Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
Mal Thomas Mal Thomas is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Optical vs Copper

Greetings,

I noted a brief quip in a recent Hi-Fi Choice mag that a metal digital cable
(coax) sounds better than an optical cable. Obviously what sounds better to
someone is entirely subjective (assuming no major defects along the way).

However, is there some evidence to suggest that one type is better than the
other? Using the same kit and distance (80cm).

I've seen some stuff on the 'net, but mainly suggestions/opinions (varied).

In my particular instance I use an optical cable from my CD player to an
external DAC. Quite happy with the sound - is there any compelling reason
for me to change to a coax ? Yes I know I can buy one and listen for
myself, but I'd like to hear other peoples experiences too.

If it helps, my system comprises Accuphase main-, Ming Da pre-, NAD C542 and
Musiland MD10 DAC (plus some analogue kit which is irrelevant for this
post).

TIA
Cheers
Mal
Oz

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Optical vs Copper



Mal Thomas wrote:

Greetings,

I noted a brief quip in a recent Hi-Fi Choice mag that a metal digital cable
(coax) sounds better than an optical cable.


Ignore it them. These mags are written by idiots to be read by idiots. Either
can transfer a digital signal perfectly accurately unless abused, misused or
incorrectly manufactured and that's all that matters.

Graham

  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
Arny Krueger Arny Krueger is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 17,262
Default Optical vs Copper

"Mal Thomas" wrote in message


I noted a brief quip in a recent Hi-Fi Choice mag that a
metal digital cable (coax) sounds better than an optical
cable.


That is a very old urban myth.

Obviously what sounds better to someone is
entirely subjective (assuming no major defects along the
way).


Not true. Well informed persons understand that without some reference
point, sounds good or sounds bad is just hot air.

However, is there some evidence to suggest that one type
is better than the other? Using the same kit and distance
(80cm).


No, in fact there is plenty of evidence that with reasonbly good equipment,
or better, there's no difference at all.

I've seen some stuff on the 'net, but mainly suggestions/opinions
(varied).


The blind leading the blind.

In my particular instance I use an optical cable from my
CD player to an external DAC. Quite happy with the sound
- is there any compelling reason for me to change to a
coax ? Yes I know I can buy one and listen for myself,
but I'd like to hear other peoples experiences too.


This topic is a waste of time, particularly for cables under a meter. Common
Toslink cables have a distance limit of about 10 meters.

If it helps, my system comprises Accuphase main-, Ming Da
pre-, NAD C542 and Musiland MD10 DAC (plus some analogue
kit which is irrelevant for this post).


What's your point?


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Optical vs Copper



Mal Thomas wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:
Mal Thomas wrote:

I noted a brief quip in a recent Hi-Fi Choice mag that a metal digital cable
(coax) sounds better than an optical cable.


Ignore it them. These mags are written by idiots to be read by idiots. Either
can transfer a digital signal perfectly accurately unless abused, misused or
incorrectly manufactured and that's all that matters.

Yeah probably, the distance is only 80cm so the distance argument for
optical doesn't apply.


You need to have a long plastic (as opposed to LONG glass) optical fibre to have a
problem.


I suppose the ONLY argument I can see for optical
here is that RFI etc is not a problem. Then again, if the coax is properly
shielded it won't be an issue for copper either.


Exactly.


It would be nice though to understand why they made such a statement, other
than to sell more expensive copper cables. Cynical I suppose, but possible.


Profit is all it is about. Some, like me, would call it fraud.

Graham

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Optical vs Copper



Eeyore wrote:

These mags are written by idiots to be read by idiots.


Ignore the unintended slur there.

BTW I knew a hi-fi reviewer who regularly got stoned on cannabis. That makes
*anything* sound good.

Alan his name was. Never knew his surname. Lived in St Albans.

Graham

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Optical vs Copper



Arny Krueger wrote:

"Mal Thomas" wrote in message
"Eeyore" wrote:
Mal Thomas wrote:

I noted a brief quip in a recent Hi-Fi Choice mag that
a metal digital cable (coax) sounds better than an
optical cable.

Ignore it them. These mags are written by idiots to be
read by idiots. Either can transfer a digital signal
perfectly accurately unless abused, misused or
incorrectly manufactured and that's all that matters.


