Stop Using Optical Cables (Toslink) For Home Theater!!
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 12. 2021
- Thanks to Keeps for sponsoring this video! Head to keeps.com/chrismajestic to learn more and get 50% off your first order of hair loss treatment.
It's time to stop using Optical cables for home theater audio. Optical or Toslink cables should be a last resort for an audio connection in your home theater. Optical is fine for stereo setups but if you're running a high end soundbar like the Sonos Beam Gen 2, Samsung Q90R, or Sony HT-A7000 then Optical should be avoided. Here's why......
Everything You Need To Know About Home Theater Audio:
• Home Theater Audio - W...
How To Setup A Soundbar:
• Sound Bar Setup - How ...
ARC and eARC Explained:
• ARC and eARC Explained...
How To Choose A Home Theater Receiver:
• How To Choose A Home T...
Top 10 Home Theater Mistakes:
• Top 10 Home Theater Mi...
Majestechs Website www.majestechs.com
Facebook / majestechs
Twitter / majestechs
Instagram / majestechs - Věda a technologie
I’m a recording engineer, and for many years the industry has been sending 8 channels of 24bit 48khz audio simultaneously through optical digital cables. Maybe TVs dumb it down? No idea. But I can assure you optical can handle 8 channels of full res audio.
I’m using optical for my home theatre because ARC gives me a jumbled stuttering digital mess.
You might have been using ADAT Lightpipe (same TOSLINK connectors) or MADI (SC conectors as used in computer networks). I don't think that anyone would use a consumer-oriented solution like S/PDIF in an industrial setting.
@@fuxseb my point is, an optical cable is an optical cable. It’s capable of carrying 8 channels of audio. If the TV isn’t sending 7.1, you can’t blame the cable.
Can I connect the optical OUT from my M-audio profire 2626 to the optical input connector on my stereo? Is there different protocols for the 5.1 vs 7.2 and this 8 channel of which you speak? The receiver has 4x optical inputs one dvd, one tv, and two "md/dat".
@@markdrury7483 its the standard, toslink is not capable of sending surround sound uncompressed, therefore you get lower quality sound as the bandwidth in the standard simply isnt supported. I do use optical from PC to external amp with inbuilt hight quality DAC, fine for that purpose, but thats just stereo, would never go optical for surround sound.
@@markdrury7483 He said that optical could carry more channels but after two they're compressed and no longer lossless.
Optical has always "just worked" for me. With HDMI, I often get "no signal" errors, version mismatches, HDCP handshake errors, no audio or no video, interference problems, and bent connectors. Never once had those issues with optical.
Same
If you are not doing actual Atmos then 100% use optical. HDMI sucks and has a bunch of issues. There is zero discernible sound quality difference between HDMI and optical unless you have a true atmos system. (Then it only makes a difference when listening to atmos content which is pretty rare still).
@@Boskibro I've noticed that HDMI "sounded" louder when testing between optical and HDMI. Of course this wasn't some scientific official testing methodology. Just some sound bar I had that I was messing around with.
Oculus Quest 2 uses a bespoke 5m fiber optic cable, used for PCVR when connected to a computer.
Exactly what I came in to say. Optical just works. But it does mean that my tv had has to convert the digital stream coming in to something supported over optical.
Anyway my receiver is from 2005 and SPDIF is the only digital input it accepts. Guess I should update one of these days.
Chris, as a 25 yrs. plus veteran in a/v high-end sales, design, installation, service, etc. i can say optical still is quite usefull and a serious problem solver. Furthermore, in many cases it is the only way to extend the life of an older good receiver that does not have ARC or e ARC when using a new smart tv's apps and features. And optical can support thae bandwith in theory, just not implemented.
Optical at this point is always kind of a legacy thing, though I have modern devices with it they are only including it for legacy purposes. For my most modern devices even HDMI has been surpassed by USB-C as the preferred connection.
That's what I'm doing. Using my 2018 OLED to switch inputs and feed my perfectly good 2005 receiver with optical. Simple, and minimizes the wires going to the receiver (but more HDMI cables going to the tv).
A Toslink to RCA converter works great on vintage 70's receivers too. 👍
@@ltburch2000 Toslink is fine for anything up to 5.1, which is going to be most people. HDMI is convenient and if the device has HDMI then use it, but if not, no reason to ditch toslink.
Pedro Luciano Exactly
I love that the guys says it's incapable of "lossless audio" of more that two channels. ADAT uses the exact same fiber optic cable and can transmit 8 channels at up to 24 bit 48khz. It's not the cable that is the limiting factor, it's the S/PDIF format.
To be fair; you'll not get a consumer TOSLINK supporting device that supports anything but SPDIF.
Yes, "Toslink" is inferior to HDMI, but fibre optic (in general) is *far* superior to HDMI. It's a shame they never updated Toslink.
Fibre basically has no limit on cable length, is immune to EM interference, has much higher bandwidth, and is very cheap to make. Plus, no licensing fees need paid to the HDMI forum.
Example: in networking, copper wires (like HDMI) can only support 10Gb bandwidth and max out at 100 meters (if you lucky). Fiber can support >100Gb and max length is measured in kilometers. There is a reason all telco and cable ISPs are installing fiber now.
