Remote: Logitech Harmony H688
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dbournival
    dbournival Posts: 131
    edited February 2003
    Onkyo reccomends Coax vs Optical (At least they did a year ago). Onkyo states that since there is less processing in theory Coax should be superior. I've tried both and cannot say one is better than the other. My system 1 uses optical, system 2 coax.

    S-Video is superior to composite.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HBombToo
    HBombToo Posts: 5,256
    edited February 2003
    I have my Cal CL-20 used as a transport with xlr to an Audio Research DAC5 and IMO... if there is no damage expect not much difference on the digital connections. I will agree with Ron in that coax is very cost effective. Jitter on the other hand is for a different subject.

    HBomb
    ***WAREMTAE***
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RuSsMaN
    RuSsMaN Posts: 17,987
    edited February 2003
    Why would you want to take the extra steps to convert the digital signal to light, and back again?

    I'm in the Coax camp, fwiw.

    Cheers,
    Rooster
    Check your lips at the door woman. Shake your hips like battleships. Yeah, all the white girls trip when I sing at Sunday service.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HBombToo
    HBombToo Posts: 5,256
    edited February 2003
    at only a few feet it makes NO sense!

    evil twin
    ***WAREMTAE***
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • phuz
    phuz Posts: 2,372
    edited February 2003
    Originally posted by RuSsMaN
    Why would you want to take the extra steps to convert the digital signal to light, and back again?

    I'm in the Coax camp, fwiw.

    Cheers,
    Rooster

    Is there really a conversion? It's all 0's and 1's - and the light is either on or off right? Seems like it's the purest way to transmit a digital signal to me. I could easily be wrong though.

    Optical for me when using outboard DACs.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RuSsMaN
    RuSsMaN Posts: 17,987
    edited February 2003
    Is there a conversion?

    Umm, changing an electrical signal to light (and back again), you be the judge.

    Cheers,
    Rooster
    Check your lips at the door woman. Shake your hips like battleships. Yeah, all the white girls trip when I sing at Sunday service.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • danger boy
    danger boy Posts: 15,722
    edited February 2003
    i've used both. i could not tell the difference.. i use both in my HT system

    dvd player uses coax and dish network hooked up with optical. both sound good.

    S-video is better than RCA (composite). component (three RCA) is superior to both
    PolkFest 2012, who's going>?
    Vancouver, Canada Sept 30th, 2012 - Madonna concert :cheesygrin:
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • phuz
    phuz Posts: 2,372
    edited February 2003
    Originally posted by RuSsMaN
    Is there a conversion?

    Umm, changing an electrical signal to light (and back again), you be the judge.

    Cheers,
    Rooster

    Right but is it a conversion in the sense of the common digital to analog conversion is what I meant.

    Anything that is digital is just binary, 0's and 1's. I could be wrong about this but the way an optical cable transfers the signal is by flashing light right? On is 0 and off is 1 or vice-versa. Even if that is not true you get the point. It is read by the receiving component as 0's and 1's. It's not like it turns into 1.2's or .03's. Sure if there was a bit (read, 0 or 1) missing then there would be problems. I've heard this happen with bad quality optical cables or with a partial optical connection. There is data loss, but as long as your component sends those 0's and 1's and they make it to the other end there should be no degredation or coloration of the signal. I mean, if I knew the binary code and my receiver could read hand signals then I could sit here and play my favorite CD's without degredation all while I rub one out.

    Theoretically, at least. :)

    If fiber were not superior to copper then it woudn't be one of the highest quality connections available for large data systems and networks. Electrical signals sent over copper are subject to interferance etc. 0's and 1's as light aren't. Of course, I could be wrong. :)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mantis
    mantis Posts: 17,199
    edited February 2003
    Optical vs coax?????????
    this debate has been going on since DVD came out.Whcih one is better.....well here it is.....there both good.
    I personally did this vs battle untill I turned blue/purple/black/green (you pick it) and came to the conclusion that there is no audio difference.My tests where done with good quality cables on both sides.
    Some people feel coax is better due the sturdy build quality.I say who cares,it just hangs behind your gear.Some people feel Toshink is better due to "lightSpeed",I say can you hear a difference?I can't.
    The long and short of this debate is......whatever you can use to hook up your gear,use it.....meaning if your gear has only coax or digital don't even sweat it.
    If it has both,go look at high quality cables and which ever one tickels you,buy that one......it doesn't matter.