Yeah probably, the distance is only 80cm so the distance
argument for optical doesn't apply.


Agreed.

I suppose the ONLY
argument I can see for optical here is that RFI etc is
not a problem.


Not a logical reason to make a change.

Then again, if the coax is properly
shielded it won't be an issue for copper either.


Probably.

It would be nice though to understand why they made such
a statement, other than to sell more expensive copper
cables.


They were desperate for audio news, so they found and old chestnut and tried
to serve it up as something new.

Cynical I suppose, but possible.


Might imply more strategic thinking than these kind of numnuts are capable
of. ;-)


For a REAL laugh, go here .......
http://www.russandrews.com/article-4...gfrequency.htm

The rest of the website's nearly as bad. They got clobbered by the ASA once too.

http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudicati..._ADJ_44177.htm

Ad
A catalogue, Russ Andrews The Big Book 06/07, selling home entertainment
electrical accessories, made various claims about their products.

Issue
A customer challenged the claims:

1. "The key to success of our PowerKords is KIMBER's unique cable weave which
has proven to dramatically reduce Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) already on
the mains supply and to reject further pick up of RFI ...", because he believed
the PowerKord cable would have little effect on conducted electromagnetic
interference;

2. "... Distortion levels inside equipment is vastly reduced, letting you hear
a sound that is vastly clearer and purer, more detailed and far more dynamic
....", because he believed the Signature PowerKord cable would have little effect
on measurable distortion in hi-fi equipment, and

3. "... eliminate system sound fluctuation and help to create a super-quiet
noise floor, allowing more believable dynamics, deeper bass and lower high
frequency distortion ... Listen out for a quieter noise floor (expect more
dynamic music and greater detail) and a much more cohesive musical sound ...",
because he believed the advertised spike-protecting devices would have little
effect on the noise floor in hi-fi equipment.


The CAP Code:
3.1;7.1;19.1

Response
1. Russ Andrews explained that Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) was an
unwanted electrostatic and/or electro-magnetic field, which gave rise to varying
levels and types of background noise in an audio system. They said normal
twisted wires found in most cables made them susceptible to RFI, but they
believed that a woven cable containing several wires, where each one repeatedly
crossed each other, reduced RFI. They believed the degree to which RFI could be
reduced was dependent on the number of times the wires crossed. They provided
the ASA with a number of research papers as substantiation for the claim.

Russ Andrews said it was a recognised fact within the audio industry that
removing RFI would bring about an improvement in Hi-Fi equipment performance and
that weaving a cable was a recognised technique to reduce it's susceptibility to
RFI. They believed that variations in sound quality were a matter of subjective
assessment by the listener and therefore not capable of objective
substantiation, but maintained that the difference made by the cables was
significant. They sent a number of magazine reviews and customer comments as
anecdotal evidence.

2. Russ Andrews said it had not been their intention to imply that the Signature
PowerKord would have an effect on measurable distortion levels in Hi-Fi
equipment. They explained that the claim was the result of a typographical
error, which had not been spotted at proof reading stage. They apologised for
the error and said they would take steps to avoid a similar mistake in the
future.

They said mains borne noise was a recognised problem in audio reproduction and
believed it was an acknowledged cause of sound quality degradation. They
believed it was not possible to measure such degradation objectively using
conventional Harmonic Distortion techniques. They maintained that mains borne
electrostatic, electromagnetic and harmonic noise and spikes passed through the
power supply by a variety of mechanisms to pollute the inherent noise
characteristic of the amplification path. They said noise on the input, the
output and the power supplies compromised the ability of the amplifier to follow
faithfully the signal resulting in audible degradation. They believed any
listeners would characterise it as distortion although it would not appear in
conventional distortion measurements.

3. Russ Andrews said their SuperClamp Ultra and MegaClamp Ultra were designed
using industry standard voltage clamps to reduce spike activity on the mains
Live and Neutral lines and to clamp voltage variations between Ground and
Neutral. They believed that spike activity was one of the causes of the sound
quality of a system varying from time to time and day to day and was well
recognised in the Hi-Fi world as the cause of dissatisfaction with Hi-Fi
equipment. They said it was easy to hear but impossible to measure. They
included a selection of customer testimonials to support the claims.

Assessment
The ASA sent Russ Andrews' substantiation to an independent expert for analysis.

1. Upheld
Our expert noted that, although the claim in the catalogue stated that the cable
would reduce the RFI already on the mains supply and reject further pick up of
RFI, the evidence sent by Russ Andrews concentrated almost exclusively on the
ability of the cable to prevent new RFI. He said the research papers did not
address the issue of conductive interference and did not include supporting
measurements and did not appear to have been peer reviewed or have other forms
of independent validation. He said one of the papers discussed the effect of
RFI on speaker, rather than the mains cable. Our expert considered that the
magazine articles did not provide evidence for the performance of the cables
because experimental details for the perceptual measurements were not given and
some of the reviews related to speaker cables and not mains cables. We
considered that the testimonials represented customers' opinions and therefore
did not constitute robust scientific evidence. Our expert disagreed with Russ
Andrews assertion that sound quality variations were subjective and not capable
of objective substantiation. He said, in the field of audio, the ABX test
method was well established and probably one of the most commonly used. We
considered that the evidence submitted was not sufficiently robust to show that
PowerKords was proven to dramatically reduce RFI which was already on the mains
supply and stop further pick up. We concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1
(Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons).

2. Upheld
Our expert believed it was possible to measure distortion, and noted Russ
Andrews had not supplied any evidence to show that Signature PowerKord cable
could reduce distortion levels. We acknowledged that the wording in the ad had
been used in error and welcomed Russ Andrews assurance that they had taken steps
to prevent a similar mistake in the future. However, we considered that, at the
time the catalogue was published, the ad made a misleading claim.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1
(Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons).

3. Upheld
Our expert considered that Russ Andrews had not supplied any supporting evidence
to prove that the noise floor in the audio signal chain was lowered by the
advertised devices. He said it had shown that the noise floor on the mains
supply could be reduced, but this appeared to be common modes. He understood
differential modes were actually more significant than common modes and believed
the devices were not dealing with the biggest cause of mains supply spikes. He
said no evidence had been provided to show that spike-protecting devices
affected audio signals, as opposed to mains voltages. The expert believed it
was possible to test the noise floor of a system objectively without perceptual
testing and believed this could be done for both a standard mains cable and the
Mega/Super Clamp Ultra and the results compared. We considered that the evidence
submitted was not sufficiently robust to show that spike-protecting devices
would eliminate system sound fluctuation and help create a super-quiet noise
floor. We concluded that the ad was misleading.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation), 7.1
(Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Comparisons).

Action
We told Russ Andrews not use the claims again unless they could substantiate
them with robust scientific evidence.


Graham


  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
Mal Thomas Mal Thomas is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Optical vs Copper


On 3/12/08 8:59 PM, in article
, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Mal Thomas" wrote in message


I noted a brief quip in a recent Hi-Fi Choice mag that a
metal digital cable (coax) sounds better than an optical
cable.


That is a very old urban myth.

Obviously what sounds better to someone is
entirely subjective (assuming no major defects along the
way).


Not true.

Huh ? Not subjective ?? ********. People will have difference tastes,
likes or dislikes when listening to music through a system. Personally I
prefer detail and accuracy - using a live performance say, at a small jazz
club, or listening to a fella playing an acoustic guitar in a pub as a
reference. I am far from reaching that goal but I enjoy the challenge of
meeting it and I get to listen to a lot of music along the way.

A late friend of mine yearned for a very strong bottom end, which I found
overly boomy and unpleasant. He hated my system as he reckoned it was too
'tinny'.

We both liked the sound of our respective systems - but who is right and who
is wrong? A subjective debate would ensue I would imagine.

I am certain that you will disagree with this as I suspect you also have
your own preferences for what gives you enjoyment when listening to music;
your preferences may be different from mine or Jim down the road - but this
doesn't make it 'wrong' or 'right' - it's simply a subjective preference.


Well informed persons understand that without some reference
point, sounds good or sounds bad is just hot air.

Concur.


This topic is a waste of time, particularly for cables under a meter. Common
Toslink cables have a distance limit of about 10 meters.

Sorry if you felt this was a waste of time, I found it useful.

Cheers
Mal
Oz




  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Optical vs Copper



Mal Thomas wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

These mags are written by idiots to be read by idiots.


Ignore the unintended slur there.

BTW I knew a hi-fi reviewer who regularly got stoned on cannabis. That makes
*anything* sound good.

Alan his name was. Never knew his surname. Lived in St Albans.

Graham

Rest assured, no offence taken.

I find a couple of good Islay single malts has a similar effect ;-)


That can do it too, (as can any form of relaxation) but cannabis has a
particularly strong effect it seems on the auditory processes.

Graham

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
jcon jcon is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Optical vs Copper

On Dec 3, 4:09*am, Mal Thomas wrote:
Greetings,

I noted a brief quip in a recent Hi-Fi Choice mag that a metal digital cable
(coax) sounds better than an optical cable.


That's interesting. I once had a salesman in a high end
audio store once try to convince me that an optical
digital connection was better than a copper
digital connection (I'm not making this up) "because
the light gives the music a softer sound".
I was going to argue with him, but it would
have been like beating up a cripple.

Obviously, to first order any two *digital* connections
are going to sound absolutely identical (kinda sorta
a key feature of digital). At a higher order, there's some
chance that a copper connection will introduce
spurious analog noise into the system, so an
optical link will always sound as good or better.

I've found that there is large class of audiophiles
that can be convinced to suspend the laws of
physics if it allows them to rationalize spending
more. Probably true of golfers as well, but I know
less about golf.

-jc


*Obviously what sounds better to
someone is entirely subjective (assuming no major defects along the way).

However, is there some evidence to suggest that one type is better than the
other? Using the same kit and distance (80cm).

I've seen some stuff on the 'net, but mainly suggestions/opinions (varied).

In my particular instance I use an optical cable from my CD player to an
external DAC. *Quite happy with the sound - is there any compelling reason
for me to change to a coax ? * Yes I know I can buy one and listen for
myself, but I'd like to hear other peoples experiences too.

If it helps, my system comprises Accuphase main-, Ming Da pre-, NAD C542 and
Musiland MD10 DAC (plus some analogue kit which is irrelevant for this
post).

TIA
Cheers
Mal
Oz


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
Mal Thomas Mal Thomas is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Optical vs Copper


On 6/12/08 7:29 AM, in article
, "jcon"
wrote:

On Dec 3, 4:09*am, Mal Thomas wrote:
Greetings,

I noted a brief quip in a recent Hi-Fi Choice mag that a metal digital cable
(coax) sounds better than an optical cable.


That's interesting. I once had a salesman in a high end
audio store once try to convince me that an optical
digital connection was better than a copper
digital connection (I'm not making this up) "because
the light gives the music a softer sound".
I was going to argue with him, but it would
have been like beating up a cripple.

Obviously, to first order any two *digital* connections
are going to sound absolutely identical (kinda sorta
a key feature of digital). At a higher order, there's some
chance that a copper connection will introduce
spurious analog noise into the system, so an
optical link will always sound as good or better.

I've found that there is large class of audiophiles
that can be convinced to suspend the laws of
physics if it allows them to rationalize spending
more. Probably true of golfers as well, but I know
less about golf.

-jc

Jcon,
Thanks for the reply. I have been digging around some more and unless I am
missing something fundamental here, logic would suggest that as it is only
data that is transmitted along the link (optical or copper) and assuming all
the bits that entered the cable were passed through intact to the other end,
there should be no change in the sound due to the cable itself.

So any decent cable (meaning properly constructed), either copper or
optical, should be capable of doing that. As someone else said the only
thing that may effect the signal (sound?) is RFI along a copper cable if it
was inadequately shielded.

Looks like I'll save my money and stick to my optical cable and spend the $$
on the analogues.

Cheers
Mal
Oz





  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
jcon jcon is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default Optical vs Copper

On Dec 6, 4:22*am, Mal Thomas wrote:
On 6/12/08 7:29 AM, in article
, "jcon"



wrote:
On Dec 3, 4:09*am, Mal Thomas wrote:
Greetings,


I noted a brief quip in a recent Hi-Fi Choice mag that a metal digital cable
(coax) sounds better than an optical cable.


That's interesting. *I once had a salesman in a high end
audio store once try to convince me that an optical
digital connection was better than a copper
digital connection (I'm not making this up) "because
the light gives the music a softer sound".
I was going to argue with him, but it would
have been like beating up a cripple.


Obviously, to first order any two *digital* connections
are going to sound absolutely identical (kinda sorta
a key feature of digital). At a higher order, there's some
chance that *a copper connection will introduce
spurious analog noise into the system, so an
optical link will always sound as good or better.


I've found that there is large class of audiophiles
that can be convinced to suspend the laws of
physics if it allows them to rationalize spending
more. *Probably true of golfers as well, but I know
less about golf.


-jc


Jcon,
Thanks for the reply. *I have been digging around some more and unless I am
missing something fundamental here, logic would suggest that as it is only
data that is transmitted along the link (optical or copper) and assuming all
the bits that entered the cable were passed through intact to the other end,
there should be no change in the sound due to the cable itself.


That's correct. The only way something could change the sound
would be to introduce digital errors, or to allow spurious analog
noise. The former is extremely unlikely while the latter shouldn't
happen if things are properly shielded and grounded and would
never happen with fiber optical.

Whenever you're shopping for audio equipment, it's a good
idea to re-read "The Emperor's New Cloths" first.

-jc




So any decent cable (meaning properly constructed), either copper or
optical, should be capable of doing that. *As someone else said the only
thing that may effect the signal (sound?) is RFI along a copper cable if it
was inadequately shielded.

Looks like I'll save my money and stick to my optical cable and spend the $$
on the analogues.

Cheers
Mal
Oz


  #17   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.misc
Mark D. Zacharias[_3_] Mark D. Zacharias[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Optical vs Copper


"jcon" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 4:22 am, Mal Thomas wrote:
On 6/12/08 7:29 AM, in article
, "jcon"



wrote:
On Dec 3, 4:09 am, Mal Thomas wrote:
Greetings,


I noted a brief quip in a recent Hi-Fi Choice mag that a metal digital
cable
(coax) sounds better than an optical cable.


That's interesting. I once had a salesman in a high end
audio store once try to convince me that an optical
digital connection was better than a copper
digital connection (I'm not making this up) "because
the light gives the music a softer sound".
I was going to argue with him, but it would
have been like beating up a cripple.


Obviously, to first order any two *digital* connections
are going to sound absolutely identical (kinda sorta
a key feature of digital). At a higher order, there's some
chance that a copper connection will introduce
spurious analog noise into the system, so an
optical link will always sound as good or better.


I've found that there is large class of audiophiles
that can be convinced to suspend the laws of
physics if it allows them to rationalize spending
more. Probably true of golfers as well, but I know
less about golf.


-jc


Jcon,
Thanks for the reply. I have been digging around some more and unless I am
missing something fundamental here, logic would suggest that as it is only
data that is transmitted along the link (optical or copper) and assuming
all
the bits that entered the cable were passed through intact to the other
end,
there should be no change in the sound due to the cable itself.


That's correct. The only way something could change the sound
would be to introduce digital errors, or to allow spurious analog
noise. The former is extremely unlikely while the latter shouldn't
happen if things are properly shielded and grounded and would
never happen with fiber optical.

Whenever you're shopping for audio equipment, it's a good
idea to re-read "The Emperor's New Cloths" first.

-jc




So any decent cable (meaning properly constructed), either copper or
optical, should be capable of doing that. As someone else said the only
thing that may effect the signal (sound?) is RFI along a copper cable if
it
was inadequately shielded.

Looks like I'll save my money and stick to my optical cable and spend the
$$
on the analogues.

Cheers
Mal
Oz



One thing I don't think I've seen in this thread - optical cables do not
suffer from ground loops.

Mark Z.


 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Copper plated poles UnsteadyKen Tech 7 March 27th 08 09:37 PM
Ideal copper for cable [email protected] Marketplace 5 July 4th 06 06:50 AM
Fireface 8-channel optical ADAT to 8 individual optical SPDIFs? Daniel Fuchs Pro Audio 0 January 22nd 05 03:32 PM
FS: Analysis Plus 1.5m Copper Oval-In 007 Marketplace 0 May 26th 04 02:36 PM
FS: Analysis Plus 1.5m Copper Oval-In 007 Marketplace 3 September 11th 03 11:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:13 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"