Amphenol glass toslinks - First impressions


I just got my Amphenol glass toslink cables. I have done a quick a/b between it and a basic $5.00 fiber toslink .
The detail is very noticable right off the bat. There seems to be greater hang time on the steel guitars, the brush on the snare is more defined and the texture of the electronocs is more distinct. The soundstage seems to be deeper also. The vocals and instruments that are far back also are not muddy, but very clear and crisp.
In my opinion they do make a definite difference over the standard fiber cables that I have been buying elsewhere.

Anyone else notice that difference when changing to glass?
128x128mattzack2
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.