It surprises me that 30 years later, fiber cables haven't taken over everything. The only thing they cannot do is carry electricity. Image how nice it would be to use only the mini-Toslink connectors instead of HDMI that are big, often expensive, and must be inserted one way. Mini-HDMI and Micro-HDMI exist, but they are more fragile and can still only be installed one way.
Yup, Toslink is inferior, but fibre is not. Here's to hoping someone introduces a fiber standard to replace Toslink, HDMI, and all the others.
yea but not many people have actual fiber optic with glass vs plastic
@@MrBloodybeak For sure, you would have to use glass instead of plastic (inside the wire) to achieve max performance. Also, would need laser emitters instead of LEDs, but this all could have been part of a "version 2.0" spec.
All new houses in my country is obligated to have fiber optical in walls...
I agree, we need a new, faster audio-only interconnect standard. It doesn't necessarily need to be toslink or even optical, just something fast enough to carry about a dozen channels of uncompressed audio (for some future-proofing). It's not efficient or economical to use a standard that's video centric (HDMI) to just carry audio signals.
In a lot of ways, it'd actually be better to use copper cables. With copper, custom length cables and in-wall installations are much cheaper because you don't have to have a specialist to install the connectors on the ends. They're also more flexible and easier to run, which saves time and cost. They could easily start using USB-C cables to interconnect audio devices. USB-C can do up to 40Gb speeds (USB4). CAT8 network cables would also be an option, since they can do 25Gb to 40Gb, depending on the run length. They would be extremely cheap to implement, and they could use different connectors so that there'd be no confusion with accidently plugging them into networking devices.
@@ckought69 You're right that terminating fiber at custom lengths requires specialized tools and some practice. Maybe someone can invent an inexpensive DIY kit for home users. The problem with USB-C is the severe length restrictions. Shielded Ethernet 10Gb+ cables (CAT6a/7/8) are very bulky and pricy. Glass fiber cables are much thinner, more flexible, and more durable than most people expect. They are skinnier, lighter weight, and more bendable than the average USB-C cables I use to charge my phone.
I think this hypothetical fiber A/V standard should support dozens of channels of uncompressed audio AND stereo 8k@120hz video. This way it can be an audio cable, video cable, or both. I'd like it to be a replacement for all other digital wires including HDMI.
But it'll never happen because HDMI is too entrenched and is "good enough". Maybe when we exceed the limits of HDMI, our new optical format can take over. But the HDMI people will probably scare people by saying things like, "if you don't baby the wire, it'll break". It's not _that_ fragile. Ask any telecom worker. I've personally taken a spare wire and tired it in a knot as tightly as I could, and it still worked; I stretched it very hard, and it still worked. To "break" it, I had to kink the wire, smashing the bend completely flat with a pair of pliers. But once I undid the kink, it started working again.
Optical is hassle free. It just works, you plug it in and that´s it. I never understand when I see people saying "stop using this" "stop using that" There are pros and cons for everything. People should use whatever suits them best.
Ill tell you why. Cos optical will compress channels above two. No longer lossless.
HDMI is even more hassle free cos its video and audio in one.
"Ohhhh!" (clap into a 360 spin into a 70s disco splits) Yayuss!
@@metaldreams3595 what about using USB over HDMI?
@@marioluigi9599 USB will most probably give better sound, but it can't go as long as an optical cable
@@ZeusTheTornado why would USB give better sound than HDMI? Aren't they both digital? And why does the HDMI signal suffer from bad sound quality, if all it does is deliver digital information. Surely it doesn't matter if that gets slightly distorted, because it will be reconstructed at the other end
@@marioluigi9599 Because HDMI typically and generally suffers from jitter, distortion, higher noise floor, etc. Specially compared to USB. Of course performance can and will vary depending on the DAC chip and the implementation on the device
It comes down to 3 things. Equipment, settings, and specs. Once you gets these matched correctly . Everything will work fine. I found that optical works fine up to DTS 5.1ch only receivers and most standard sound bars. But after that format and multi channel. Its best to go with HDMI. Its also best to find 4K blu ray players that has two HDMI outputs across two separate HDMI cables. One for your TV or projector and one for your receiver. The one that goes to your TV/projector will have both audio and video. So you can still use your TV speakers if you want. The one that goes to your receiver is just audio only.
Thanks for the clarification, I'm in the middle of upgrading. Going with optical for convenience in a medium-budget setup, but always appreciate knowing.
HDMI ARC/eARC almost always introduces random handshake/lip sync/input switching/device power issues. On paper, it sounds great, but it rarely works without a hitch in practice (in my experience, of course). The only quality upgrade ARC offers over optical is the ability to carry DD+ and DD+ Atmos, which is still lossy. Yes, eARC will carry lossless audio, but that's only relevant for Blu-Ray or UHD Blu-ray Discs. If you're really concerned about getting lossless audio for discs, then you should have a proper A/V receiver that handles your input switching and just passes video along to the TV. if you have a high-end soundbar, it should have HDMI ins so you can connect a BD player and proper streamer (Apple TV/Shield/Roku Ultra) to it, so again, you don't have to fuss with ARC/eARC.
Streaming audio is lossy?
Agreed I constantly would either have to manually reboot my tv or soundbar to get it to work proper. So I just switched it back to optical
What about eARC from a blu-ray?
