ok, ok I'm a newbie but just got a DVD player and want to connect it to my receiver with an optical tsolink cable. What's the trick...I don't want to damage this expensive cable so I'm asking is there a trick or do you just shove the connector in?
On the tiny male end of the cable there will be a small rubber cover. Its hard to tell its even there and its sometimes hard to pull off (I use my fingernails). Then, you'll pull out the plug from the female port on the DVD player.
Be sure to keep both the plug and cover in case you need to put them back (you don't want dust or smudges on the ends or ports).
You'll have to orient the plug to the port based on its shape. Then, just push it in. Oddly, it probably will not feel all that secure (i.e. it will pull out easily if you are't careful so don't tug on it too much afterwards), at least not as secure as a RCA or Coax type plug.
Wow, now you're a hero! I never would have seen the clear plastic covers! Thanks much.
I'm curious. I have both hookups options available but went with the upgraded (more expensive) monster cables not the optical. Is there a noticible difference between the two?
The price.
They're both digital connections. So long as a one and a zero don't look like one another and the timing doesn't get screwed up, there shouldn't be a difference.
But what about digital jitter??
First, there's no such thing as "digital jitter". There's just jitter. Jitter is variations over time between the resultant signals in a system. And, just as I said, so long as the jitter doesn't result in a zero looking like a one and vice versa or the timing being off by a full period, the receiver will compensate. That's the whole point of using digital systems when transfering and communicating data. Transmitting a piece of data in digital form takes 8x the bandwidth as analog. However, when you only have two states, there's not a lot of possible error.
In order for a digital transmission to result in a missed bit based on jitter, you need half the period of the signal's worth of jitter. If you've got that much error, you have bigger problems than TOSLINK v. Coaxial.
More info on clock management from one of our app notes:
http://www.onsemi.com/pub/Collateral/TND301-D.PDF
Incidentally, no one even thinks about jitter in the design world until they're over 500MHz.
Thanks for the clear explanation. Before I made the previous post, I was going through a draft of a post containing the gist of what you said (digital = a stream of either 1s or 0s). I couldn't get the wording right, so I gave up. (Yes, I DO censor myself sometimes.
)
During the research for my lost post, I came across a website for a cable company that described their digital cables as being very faithful to the "leading edge of the digital waveform" -- which results in fewer errors seen at the receiving end of the stream. All I could think to say about that was "< cough > bullsh**!"
I guess I'd better replace all the copper cables on the inside of my computer with silver-coated, time-aligned, anti-jitter cables. Lord knows how much data is being lost to the ether with my cheap OEM cables!
OK, Now I am curious!
The optical TOSLINK is for audio only right?
And just when I thought I had it all straight!
I am now confused with all the cables. (coaxial, composite, S-video, componet, DVI, RCA(red&white), optical toslink) did I leave any out?
My understanding is: (correct me if I am wrong)
coaxial.....................as good as composit??..................video & audio
composite.................poor quality................................video
S-video....................better quality than composite.........video
component................better quality than S-video............video
DVI..........................Best quality.................................video??
RCA(red & white)........good quality................................audio
Optical TOSLINK.........better than standard RCA??............audio
I describe what cable, the quality, and what signal it caries. "??" indicate I am realy not sure!
Is this correct?
What determines if a cable is digital or analog? Are all cables digital? Is it the source, that sends the signal to the cable, that determines if it is digital? My coaxial cable caries the audio and video signal into my house from my cable company or satalite dish, in either digital or analog, depending on my subsciption, right?
UUUUUUGGGGG my head hurts!
can anybody help clear things up?
Coaxial - generic term for all cable with metal wire surrounded by insulator surrounded by metal-ie RCA-ended cable (and others, I know). This encompasses analog audio cables, composite video cables, component video cables, subwoofer cables (aka analog audio cables), digital coaxial cables, etc.
Composite cable-better than no video!
S-video-you got it.
Component video - yup.
DVI - generally a computer interface except on really high end stuff (correct me if I'm wrong guys), digital video. Theoretically better than the others, which are all analog (right, guys?)
RCA - merely defines the type of connector. Most a/v cables have this type of connector. The term you are looking for here is analog audio cable.
TOSLINK - digital audio cable; fibre optic. In some cases, better than analog audio, depending on the digital/analog converters on either end.
Digital coaxial - for most intents and purposes, the same quality as TOSLINK. It's just digital over copper cable.
Coaxial cable (ie cable company type cable, antenna cable, etc.) Generic type of cable that carries transmission data from the provider. Low quality video when used between components. I'm not sure why.
Hope this didn't confuse things further.
Ken
Ken,
don't forget FireWire!
It's similar to DVI connections and is just starting to become popular in home audio/video. It is present in some Apple computer connections. Both it and DVI are pure digital signals. There's debate about which is superior, but I'd lean towards FireWire. DVI will restrict/prohibit copying of digital signals, whereas FireWire will allow it to some degree. Also entire home electronic networking possibilities are endless with FireWire.
kcarlile did a fine job so I'll just cover what I think was missed. SPDIF is the standard by which digital information is transmitted in audio applications. There are two predominant (and a third that I've never actually run into with my gear) forms that SPDIF take. Coaxial SPDIF uses a normal coaxial cable, like the video line of a red-white-yellow RCA cable to transmit the ones and zeros. TOSLINK uses light through a plastic fiber optic to transmit said ones and zeros. The third form is also fiber based but I forget the name of it. Coaxial SPDIF is an audio only standard.
DVI is a means by which video information is transmitted digitally. The video is then converted into an analog signal for the TV in the case of most projectors or kept in the digital form for DLP, LCD, Plasma, etc.
What makes a cable digital or analog has little to do with the cable. For instance coaxial cables are used both for digital and analog. So long as it's a 75Ohm cable, the two are identical (your right and left channel RCA cables aren't necessarily 75 Ohm as it doesn't matter but it does matter for video RCA and SPDIF). The distinguishing factor is merely how the cable is used. If it's carrying ones and zeros, it's digital. If it's carrying analog, it's an analog cable. Function defines the product.
In reply to:
My coaxial cable caries the audio and video signal into my house from my cable company or satalite dish, in either digital or analog, depending on my subsciption, right?
Pretty much.
Firewire is a lot more flexible because it's just a serial digital standard for high bandwidth applications. It' doesn't much care what information is being carried and it has a respectable amount of bandwidth. DVI on the other hand is a parallel standard, I believe, and only carries video. I'm not aware of anyone using Firewire to transfer video to a monitor at this point but I don't see why they couldn't. It is the digital transmission standard of choice for DVD-Audio, and, as you mentioned, offers some unique network capabilities as well.
Semi, couple of questions..
recently purchased a mits dd8040 progressive dvd player. it has toslink and 6 channel outputs. i have the toslink hooked to my rxv1300. when playing dvd-a music, the speakers light up on the yammi to show they are active. i believe i have the mits set to bitstream. now my dilema..on another board someone said that unless i used the 6 rca cables from the mits to the yammi, i would not get surround sound from the dvd-a. he also stated that the sub output from the mits should go directly to the sub. was he in error? the sub goes thru the yammi now, is active when playing a's, and like i said the active speakers show on the receiver. now you know why i'm confused.
help
dan
In reply to:
now my dilema..on another board someone said that unless i used the 6 rca cables from the mits to the yammi, i would not get surround sound from the dvd-a
Not quite. If you don't use the 6 RCA cables, and instead use the digital link, you can still get 5.1 audio. What you won't get is the higher fidelity 5.1. DVD-A is capable of 24 bit 96 kHz audio which is too much data to push through SPDIF. In order to send 5.1 through the SPDIF, it will default to traditional 16/44.
In reply to:
he also stated that the sub output from the mits should go directly to the sub.
Isn't the sixth input on your receiver (and the corresponding output on the DVD player)0 for LFE? If so, you're transmitting the data to the receiver and it should then be able to hand it off to the sub.
In reply to:
the sub goes thru the yammi now, is active when playing a's, and like i said the active speakers show on the receiver.
Sounds like it's getting the data so I think you're fine.