    Now S vs composite????Not true that everytime you get a better picture with S video,It depends on the source and monitor.
    Again,good quality cables will yield better performance.
    Dan
    My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • danger boy
    danger boy Posts: 15,722
    edited February 2003
    s-video is much better than composite video. component beating them both out in video quality. yeah good quality cables do make a difference.
    PolkFest 2012, who's going>?
    Vancouver, Canada Sept 30th, 2012 - Madonna concert :cheesygrin:
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HBombToo
    HBombToo Posts: 5,256
    edited February 2003
    Originally posted by mantis
    Some people feel Toshink is better due to "lightSpeed",I say can you hear a difference?I can't.

    This is actually a very common misperception... the phase velocity is actually slower in lightguide verse coax.

    Assuming that the electrical data stream is fully converted to light then there should be no difference in sound quality when compared to coax. If there is an EMI issue the TOSLink will minimize the noise.

    HBomb
    ***WAREMTAE***
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jargan04
    Jargan04 Posts: 10
    edited February 2003
    I use both optical and coax in HT system. I cast hear a difference, also with good cables. When it comes to video I use s-video because my TV dosent have component video. But yeah s-video beats composite anyday. How many of you have used DVI compared to componet video?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PETERNG
    PETERNG Posts: 918
    edited February 2003
    If the distance between the DVD player and receiver is 3 ft or less, use coax (more durable), if more 3 ft, use optical (travel by light), you won't be able to tell the different any way if you use good decent cables.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • izafar
    izafar Posts: 819
    edited February 2003
    Some time people do hear difference between the two, but thats mainly due to associated electronics in the equipemnt, i-e on your DVD player the circuitry with optical out might be slightly different than the one on Coaxial output. I would suggest to try both and chose the one that sounds best to you. In my case I couldnt hear any differnce between the two.
    -izafar

    Goldenear Technology Triton 1 - Benchmark AHB2 - Benchmark LA4 - Auralic Vega - Auralic Aries Mini - Marantz TT-15S1 - Clearaudio Nano
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • madmax
    madmax Posts: 12,434
    edited February 2003
    I would try both but I think the coax is better. Nothing is ever just ones and zeros, so it seems.
    madmax
    Vinyl, the final frontier...

    Avantgarde horns, 300b tubes, thats the kinda crap I want... :D
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • mantis
    mantis Posts: 17,199
    edited February 2003
    You'll be hard pressed to hear a difference with the same player and same preamp/recever......do the test and report.
    Dan
    My personal quest is to save to world of bad audio, one thread at a time.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sumflow
    Sumflow Posts: 64
    edited February 2003
    Which to use? Well, most experts prefer coaxial connections for the majority of applications, except for situations where there is a great deal of electromagnetic interference, in which optical cables, immune to such interference, work better.

    Fiber optic cables     do not conduct electricity, so they are not susceptible to electrical interference.

    Isn’t using the Cheap Coaxial allot like putting Firestone tyres on a     Cayenne or using Petroleum Oil in a Ferrari, Lexus or Corvette.

    DVD :cool:

    Simply put, for the best picture quality, you should use     component-video whenever available, then choose S-video over composite for most other applications.

    The Panasonic DVD player says     progressive-scan only works with component-video on a high-definition or HD-ready TV.

    Running your gear off     "clean" power lines will result in less interference, and therefore better sound and a clearer picture. You can have an electrician install a separate dedicated circuit for your home theater.
    "At the first bend, I had the clear sensation that Tazio had taken it badly and that we would end up in the ditch; I felt myself stiffen as I waited for the crunch. Instead, we found ourselves on the next straight with the car in a perfect position. I looked at him, his rugged face was calm, just as it always was, and certainly not the face of someone who had just escaped a hair-raising spin. I had the same sensation at the second bend. By the fourth or fifth bend I began to understand; in the meantime, I had noticed that through the entire bend Tazio did not lift his foot from the accelerator, and that, in fact, it was flat on the floor. As bend followed bend, I discovered his secret. Nuvolari entered the bend somewhat earlier than my driver's instinct would have told me to. But he went into the bend in an unusual way: with one movement he aimed the nose of the car at the inside edge, just where the curve itself started. His foot was flat down, and he had obviously changed down to the right gear before going through this fearsome rigmarole. In this way he put the car into a four-wheel drift, making the most of the thrust of the centrifugal force and keeping it on the road with the traction of the driving wheels. Throughout the bend the car shaved the inside edge, and when the bend turned into the straight the car was in the normal position for accelerating down it, with no need for any corrections."

    Enzo Ferrari
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter