Why do digital cables sound different?


I have been talking to a few e-mail buddies and have a question that isn't being satisfactorily answered this far. So...I'm asking the experts on the forum to pitch in. This has probably been asked before but I can't find any references for it. Can someone explain why one DIGITAL cable (coaxial, BNC, etc.) can sound different than another? There are also similar claims for Toslink. In my mind, we're just trying to move bits from one place to another. Doesn't the digital stream get reconstituted and re-clocked on the receiving end anyway? Please enlighten me and maybe send along some URLs for my edification. Thanks, Dan
danielho
A guy who worked for our dealer in Chicago came up with the names. Yeah.....that is pretty much what he was thinking when he did.

SPDIF is a less than optimal solution. To get the jitter on the clock to the level of a one-box solution, it takes a lot of extra parts, in the form of secondary phase-lock loops. And/or feeding the clock back to the transport.

We made one outboard D/A box. Went back to making one-box players after that.
Ar_t...One interesting experience in my career as a systems engineer on Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles was a visit aboard a 20 year old boat to evaluate the ability of the existing wiring from tube to fire control (as much as 300 feet) to transmit digital data at the higher bandwidth to be used by a new system. We injected pulses at one end and looked at them with a scope at the other end. My God! Were they ever distorted. All kinds of spikes and overshoots. But, and here is the point, the information transfer over the wires using those sorry-looking pulses was flawlwss.

You have described how the digital waveforms are distorted by improper impedance, stub terminations, etc. but it is still unclear how an analog wareform reconstructed from digital information could be affected by the shape of the digital pulses.
It has to do with the way the clock is extracted from the SPDIF signal. There is a high degree of correlation in it. This leads to a great deal of data-related artifacts in the recovered clock.

(If someone was to hook up some sort of listening doo-hickey to the point in the circuit where the PLL filter is, you will hear a very distorted version of the programme material.)

Any reflections in the data stream manifest themselves into a change in the data-dependent jitter. Not so much in the actual amount, but the frequency distribution. Absolute jitter numbers by themselves are of little good without the corresponding spectral distribution. Close-in jitter, say <10 Hz, is more detrimental than jitter at 1 kHz. So, as the reflections alter the decision point, they alter the spectral distribution.

I know.....a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo, but that is it in a nutshell.

If the clock and data were sent via separate cables, this sort of problem would not occur. Which is why one-box solutions will always be better.

What Eldartford describes is basically a Time Domain Reflectometer. I hope to have some pictures of different cables soon. (I need to construct a hood for my camera, so that I can photograph the screen. The TDR I use was made in '63. Back before they had a data port on the back to pull out the data in a form you can make a JPEG with.)
Ar_t...The system I described does have a separate "clock" line. Actually there are three lines, One, Zero, Strobe.

1, 0, 1 is a one.
0, 1, 1 is a zero
Any other set is invalid.
.