Toslink Question ?

I have often heard from various vendors that the biggest weakness of TOSlink is the connector itself--that the end of the fiberoptic bundle in the cable connector does not make optimum contact with the transmitter and receiver in the components. Some of my Toslink cables easily fall out of their sockets.

Monster Cable states that that's why their TOSlink connectors are spring-loaded--to keep the cable end in tight contact with the transmitter and receiver. I have no direct experience as to whether the Monsters work better.

The TOSlink mini-plug format shouldn't be as vulnerable to this.

I've used Monster's best TOSLink cable years ago and did find their connectors were spring-loaded and connected to the source or destination unit very well. Of course, I also found that 1 pre/proc I utilized back then had variations in the size of the receptacle on some of the 4 TOSlink inputs. The connectors on Monster were spring-loaded and very good as stated however I did find that Audioquest OptiLink5 (possibly due to superior construction and materials on the cable itself) yielded a better fit and a better sound profile.

07-08-10: Zephyr24069
I've used Monster's best TOSLink cable years ago... I did find that Audioquest OptiLink5 (possibly due to superior construction and materials on the cable itself) yielded a better fit and a better sound profile.

How much more expensive was the AQ, and in your opinion, was the performance improvement worth it?

The Interlink Reference and M-Series were/are in the $100 price range. The Optilink-5 from AQ retails at $495 today though you can get one for less on Audiogon/other sources. The difference to my ears in 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1 was very noticeable.