I never have problems out of my eARC setup 🤷🏻♂️
@@corruption1724 Exactly the same thing I had to do. Arc was too glitchy and kept making my soundbar not work. I said screw this, went back to optical and kept it there. It was annoying as hell. And to be honest, the audio quality wasn't significantly better when it was working (that may or may not just be my ears though lol), even when watching things from a blu ray player.
It's a shame SPDIF was never updated. It just works and the bending has never been an issue in 20 years of using toslink. Lossless audio basically only comes from disks which very people actually buy so toslink/optical is still often a good option for many people. Modern consoles dropped it so I predict it's dead. Pretty good informative video.
It would be interesting to see what the loss is. A trick in the communications industry with fiber optic when needing attenuation with nodes to close and no attenuators in hand is wrap it around a pencil. One wrap is about 1dB of loss.
As it turns out, most lossless audio today comes via downloads from online storefronts and streaming from sites like Tidal.
Is SPIDIF limited to 2 channels?
@@snap-off5383 It can handle 5.1 but only using compressed audio like DTS
Optical could be more capable than HDMI, The internet using optical cable carries videos up to 12k resolution with dolby atmos hd lossless easily
Thank you for clearing this up! I've always wondered about this and never got a good enough explanation until now.
Through 3 different TV/Soundbar/Receiver setups I've only found one where I can use HDMI Arc on them. The other 2, there was some type of interference I had to use a Optical cable to get the audio reliable. Wished CEC was a ton more reliable than it is. Even still, great video!
I learned something today. Thanks! 😁
Awesome info man, thank you!! Subed after watching this and now I'm going to binge your sound system library cause I bought soundbars for three households this Christmas and now have to set them all up. Your vids are gonna be a big help, thank you for getting all this info out to folks.
Depends on what source you're using. If you're using a PC, then running HDMI from your GPU to a receiver or a soundbar and then out from that to your display creates input lag, and for HDMI 2.1 you have very few options right now, all of which are pretty expensive.
Yep HDMI passthrough introduces input lag when gaming!!
Actually, fibre optic using Toslink connectors, can handle 8 channels of 48 kHz 24 bit digital signal using the ADAT light pipe format, so, 5.1, and 7.1 are quite easy to use.
I use it for a 5.1.2 set up
That ARC-HDMI Can't Accept
This is correct, but I'm not sure if Tascam offer licencing for the format. It might be the same connectors and fibre specification, but the encoder/decoder is different for ADAT-LP and is now only found in long since retired equipment. I have a soundcard somewhere that implemented the ADAT format... Must dig that out...
This discussion is dead on. Consumer electronics don’t get the adat controllers, so they can’t use adat to bus 8 channels, but I use it in my studio, save a bunch of connections. I am not sure it is dead though, my thunderbolt 3 presonus supports it for external preamps
Actually it can handle up to 96khz, not 48khz, but this is more pro audio spec rather than home audio spec
@@dougle03 The ADAT 8ch format is far from obsolete and has been a standard still available currently on many (most) multi-channel recording studio interfaces and not only can it do 8X 48k 24bit, but can do 4x 96k in the proper interfaces. the new trend is for the audio to go on to network formats of whether Audinate (Dante) or AVB. but that is another chapter.
Really the most compelling reason to use HDMI over Toslink is reduced cable clutter. Modern toslink supports 125Mbit/sec bandwidth. Dolby Atmos tops out at 18Mb/s (truehd lossless) and DTS-HD Master Audio is closer to 25Mb/s. Both are well below the limit for Toslink. The catch is if you're using Atmos, Dolby limits truehd to HDMI. If it goes over Toslink or coaxial S/PDIF it will use the compressed codec.
The issue is that the industry spec for TOSLINK has never been updated. Sure, the technology of optical has as it has other uses beyond audio, but the entertainment industry never heavily invested in it because by the time home theater became affordable and more mainstream, HDMI had come along and was a more versatile standard, as it could handle lossless 5.1 and 7.1 audio, along with video, and even an internet connection (though very few devices actually used internet over HDMI). There are very few devices and manufacturers that support lossless/uncompressed audio over TOSLINK just because the manufacturing costs of the chips to do so is so high, because they're not mass produced.
99% of the audio devices out there can only deliver a compressed signal over optical because of the old, inferior specs that the industry never bothered to update. So rather than getting Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD Master Audio, you're just getting their lossy versions, Dolby Digital at 640kbps and DTS at 768 kbps.
@@IAmNeomic It's not really about cost or the TOSLINK spec, it's about DRM. Putting high quality "lossless" digital audio on HDMI ensures that it's protected by HDCP. This is what the entertainment industry wants and it's why Dolby TrueHD only supports HDMI. The arguments you make about older equipment are true for HDMI as well. There are plenty of non-4k capable pre-TrueHD receivers that will only support the lossy Dolby codecs.
Thanks @Chris! I had no idea and your video explained Toslink VS HDMI really well.
Chris, thank you for this video. I was having a problem with my optical output on my fairly new TV running through a conversion box to RCA output for my stereo. It was all working fine and so I put everything back together and cleaned up my cabling with twist ties. I would never in my wildest imagination thought that twist-tying the optical cable would cause it to fail. After an hour of troubleshooting, I came across your video. I took of the twist tie from the optical cable and now it works again. Crazy but true. Your video was instrumental in getting it working again. Thank you!
Hdmi is obviously the way to go, but when HDMI pass through is problematic, sometimes you don’t have much of a choice.