Regards,
Semi
In reply to:
Not quite. If you don't use the 6 RCA cables, and instead use the digital link, you can still get 5.1 audio. What you won't get is the higher fidelity 5.1. DVD-A is capable of 24 bit 96 kHz audio which is too much data to push through SPDIF. In order to send 5.1 through the SPDIF, it will default to traditional 16/44.
Let me also add, that many DVD-A's do not have a 16/44 multichannel track. If your player is DVD-A capable, the only way you are going to get high resolution or high resolution multi-channel music, is by using those 6 analog cables....unless you have one of the very few DVD-A player/receiver combos that pass those signals via firewire.
so, in summation, the dvd-a's will sound better with the 6 cables. do i need to tell the player i'm using the cables? i understand i need to select the 6 channel button on the receiver.
thanks
dan
Hey Semi;
So if my DVD player does have built-in Digital Decoding and possibly DVD-A should I use 6.1 out from the DVD player to my 6.1 input of my Rotel receiver for DVD-A (I think thats what you recommended below to get 24/96 audio) and then use the SPDIF Coax for Movies or should I also use the 6.1 input for movies? Or for movies does it really matter?
Saturn
That's all you have to do. Most receivers I know of have a separate mode (multichannel in) that uses those inputs. In most cases, what this mode does is pass each channel input directly to the appropriate output (amplified) channel. Your surround options and even level and delay options will not apply. This is why it's important to have an SACD and/or DVD-A player that includes these adjustment features.
thanks. time to get the mits' manual out, but only paying about $250.00, doubt it has the features you mentioned. last weekend when i told my wife i needed to stop at bb she rolled her eyes and asked what i needed now...just a couple of wires i said, but i was pressed for time and never made it. good thing she's working tomorrow, i can have it hooked up b/4 she gets home. kinda funny tho, i thought the a's sounded great. now i can't wait, think they open at 9am. that would be 6 west coast time
Saturn,
For non-24/96 content, the decision to use the analog outputs boils down to wether the DVD player has the better DAC or the receiver/pre-amp. Whichever has the better DAC will do the best job of converting that bitstream into an analog signal for amplification. For 24/96 content, you'll have to either use the analog cables or you'll need a receiver/DVD-A combo with Firewire (there are also a few cases where individual companies produced high bandwidth, proprietary digital connections such as the Denon AVR-5803 and DVD-9000).
yes indeedy...
I have a Pioneer 656A dvd/dvd-a player. I use the optical output for 2 channel stereo and movie watching, as my Rotel processor has much better DAC's than the dvd player.
When I do listen to DVD-A discs, I must resort to using the 6 analog output from the Pioneer.
spiff,
Does your system allow you to toggle easily between the two or do you have to muck around in menus?
In reply to:
Firewire is a lot more flexible because it's just a serial digital standard for high bandwidth applications. It' doesn't much care what information is being carried and it has a respectable amount of bandwidth. DVI on the other hand is a parallel standard, I believe, and only carries video. I'm not aware of anyone using Firewire to transfer video to a monitor at this point but I don't see why they couldn't. It is the digital transmission standard of choice for DVD-Audio, and, as you mentioned, offers some unique network capabilities as well.
Yes, DVI-D is a multi-channel standard (not byte-by-byte parallel, though). I believe that all DVI-D connections currently found in the HT gears is "single-link," which uses 3 "channels" (a channel = pair of copper wires) plus a clock pair; in contrast, the double-link DVI-D for larger computer displays uses 6 channels plus a clock channel.
I see that one nagging problem of both DVI-D and FireWire as they stand today is the cable-length limits -- DVI-D cables are usually limited to 5m (16') due to its high bandwidth (up to 165MHz/channel). One vendor,
RAM Electronics, sells copper DVI-D cables of up to 15m (50') long. But I am not 100% sure about their reliability in carrying a full-HD digital video over a 15m run. I am not familiar enough about the cable length limitations of FireWire, but I believe it is much shorter considering its 400MHz bandwidth. I guess this, along with FireWire's bidirectionality, is a major reason why FireWire has been adopted only as the video recorder interface (besides the multi-channel audio) so far in the HT applications.
