Amphenol glass toslinks - First impressions

When you say ' digital cables are in general better with jitter than toslinks ', are you referring to 75 ohm coax cables and usb cables? I was thinking that toslinks were considered digital also.

I have a Valab DAC (2009) which is based on the old Philips tda1543 and dir9001 chips. I am just beginning to study it but I really like it so far.

Another thing you say is interesting. The right (jitter rejecting) dac will make the quality of its incoming cables or source a non issue. That seems to be a bold statement.

Thanks for the reply, but if you are correct, I have a few thousand dollars worth of equipment and cables I need to sell.

Mattzack2 - You're right. I was referring to coax (either 75 or 110 ohm). I don't consider fiber optics a cable (in electrical sense). I don't know much about USB. The reason for Toslink being inferior is slow voltage-light conversion and therefore longer edge that is more exposed to ambient noise on the receiver side.

Jitter rejecting DAC (like Benchmark) makes not only cables non-issue but also transport. I use the cheapest decent DVD player I could find ($60 Sony) with great results (and have DVD and MP3 playback + great tracking). Benchmark DAC1 has jitter bandwidth of just few Hz and at frequencies of interest (kHz) has way over 100dB rejection. Benchmark tested it with 1000' of cable - no audible difference.

Not every DAC labeled as "upsampling" is really that. Often companies use it instead of "oversampling". Bel Canto DAC3, if I remember correctly, have same jitter rejecting properties. As for the transport - as long as it is "bit-transparent" (no DSP processing or digital volume control) there will be no difference. It is big selling point of upsampling DACs but some people prefer to use NOS DACs - it's subjective. I found that stand alone, jitter rejecting DAC allows me to connect TV as well as computer (Benchmark has 3 digital inputs) and serves as preamp since it has volume control and input selector (I don't do analog).

Very interesting information!

I just replaced my best transport (Teac VRDS10) with my least expensive (Oppo 981). I also replaced my 75 ohm digital cable with the cheapest generic 110 ohm cable I could find in my house. I am going to listen to some of my favorite CDs and see if I can hear a difference.

I would think that it would be a difference of night and day. I also have some extremely good digital cables coming in the next few days and a high end USB cable also.

I just remembered that I have an old Sony Jukebox packed away that might have a digital output that I could test your claim with.

My Jadis is just warming up right now as I type, but the music coming through the dac is very clear using the less expensive cable and source. I am going to do my a/b comparisons using a Beth Orton that has proven to optimize the sound stage and clarity of my system.

My 'a' system will be my Teac VRDS10 transport output through a good digital cable into the Valab coax input.

My 'b' system will be a Oppo 981 DVD/CD player output through a CHEAP rca cable that is typical of any that come free with a low fi audio device. I know the Oppo is not low fi, but it is the only source that I have capable of outputting a CD through a coax. So, the very low fi cable should exhibit a poorer sound. Let's see.....

I have to agree with much of what Kijanki says. The 'b' system sounds excellent also. I am going to swap a few things around and see where this leads.

Mattzack2 - What I said applies to "upsampling" DACs and not to your NOS DAC. With your DAC transport and cable will make big difference!

I feel pretty foolish reporting back before final testing but the sounds coming from my cheap cable and my Oppo do sound surprisingly good. I will swap back to my optimal system 'a' and compare again tonight.

I really think that Kijanki has stumbled across something that a lot of cable and source equipment sellers might be afraid to hear.

I would like to see a new thread exploring Kijanki's findings.