Originally Posted by arnyk
Care to offer any reasoning? Clearly it would be easier to at least understand why you disagree if you were to address some of the technical supporting arguments I've raised such as the difficulty of designing circuits to drive anything like a high speed square current pulse through the optotransmitters being used as compared to driving a voltage pulse onto a controlled impedance transmission line.
Let's talk about some circuits now since we are at this level of the conversation now. I do happen to have extensive direct design experience with these types of circuits and am having trouble seeing what your point is. I think I've given you enough about my point of view to come up with a technical rebutal, if not please let me know.
Please get back to me when you are certain about that argument, instead of your current situation fo not knowing whether you want to make that argument or not.
Please see my technical argument above which is the second time I've now spelled it out for you. Will you choose to ignore it yet again?
Are you sure about that?
As I have been saying...yes, this is my experience. What is your experience that would cause you to disagree with what I've seen.
The transformers used to drive SP/DIF coax *intentionally* sacrifice speed and performance in order to avoid creating illegal amounts (FCC Part 15) of EMI. Toslink line drivers don't need to do that because they can't possibly create EMI.
I would ask that you please provide some tech which backs this assertion. What about the transformer designs is being done which sacrifices speed for emi reduction? This goes contrary to my eperience which shows inexpensive pulse tranformers from various low balling manufacturers I've used in data transmission are usually quite insignificant in their EMI profile (at least from a Part 15, EN 55022 perspective) as compared with the transmission lines they are driving. The biggest concerns I've always had are related to the impedance control, bandpass characteristics, leakage, isolation etc.
And the bit about Toslink circuits not possible radiating...well let me tell you something...any circuit can radiate in the correct hands, or should I say incorrect hands. It's all a matter of the physics of the circuit involved: for example if this LED driver happened to be dumping half of the intended LED energy into a tuned antenna...well you get the idea. Don't laugh, it is identifying these unintentional tuned antennae that PCB layout dudes are so fond of trying to sneak into the layouts thats a big part of keeping me interested in circuit design.
You get to be wrong.
This doesn't appear to even make any sense in the context it was quoted. It appears to be a lame attempt at ad hominem. Did I miss the beauty of this gem? If so please help me out here. What exactly am I supposed to be wrong about here?
Big time...How condescending of you.
Well, I aready apologised didn't I? I used to deal with the symptoms caused by gross ground loops and it sucked. I found a way that works for me, and like magic many problems were gone...and who knows how many were fixed that I hadn't even identified or correlated grounding problems. There is a better way which by design necessarily eliminates most of what seems to generate much of the chatter on sites like this. There are great tutorials on this very site revealling all the secrets.
Plan B: Use optical and avoid these setup problems completely.
I certainly have no problem with plan B and use it extensively in my own system currently. It's not my favorite solution which is technically possible but works pretty well for me. Again, if you think I have been rallying against using optical links I'm sorry you missunderstood my point. I have merely been pointing out my distaste for blanket statements being made in this thread such as when I made my first reply to Targus or when you say things like
Jitter in a digital link is far from being an uncorrectable problem.
which is blatantly false. If you don't think jitter in modern digital links is a problem try designing the sampling stages for a state of the art digital network analyzer. Jitter will always be a problem to be dealt with it is only a matter of what is necessary to accomplish a given application that changes the answer.
How many times do you have to be told that audible jitter is solved problem before you will believe it?
What are you talking about man? I already said that I don't have any identified jitter issues. I am only not going to go out on a limb and try to say the others who claim to have audible jitter problems are wrong as you seem willing to do. I'm sorry if you think I am discounting what you are saying, because I'm not, but a good objectivist bases his theories on more than what just one internet poster tries to convince him of. I am not really intersted in searching out this data since as I say jitter is a nonissue for me, but as soon as I see data I trust that agrees with you then I'm all in. Until then I'm attempting to keep an open mind.