I begrudgingly had to use optical from my A9G to my reciever due to hdmi pass through not working between the devices.
"Begrudgingly" as if the audio quality loss is noticeable lol
@@Zeromaus because there are other issues involved. No audio mode switching dependent on content you are watching,no volume meter on the screen when you adjust volume.
Those are big issues for me that I struggle with daily because of this.
Thank you Chris! I work at Best Buy part time as a Home Theater Advisor and every video has made me extremely smart. Thank you
Keep in mind that optical is significantly more reliable. Atmos needs HDMI, otherwise I always recommend optical or running both in the event hdmi doesn’t work. Lots of TVs have tons of issue with ARC
@@Boskibro that's why you use a higher grade HDMI. I sell HDMI cables that that conduct using higher grade silver and have better internal shielding.
@@Boskibro My Samsung tv has issues with arc non stop. Had to go back to optical. And it shouldn't be a compatibility issue because my soundbar is also a Samsung lol Always had problems with arc when I tried. Either the audio wasn't coming out of the soundbar, but the tv speakers instead. Or when I try to turn one source on, everything else turned on and it became annoying trying to single out what I wanted to turn on and what I didn't. I spent more time trying to sort out problems than enjoying my set up lol
Excellent and clear video, Chris. Thanks for making it!
I used Optical for 10 years. Bought a new TV/SoundBar compatible with eARC and I switched to HDMI after watching your video on it! Sounds great! Thanks!
Sure it's better? My Soundbar sounds worse on HDMI than Optical
Optical has been a necessity for my new soundbar. I went from an old, classic AV receiver to a sleek LG Dolby Atmos soundbar and it sounds fine on 2ch and Dolby 5.1 content enough low end for me. But when I played any Atmos encoded content, 4k/streamed, for some reason LG forgot to process the low end audio into the speakers so it sounds tinny. Through HDMI/arc there is no way of changing the audio encoding on Disney+/netflix, but if I play through optical, the TV only outputs 5.1. Sorted the low end. It has upfiring Atmos speakers which I was not too impressed with so I don't mind sticking with just 3 channel Dolby digital audio.
I'm primarily a hifi guy who uses his speaker setup (stereo and subwoofer) for movies with my projector. So, for me, since I never do anything but stereo listening, optical works great! Also - ARC is super cool but is one of those technologies that has been walled off from the hifi world for some reason. It's near impossible to find a quality DAC that takes in HDMI/ARC. This brings up a question for me - how do I make sure I'm getting stereo audio from my projector or streaming device (Roku Ultra)?
Same!
I am using Optical for my bookshelf speakers on my computer, and HDMI Arc on the sound system as it was needed for the best listening for that.
Two channel plus sub sounds better than 99.9% of multichannel via sound bars. Atmos through a soundbar is like watching a pirated IMAX movie shot with a 2008 smartphone.
@@blasterman789 I even feel like surround can be distracting and can pull me away from enjoying the movie to be honest.
@@user-xh5pi2nf9q hot take - in the home environment, absent a true theater room, surround sound is the most overrated thing you can spend your money on. Stereo plus sub ftw
Hi Chris, thanks for the video! by the way, do you have any reviews about this year's best budget projector?
Excellent, brief explanation to understanding the difference between the two cables. For me and my JBL 5.1 Surround Bar and Subwoofer setup for my PC, I can only use an Optical Cable and that's fine. I only need 5.1 surround and DTS which Optical Cables can handle. If I were to go for an ATMOS setup, I would only use high end speakers with a high end receiver and separate in-wall wire setup for my 5.1 or 7.1 separate speaker setup. Thanks again for this video!
I love Optical cables. They’re very basic. Surround sound is what I’m concerned about the most. Other virtual surround sounds such as Dolby Atmos is awesome, maybe someday I’ll experience them myself.
Atmos is not virtual surround sound. It takes at least 7 speakers and a sub to produce true atmos. Soundbars, TV’s, and headphones now all use a virtual version of atmos. But a true atmos system is at least 5.1.2
@@carnage4907 And there are several interfaces for the home studio market that indeed use the ADAT protocol to carry 8 channels of 24 bits audio so that people can mix scores at home, on a Dolby surround system. Sigh...
@@jas_bataille I love the idea of forever tricking people into the idea of you're just one cable away from perfect home theater
Dolby Atmos supports optical/TOSLINK. It has to compress it using Dolby Digital Plus, but it works.
I see a lot of comments referring to fiber optic HDMI cables. Yes, fiber itself is incredibly useful for sending large amounts of data which is why I regularly recommend fiber HDMI cables. However, in this video I'm specifically referring to Toslink which has limited bandwidth compared to modern fiber connections. This is why I referred to it as Toslink instead of optical through most of the video. 😉
In the video you use optical , toslink and SPIDIF interchangeably. This is wrong . Even the title of your video on its face is misinformation. That optical cable is capable of extremely high data transfer rates . When it is used as an ADAT connection it can carry 8 channels of 48 kHz uncompressed audio . Many devices use the cable as SPIDIF which is usually a high bandwidth stereo configuration . On those devices it will be labeled specifically as SPIDIF. On other devices where it is labeled as “optical” you should refer to the user manual in order to determine the format that is native to the device . These devices are usually in a 5.1 uncompressed configuration by default.
