Originally Posted by kucharsk
It also depends on what is meant by "optical."
Toslink optical has higher jitter than coaxial.
Which is not the same as saying that a system with a toslink digital connection has more jitter than it the connection was coaxial.
The digital agenda that seems to be hidden from many is the fact that as long as digital information is not too badly messed up, it can be totally and completely reconstructed and made perfect again.
For example, the digital information that comes off of a CD or DVD player's digital pickup is a bit of a mess, and definately full of jitter.
The recipie for cleaning this mess up dates back dozens of years before the first CD player was sold in late 1982. You clock the data into a data buffer as it arrives, and clock it out with a precision clock. That's what *every* CD player does, even the $8.95 special that they are advertising in the paper this weekend.
AT&T ST optical is a better interface than coaxial.
Agreed, but that's what you should do when you want to send a digital signal from city to city, and not just from your DVD player to the receiver that is sits right below it.
Also, ST optical cables are called on to do something far more complex than transmit 8 audio channels. Phone systems are based on running thousands or tens of thousands of channels concurrently down one piece of fiber.
The world is full of people who would like to sell you a cruise ship when all you really need is a good pair of boots. Use the right tool for the job. Audio isn't rocket science.
Don't forget that when dealing with digital audio, it's not only important that the digital data reach the DAC but just as important is the timing at which the bits are transferred and the accuracy of the clock signal encoded in the data stream, which is why jitter is important.
Right, but again rememeber that correcting the timing of digital signals is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and every CD and/or DVD player you ever bought did it for no extra charge.