The video cable length might be a non-issue for people using a "television" as display device. But it is a real issue for people with front projectors, since the projector is often placed close to the back wall, while electronics are often located along the front wall. In my own case, in order neatly run the cable around the room, I need ~75' of cable run. Currently, the only way of carrying the DVI-D signal over 75' is to use the optical DVI-D extenders -- which cost well over $1K!!!
With the on-screen display, I have the menu up, and it's a quick toggle back and forth between optical and analog inputs. I do need the on-screen display on to do it though.
In reply to:
Does your system allow you to toggle easily between the two or do you have to muck around in menus?
Yes, my Elite 45TX selects the multi-channel analog input by one push of a remote button, and it remembers the selection for the given source gear.
Switching to multi-channel is indeed a single button push, but toggling between optical and analog inputs requires the onscreen menu. (For me at least)
On my Elite, switching between the optical/coaxial SPDIF and analog (and the auto-select) is also one-button, and again it remembers per source equipment.
Oh yeah! Well...umm...ah...
OK you win.
The cable limitation of Firewire 400 is 4.5m per run, but it allows daisy chaining so you could theoretically run it to 72m (repeaters run about $50 each). Firewire 800 and 1200, on the other hand doesn't have this limitation but I can't for the life of me find exactly what the limitation is.
Ah... Semi, now I seem to remember reading those things somewhere. In that case the FireWire would make a MUCH better interface between the AV receiver/video source and the display device than DVI. Really, DVI-D sucks in comparison. Does FireWire have a HDCP-like provision for copy protection?
In reply to:
Really, DVI-D sucks in comparison. Does FireWire have a HDCP-like provision for copy protection?
Not that I'm aware of, but it would be easy to implement one on the transmitter and receiver, I think.
their website is here:
http://www.1394ta.org/
I haven't looked through everything, but it does have a nice listing of compliant components.
Dan, it shouldn't be assumed that the DVD-As will sound better with the 6 analog cables. One point is that the higher resolution which that would allow may not actually make an audible difference to you. Also, unless you have a provision for bass management in the player, a separate component(e.g. the Outlaw ICBM) or your receiver(you don't) for those analog signals, all the bass on the 6 cables will be sent to your speakers instead of the low bass being all sent to the sub, which of course would handle it much better.
If your Rotel has the same remote as my RSX-1065 then its a one button thing too...on the remote...thereceiver has the button in front too. Don't know on the Processor. One thing to note though with the RSX-1065..the surround DAC is excellent..same as 60% on all high end DAC on good names like Meridian ..etc.. Analog DAC ( Ashai Kasei AKM 4324, and the AKM 5351 ADCs) is not as good...my older Marantz DAC sounds better. Your processor might be better since its separates. The reason for the lower end DAC could be Rotel didn't want to rule out customers won't buy there CD player which does have better DACs (Burr Brown or Delta/Sigma DAC).
Semi might know more about DAC quality and such.
thanks, believe i understand now.
dan
spiff, guess that's what i'll need to do too. before we all, my family, got into this, i had the speakers off on the tv and had the stereo speakers hooked up to a 2 channel receiver. we needed to turn knobs and flip a switch on it. so confusing, i had to print out directions and place them on the dvd player. looks like i'll need to find that file and change some of the steps once i purchase the interconnects for the dvd/receiver. simplicity is great.
dan
sushi, are you saying your pio knows or remembers if the source is a dvd or a dvd-a on it's own?
gawd, after reading the various posts, it seems i may keep my wallet in my back pocket. the analog connectors will send the proper signals to each speaker as the dvd player tells it to. however, my receiver is not able to handle the lfe, and if i'm correct, cannot adjust the tonal qualities of the music being heard; better off using the toslink connector. that is unless i catch a plane, get a black stocking masked hat, bring some tools, learn how to defeat sushi's alarm system, and slyly pocket his pio with the 6 analog cables..just kidding. i may need to change my screen name to "defeated dan".
dan
Is coax as good as optical cable? NOPE All things being equal coax is BETTER than Toslink almost universally. This is especially true if you're not using the new all glass Toslink as opposed to the cheaper plastic type. Put another way it's possible to buy coax cable that's better than Toslink but not the other way around.