Sharing misinformation like this affects your credibility bro . Fix this quickly.
@@bayete1979 Yes, perhaps his terminology was a bit confusing, but Mr. Majestic is not wrong in essence because practically all equipment guides refer to "optical" and "TOSLINK" interchangeably. the bottom line is that most optical S/PDIF is limited to 3.1 Mbit/s and thus requires compression to transfer all the data we need nowadays, which means loss of quality.
Meanwhile, you're a bit wrong -- not all optical cables are made the same and are of equal quality. The TOSLINK cable is designed for transferring LED light, not LASER. Some cables are plastic, others glass.
As for optical HDMI cables -- they are indeed quite cool, but they won't change the quality in any way. Their use cases are fairly rare: 1) for extending to very long distances or 2) for environments with high interface, conditions you are very unlikely to have in a home theater. Actually, HDMI 2.1 does mean shorter copper cables, so perhaps we'll see more optical HDMI in use at home.
Also, thank you Mr. Majestic for the "Toskink" typo, that made my day. :)
As someone who has used optical for years up until recent years using USB or HDMI, very useful info I was unaware of. Now, what's this Optical HDMI? I've not heard of this before?
@Bayete Williams Thanks for your input. In this video I'm specifically referring to home theater audio. Adat doesn't really apply to this as I've never seen an adat interface on a piece of modern home theater equipment that supported lossless surround formats. This is also why I said "not to be confused with high fidelity stereo setups" which is a place where you'll commonly find toslink or adat (if you include professional audio equipment). I didn't use optical and spdif interchangeably in the video although i did oversimplify it considering most (if not all) toslink ports on home theater equipment are labeled as optical and use SPDIF for data transmission on the data link layer. Again, once you factor in the fact that that I'm referring exclusively to home theater and lossless surround sound like True-HD and DTS-HD, things like adat are irrelevant since they don't apply.
I agree that I could have been clearer on this though. So I have added "(Toslink)" to the title of the video. But again, your concerns seem to apply more to professional audio equipment more than consumer grade home theater audio equipment. I appreciate your input. 😁
helped me out as well. I think me and my broke a** are going to stay in the optical lane for now because my soundbar isn't top of the line, but if I ever ball hard enough for some upgrades, I will consider this more fully! Thank you so much
Thanks for the info. I had been using TOS Link because even though my sound bar says it is 4K capable I would have trouble getting it to pass the 4K video through it all the time. So I hooked the video source to the TV and sent the TOS link audio to the sound bar. So I just watched your other videos about how to correctly hookup the HDMI cables and use ARC. So long story short, now my video source is still hooked to my 4K TV, but I use the HDMI ARC connection to get the audio to my 5.1 surround sound system.
I upgraded my AV system a few years ago and struggled with eArc turning on components I didn’t want. The final solution was to use optical out from my TV and all of my other components routed into my sound bar and one video signal going to the TV. Optical is still good in a few places where you don’t need to worry about losing out on Dolby audio
I'm setting up a system with an older receiver that doesn't support modern HDMI - it's only 1.4 and 1080p, but it sounds so good I do not want to get rid of it. I'm planning to use either a HDMI matrix switch OR better yet a plain HDMI switch with two outputs and a HDMI splitter. This way, all of your HDMI devices plug into the switch, one output goes to your TV or projector, the other output goes to a HDMI input on the A/V receiver.
The reason for going with a switch + splitter instead of the seemingly more convenient HDMI matrix option is to avoid handshake issues and dropouts which are often caused by HDCP or insufficient power on the HDMI ports.
I need no more than optical. The sound is pure and perfect 6.2 receiver. No need Atmos. too overwhelming! Atmos is ok for Movie theaters. 5.1 is just ok for Home use with Toslink or coaxial. up to DTS hd or Dolby Pro. Good for music and for movies.
Atmos/TrueHD is more about lossless clarity than immersion.
HDMI fiber 😂
Another great video. Thank you Chris 🤗
That T-shirt is DOPE! 😂 Thanks for keepin' it real regarding TosLink!
Keep in mind that Audio coming from any streaming service is compressed anyways.
So unless you have an atmos setup Or physical media… Not really any point in upgrading to hdmi from optical if only doing a 5.1 system
That being said. It’s like $20… so just do it if you can lol
My avr is an old school beast mode Denon 3802… with no hdmi ports.. so it would cost me gobs of money to swap to hdmi
But of course I will upgrade when I get a new AVR... whole point is sort of... don't sweat Optical if you are only streaming...
Even Atmos is compressed most of the time unless the source is BluRay with a TrueHD Dolby container.
This video was more of a message to people who have a setup that supports hdmi and are still using optical instead of hdmi. I never told anyone to upgrade.
I agree that if you have a soundbar or basic 5.1 setup and your setup doesn't support hdmi its not a huge deal to use optical. This is why I said make sure you don't have hdmi. 😉
@@MrMom950 the Denon Avr-S760H is $450 at costco. I highly recommend it. Not perfect. But it supports every current and near future standard
Well Toslink is still used in several studios around the world.
After all it supports 8 channels at 48KHz 24bit, or 4 channels at 96KHz at 32bit.
It is getting replaced by protocols like Dante though (256 channels 96KHz at 32bit, a bit less if you run 192KHz) :)
Correct HDMI supports up to 192KHz at 32bit, so in that regard it "can" be superior, then again how much of the compressed streaming audio/video people watch have that rates.... ;)
ADAT LightPipe.
