In my new source/transport thread Yikes made an interesting point, that optical is an inferior solution to coaxial (or something to that extent I suppose). Why is that?

I didn?t say that Optical was inferior to Coaxial. What I said was that TOS Link was inferior.

I?ve been told that the basic problem is that TOS does not use glass, and that it does not have the bandwidth to do the job well, plus the connector does not provide a good interface. Whether this is true, I don?t know. I have however done several comparisons (Years ago) where TOS was handily beaten by every other format.

Best to Worst.

1)ATT Fiber Optic (real glass with a premium connection) Almost never used any more. Very expensive.

2)AES/EBU 110 Ohm digital cable XLR?s

3)SPDIF Coax with BNC?s

4)SPDIF Coax with RCA?s

5)TOS Link

In my experience the difference between #5 and #4 is greater than the difference between #4 and #1

My mistake then, TOSlink, not necessarily optical (I thought those were synonymous)... In any case maybe I'll just have to geta decent coax cable and hear for myself...

My mistake then, TOSlink, not necessarily optical (I thought those were synonymous)... In any case maybe I'll just have to geta decent coax cable and hear for myself...

toslink is always optical.

though fiber optics don't always use the toslink interface ; ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toslink

Some materials are better at propegating light then others. Alot of people say glass is better, and most TOSlinks are made of a plastic/glass material, or a cheaper plastic. Real glass fiber optic cable is much more expensive , usually reserved for telecom type applications.

One of the reasons people think optical (all optical) is worse is because the signal has to go through the extra conversion to light and back, adding jitter.

And yet the conversion stage is mostly an issue with old gear, when the optical converters weren't as mature as they are now (considering that almost all digital sources have optical outputs).