Mike
In reply to:
sushi, are you saying your pio knows or remembers if the source is a dvd or a dvd-a on it's own?
Dan, not really. You do have to tell the receiver each time whether you want to use the multi-channel analog input or the coax/optical digital input. The receiver does "remember" the last setting you used for the particular source equipment (e.g., the DVD/DVD-A player), though.
Mike, are you suggesting that optical cables often drop those 0s and 1s??? -- something I've never heard of, unless the cable is overtly defective. It is true though, that optical cables tend to be more easily damaged mechanically as compared with coax coppers.
I'm suggesting that the cheap plastic $30 Toslink cable most people buy can easily be outdone by a digital coax cable. This is especially true as the runs get longer. Toslink cable is susceptible to kinks and other sorts of maladies. Anyone who'd like to make a better coax cable ( as opposed to shelling out big $$ for one) would do well to checkout Allan Wrights SuperCable Cookbook. For very little money you can make a great coax cable. IMHO
Mike
I was resisting, but I too am curious as to the reasons why copper carries 1s and 0s better than glass over moderate length runs -- all things being equal.
If toslink works, it works. If coax works, it works. It is my semi-educated understanding that digital is not as sensitive to cable quality as analog. If the receiver is getting a stream of 1s and 0s, how does one cable provide a better stream of 1s and 0s better than another?
Unlike analog, digital signals have no gradients of info along a spectrum. It's on or off.
The following quote is from George Cardas ( maybe you've heard of Cardas Cables?)
". The Toslink is not particularly a good system. It is inferior to the better digital cables. The problem is, the signal is electrical to begin with and in the end it must be converted back to electrical. So in short runs, the advantage is with electrical cable, because you don't have to go through the conversion from electrical to optic and back. I believe Neutral Reference has the lowest overall jitter of any system in the lengths used in audio. - George
Mike
I would suggest you look into the thoughts by those that aren't actually trying to sell you something.
May I point out that when dealing with computers, gigabit copper works just as well as gigabit fibre. (ie copper vs. optical). In fact, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) optical works much better than copper over long runs. I think they've got the optical to electrical transcievers worked out just fine, thank you verra much.
May I point out that the standard digital connector for professional audio use is an AES/EBU connector. This is a 110ohm CABLE.If TOSLINK was a better connector I'm sure the pro's would use it. I don't think digital computer connections are relevant in any way. I'm not worried about the sound quality of my USB cable.
Mike
It's...just....1s...and...0s. Period. The music does not change the 1s and 0s. It's not like it gets compressed in the cable.
This is just beating a dead horse now. I bow to your audio expertise.
Mike
In reply to:
I don't think digital computer connections are relevant in any way. I'm not worried about the sound quality of my USB cable.
Which is where you're totally confused by the marketing BS. It's just a digital bitstream, not significantly different, with in the context of this conversation from a USB 2.0 connection. So long as all the little ones and zeros get there, the receiver will have the pertinent information to reconstruct the original source data, just like your USB connection. If it didn't reach the receiver intact, you wouldn't have any data to begin with and the result would be garbage.
It's time to agree to disagree. No big deal.
Mike
In reply to:
... The problem is, the signal is electrical to begin with and in the end it must be converted back to electrical...
Yuck! Yuck! Yuck! Yet another example of blatant BS by a "high-end" cable vendor.
I very much appreciate how you're handing yourself with all the pressure to "see the light" (no pun intended) from the geek-sci-techies
. None of us here is an audio expert, though. The beauty of digital is that it has no affinity to a certain type of data. It doesn't care one bit
(I'm trying to watch the puns here) what the data contains -- a video stream, an internet chat, an audio stream, a forum post, etc. It's all made of of just two components: 1 and 0.
I agree that toslink isn't the most secure connection available, and glass/plastic fibers are very susceptible to damage from kinks and tight twists, but undamaged, properly connected, and used within its limits, the data gets there the same as it would over copper.