Nailed it man! Great video. Only problem I ever ran into with HDMI was the HDCP 2.0 security.. I could never get the video to pass from my tv to my receiver and spent two years messing with it before I finally found some obscure article that informed me that my newer tv couldn’t talk to my 3 year old receiver through HDMI ARC because of a HDCP copy protection which really stumped me for 2 years and I had to replace the receiver with the newer compliant standard. Other than that love the HDMI audio experience over SPDIF optical.
I understand what you are saying. Very likely the optical is the best connect for now. But now that I have a better understand ARC I will be reevaluating things when I add new Components.
Depends entirely on what format you're sending, toslink is fine for the formats it supports. Coaxial is a better option if available though for the same formats, hdmi is the best overall option mainly because it supports a wider range of codecs.
What makes coaxial better? Is it a different kind of compression?
@@curvingfyre6810 it's an electrical signal and doesn't have to convert like toslink, wider bandwidth as well and more stable. Its not a major optical is fine for most people
@@DueM from what I understand, the conversion is if anything the same speed, and the software is otherwise identical, so considering the lack of grounding loop risk, and identical dafa, wouldnt toslink be slightly better?
@@curvingfyre6810 toslink has reduced dynamic range and maxes out at 24bit 96khz in comparison to 24bit 192khz on coaxial. The conversion process from electrical to fiber optic and back again also introduces jitter and occasionally lag/clocking issues depending on optical sensor quality.
HDMI and optical both have ups and downs. I use HDMI for streaming and regular TV, and optical for my Xbox. It just works best that way.
Awesome Video. I learned something new!! Appreciate you education.
To be fair, the people who'd actually hear the full potential of true surround sound would actually be those who've spent a small fortune on their audio receivers and a prestine speaker systems.
On your average 5.1 system, while of course HDMI surround would sound better, Spdif 5.1 isn't too shabby either, considering when it came out. And HDMI Arc is notorious for sometimes having issues like random disconnections in which instances the humble optical cable could still be a viable backup: the good (or bad) thing about optical spidif is that it's a dumb connection... It either works or it doesn't. There are instances of the HDMI Arc connections randomly activating recievers/TVs in a few systems.
Optical was a quick and easy way for me to get audio from my desktop PC to the AV receiver. HDMI wasn't an option so one has to do what they have to do. It's good to know that if HDMI output is available then that's the way to go. Thanks for the explanation.
I am doing the same thing because I couldn't find a better way. I do have an issue getting the sound started, for lack of a better word. When I first start my PC, or wake it up from sleep mode, I get no sound from my receiver/speakers. Even though my SPDIF is seleceted as the source on my PC, I have to re-select it to get the sound started.
@@martinabernathy205 Yeah, the Realtek controls on my PC are a pain to switch from desktop speakers to the optical output. and back. Sleep mode is always an adventure.
What did Master Yoda say when he first saw himself in 4k?
- HDMI
Thank you for your video, it gives me much to think about
For decades, I would bend over backwards to use toslink just because it used light to communicate. You set me right 👍 thanks.
I'll stick with high end coaxial cables, I love them!
Is there a difference between the SPDIF and the COAX digital protocls? Can COAX do more than 2 channels?
I have not yet been convinced by any multichannel audio setup anywhere. I enjoy much more a setup that is basically a 2.1 and the effect is even better on 3d glasses kind of movies. The most important is to have good signal, good level, clarity, and align audio delay with picture. Check polarity, ant surface reflections, distance between the wall floor and speakers. When all is good, tested and measured, the impact, the punch, the depth, the dynamic the 3D all this is better.
I have the same toslink cable since 1995! not fragile at all! works great for my use cases...mainly hifi...
Very helpful video, thank you!
This seems to be an engineering issue, there's no reason besides funding that optical audio could not be made to support Dolby Atmos. It can be done it just depends on who wants to do it.
Everything is an engineering and funding issue. The thing is there's no reason to do it. The HDMI interface is still not fully saturated, and there are no benefits to optical over HDMI as they are both a digital signal. In fact, you would need to move to an optical bundle system (multiple optical fibers in a cable or multiple cables) and have a bundle decoder (similar to the way fiber internet works) to get the exact same data that HDMI already carries on the other end. Hell, USB 3.0 can send more channels of data ,far cheaper, with zero additional R&D or engineering.
The reason optical was created is because it came at a time before USB and HDMI and it was the only way to send digital signals from things like CD players or DVD players to DACs and receivers (or speakers with built-in DACs) this was done so you could get a bit-perfect duplication on the other side without a bunch of conversions to analog to digital and back again. In fact even old expensive DACs would often just passthrough analog signals, so if you used component cables, there was no point in a fancy DAC. The reason they still exist today is because of more legacy and audiophile hardware and devices such as the $800 dollar Martinez CD players that sound freaking amazing. The more expensive ones do use USB instead of optical.
Sorry for the TLDR post, I just looked into all this and thought it was interesting.
@@tybera1114 The optical cable, itself, has no real bandwidth limitation. The limitations reside in the devices at both ends of the optical cable. Simply by changing to a full spectrum (multi-color fiber-optic transmission) pulse emitter and pulse detector would drastically increase data, and we haven't even talked about changing to modern pulse rates, across each light wavelength, yet. Improve the tech in the devices at both ends, and any TOSLINK cable can easily handle a massive data increase.
