# Are optical audio outputs better than RCA?



## pmturcotte (May 7, 2001)

Have always used the optical outputs on my 10-250 (and dvd player/xbox360). Mostly to save wiring space if for no other reason. Realized this weekend though as I was hooking up my new receiver (Onkyo 604), I have no idea if this is particularly better than using the other connection options or not?

The receiver does have HDMI inputs and one HDMI output, however my tv does not have an hdmi input so thats a moot point for the time being.


----------



## lynesjc (Feb 10, 2005)

You can only get DD 5.1 via optical. Skip the RCA's.


----------



## lostman72 (Jul 12, 2003)

RCA's are a two channel audio stream (stereo) optical is 5.1 sound track (center, rear L+R, front L+R) and sub. You get a lot more out of optical when it comes to sound. Not all channels broadcast 5.1 sound,but it will still work.


----------



## RunnerFL (May 10, 2005)

lostman72 said:


> RCA's are a two channel audio stream (stereo) optical is 5.1 sound track


Or 6.1 depending upon what is broadcast.

My local ABC affiliate broadcasts in 6.1.


----------



## nyjklein (Aug 8, 2002)

I'm thinking the OP meant optical vs. coaxial digital audio which also happens to use an RCA plug. 

If the OP meant optical digital vs. analog (RCA), then there's no comparison. 

If the OP meant the coaxial digital audio, then there's a wildly raging debate over which is better. Although since they're both digital with inherent error correction, I think you really need some top line equipment to perceive any difference.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

nyjklein said:


> I'm thinking the OP meant optical vs. coaxial digital audio which also happens to use an RCA plug.


If so, the point is moot since the HR10-250 doesn't have a coaxial digital output.

My receiver has both optical and coaxial inputs, only my original DVD player has coaxial out, the rest of it has optical, I didn't even think they made anything with coaxial digital anymore.

phox


----------



## DeWitt (Jun 30, 2004)

The HR10-250 has optical only for dolby digital. Take a quick cruise through avsforum and you will find high end audio fans prefer the coaxial digital.

The discussions get very technical as to why, but almost every opionion I have read recommends the coaxial.

The only optical link in my sytems now is my HD tivo.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

> I didn't even think they made anything with coaxial digital anymore.


You'll find digital coax outputs on DVD players and high end audio/video gear. High end enthusiasts tend to lean more towards coaxial connections for digital audio than optical. I'm sure some people claim to be able to tell the difference and maybe they can with properly trained ears. Most people will be unable to discern any difference between the two.


----------



## willardcpa (Feb 23, 2001)

mr.unnatural said:


> ...maybe they can with properly trained ears....


I tried to "train" my ears, but alas, they wouldn't respond.


----------



## Robert Spalding (Jan 12, 2001)

My Xbox 360 uses optical


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

willardcpa said:


> I tried to "train" my ears, but alas, they wouldn't respond.


After many years of practice, I can wiggle them independantly.

I can entertain small children for hours.
Ok, maybe not hours, seconds perhaps.

phox


----------



## jautor (Jul 1, 2001)

The difference between the optical and coax digital connections was, at least in the 'earlier' days, was in the measured amount of clock jitter that was introduced to the signal. IIRC, tested Toslink (optical) transceivers tended to produce more jitter, which at high enough levels, absolutely will create audible differences... Whether or not there is measurable jitter in 21st century implementations is another question, but probably made moot by the following fact. 

The only digital signal in consumer audio products that would be affected by differences in jitter are PCM encoded signals, where the D/A converter recovers a clock signal from the digital stream. That means CD players (red book audio) and any other PCM encoded audio track. But since HDTV and almost all DVD soundtracks are AC-3, DTS, MP3, etc. bitstreams, none of this jitter stuff matters... In these cases, as long as the signal gets there without introducing new, uncorrectable errors, it truly is "digital"... Either its there, or its not.

But I've always had a preference for coax digital, just because I always have an extra crappy RCA cable laying around that I can wave my hands over and turn into a "digital cable". 

Jeff


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Mine didn't need training to enable the wiggle function.  

Seriously, you need to train yourself to know what to listen for when you're dealing with high end audio. Musicians in particular have a keen ear for what sounds "right" since they are exposed to live music as a reference more than most people. If you regularly attend live concerts of unamplified music (i.e. string quartets, symphonies, etc.) then you have a pretty good idea of what real music should sound like. Most people don't have a reference point from which to make a proper assessment of what they're hearing and tend to choose what sounds "right" to them, even though it may not even come close to natural reproduction of voice or instruments.


----------



## bwaldron (Mar 16, 2003)

jautor said:


> But I've always had a preference for coax digital, just because I always have an extra crappy RCA cable laying around that I can wave my hands over and turn into a "digital cable".


Same here!


----------