@@jreyman multicolor wouldn't work due to latency of the waves. You would need a way to resolve the wave differences and speed differences of the various photons and which got there first. Optical doesn't have Bandwidth, but it does have data limits.
Next video should be:
HDMI ARC doesn't always work....so use toslink.
That would be the video I make lol ARC is great.....If it always worked. Which it doesn't
is that a setting on most modern TVs?
Informative, as usual. Thank you.
Your video came up on my watch list and I enjoyed your video..you came across as extremely knowledgeable and explained things clearly. You mentioned sound bars and I was wondering if there are any suggestions for lower priced sound bars that are worth purchasing?
Optical is fine for non atoms and stereo. In fact, depending on the quality of your stereo, it's better to use optical then ARC. There are lots of audiophile reasons this is true, but it boils down to running your pure digital signal through the comparably dirty environment of your TV's circuitry.
Agreed. This was stated in the video.
@@ChrisMajestic No, it wasn't. This applies to my comment about AES as well. You made one throw away comment about how "hifi is a whole different ball game." That's true, it is, but you didn't state really any reason why that is true. That's fine, you aren't a hifi channel, but don't assume your viewers are idiots who aren't paying attention. I'm a law talking guy, I don't miss stuff.
Does it mean that optical is fine not just for stereo, but even for 5.1 non atmos? I was under impression that even for 5.1 non atmos the quality goes as follows: eARC > ARC > Toslink. I am building 5.1 setup (studio monitors, subwoofer, pre-amplifier and projector) and I wonder if the Toslink hinders the audio quality and if I should move to either ARC or eARC...
@@shmoooo1 So, todlink might be more compressed, but honestly the compression is so good nowadays that you won't notice it unless you are critically listening to high quality music(lossless, high bit rate mp3, flac, etc). The real reason to use eARC/ARC is the CEC and lip sync. It also really depends on your setup.
@@TheWesman45 Thank You, I will give it a try!
One thing to consider in a Home Theater set-up: In my case, Optical made sense because I can run the home theater speakers OR the TV speakers. When people are sleeping, I can run the TV speakers and it won't disturb them.
The most disturbing thing about HT speakers I'd imagine would be the bass, since otherwise the volume could be adjusted to be no louder than the TV speakers. You could probably just set a preset on your receiver that removes/lowers the bass.
You should still be able to do that with HDMI. Most decent AVRs have audio pass thru.
Can switch to tv speakers on the tv setting even with hdmi
@@TheSubZero187 that's what I'm saying, I do that now with my home theatre system without optical
@@jeffreyaird7357 I mainly have a setting mode for nighttime. So the bass isn’t powerful and the system itself isnt crazy loud at certain volumes. Definitely better than tv speakers anytime.
I use spdif because it looks cool af, I love plugging in the cable and see the light shine out the other side. It's a very rewarding visual feedback of seeing something functioning.
I agree lol
Well, I just learned something today!! Thanks for the information and you now have me as a subscriber!!
I sincerely love your channel. Thank you Chris for sharing so much information about our commune passion. Great channel, useful practical advices, top explanations, well made video editing, always up to date with actual tech, and on top of it all your genuine sympathy shines through our screens and invites us to keep on watching more. Thank you sir.
"Toslink" is inferior to HDMI, but fibre optic (in general) is far far far far superior to HDMI in pretty much every way. It's a shame they never updated the Toslink spec.
Thanks for the advice! I didn't realize i wasn't getting the full surround sound with the optical cable.
Thanks, man. Great info as I am using HDMI but was thinking to change to TOSLINK.
Another thing to consider with HDMI is that it’s all digital. In the old analog days, copper was subject to interference which resulted in people buying Monster-type cables to reduce the interference as much as possible - or go optical where possible. With digital, you either have a connection or you don’t. If you do, your ones and zeros result in picture and sound - no need for high-end cables that cost too much. If you don’t have a connection, then no sound and no picture - also no interference - there’s just nothing.
Everything interacts with each other and can create “noise” and introduce that into the signal. Yes, a digital cable will work or it won’t but your audio quality with HDMI will very greatly. Highly recommend trying to attend an Audioquest Cable demo. To this day I’m absolutely amazed at how much MORE audio details you can hear with better quality cables that introduce less “noise” into the signal. It’s jaw dropping for me.
For audiophiles, it makes sense to use HDMI if they are very specific to the sound output they want like DTS, THX, Atmos, etc. but for majority average users, TOSLINK will do the work as well just as HDMI. I connected my TV to my Bose soundbar using TOSLINK. On the orher room, one of my older devices connected to my receiver with Bose surround speakers with TOSLINK.
Audiophile will probably only care about Dolby, dts, atmos, etc .. if they are watching like a blu ray concert. But for just music listening which is mainly 2.0, it's all about the amp/dac, speaker/headphone, and if the quality is lossless like flac or alac
Yes none of this applies to "soundbar users" but for folks with high end (5+ discrete speakers and an Processor capable of the lossless formats (Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD-MA, for example), he's right.... while it's not a physical limitation of this cable type, all consumer home theater devices won't carry "lossless" 5+ channel audio over TOSLINK; you have to use an HDMI cable if you want that capability.
Something you may not have picked up on. ARC is Toslink (eARC is not). If negotiated through CEC source/sink capabilities comparison, the TV set's up a return path using IEC 60958 over a copper transport using the HEAC diff pair. It's just like having a Toslink cable included in the HDMI cable only using a differential pair instead of coax for common mode noise rejection.
I like what you are saying there but can you break that all down a little more there? I'm not sure I follow you on all of that.
Chris you are indeed THE MANNNNN. I know one day I’m going to understand every word you’re saying. Until then l’ll keep one hitting the thumbs up button. 😂
Wow! Great Video! Well Done! Thank you for sharing valuable information. It's appreciated.
To me optical sounds superior to HDMI.
It does one job and it does it very well. Meanwhile, HDMI ARC and eARC is a bunch of headaches and mess that you have to struggle to get it working right.
It isn't, plain and simple.
For me it's not that it sounds better. It just works better. MUCH better. Never had issues with optical. Arc on the other hand has been non stop issues for me.
@@MG-im8ku I've had issues, with my cheap DAC that converts toslink to RCA, but I just turn it off and back on and everything's fine lol. Optical works great for me
Lol Dolby Atmos on a sound bar.
Thanks for explaining, I learned a lot. Good info and well done vid
Again...Excellent information!!! Good to know!!
I really enjoyed your video.
What is your opinion about Toslink vs USB?
I was using USB but found out optical would have a cleaner signal like you said in the video. But beyond that most peoples computer setups are stereo or headphones. I'm currently rocking a Astro A50 for headphones and Audioengine A2+ for speakers.
Second thing I just ran into while typing this. I am support a LG C1 OLED as a monitor.
Wouldn't technically using HDMI to Toslink (Astro A50 has optical) be the best of both worlds? A50 to C1 to Computer?
Yes I did learn something new. Great upbeat personality….thanks for sharing
Wow. I didn't know that. Thanks for the video.
You defiantly enlightened me it is another step that I learned to set up a great home theater at home.
Great video and explanation. I still use optical cables since there are too many issues with hdcp. It either works beautifully or does not work at all. Optical works the first time and everytime.
That's been my experience too. So many issues with arc, it became frustrating. After a couple of weeks of trying to fix one problem after another, I disconnected arc, connected optical and have not had one single issue since. While ARC theoretically sounds amazing, I think it is just one more link in the chain that can fail.
Thanks,just learned something new.
I use Toslink for my individual speaker cables for my stereo and it is great. I send the signal to a miniDSP in each speaker as a digital crossover and it works great.
I just received a sound bar for xmas and I will definitely be switching to HDMI. Thanks for the info!
You helped me out. I will be upgrading to a new receiver in the coming year, so I'll use HDMI instead of the Toslink I use currently on my 2004 Yamaha HTR.
Very good information..Thank u
I'm not an audio guy but do like watching your videos....how ever every time I do my two year old sound "system" is well OLD. Thumbs up
Yes I did learn a great deal, in about halfway through the video I subscribe to your channel, and I will be watching more of your material. Thank you I've often wondered about this question and you putting it simply and succinctly. Well done sir, well done indeed
I've had issues with toslink since it came out. I thought it was superior and I was the problem. Nice to know I wasn't crazy. Back to HDMI I go. Thanks!
Thabk you so much for this information i was always wondering why my sound quality was so lack luster. Thank you
Learned a lot. Still loving my decades Denon AVR5700 in the iffice /gym with computee source and toslink for audio!
Great explanation thank you
Nicely done, sir!
I just came across your channel. Great content. You have a new subscriber. 👍🏽
Thank u for increasing my technical knowledge. I've also heard about audio latency with toslink. That sometimes the tv and sound dont match up. Would never thought of hdmi. But I know ur right. Will keep that in mind next time I setup surround sound or a sound bar
It the delay is perceptible there's something wrong somewhere in the chain, and it's not Toslink. I *have* experienced the players screwing up audio/video sync, but that's not a Toslink problem, that's a decoding issue.
I bought a Bose 900 Soundbar that supports Dolby Atmos, but my TV is old (not even 4K) it has ARC but can only transfer PCM. So I got a Sound extractor, it extracts sound from HDMI, using that, I now get Dolby Digital (previously PCM was the limit). Do you recommend how I can solve my issue other than buying a new TV? Thanks!
Great content! Thanks
Thanks for clear explanation
A great explanation of the different ways to connect my audio to my TV. Thanks
Very helpful and now I must subscribe and watch more of your vids! You have a great speaking voice and you explained things so clearly. I have a lot of optical cables in my electronic box but never used them! Now I will have to investigate their use in some applications.
Excellent video my friend!
Thank you. I never really looked into this. Very informative
He is Actually Wrong
ARC-HDMI doesn't support it
However eARC-HDMI Does
Hey Chris great video, I had my Samsung TV setup with HDMI to my Pioneer Elite receiver and it worked flawless on, off, volume etc from the TV remote well T.V. failed, and I purchased an new one this year and its looses the HDMI settings when you turn it off and you need to start all over again. I called Samsung for support no help also fails on a HDMI connected sound bar. So still issues out there with HDMI.
I had challenges getting Arc getting to work with an older receiver so used fibre optic. The new AVR I picked up last week works great with Earc so dropped my fibre cable. Just make sure you get high bandwidth cables.
Really good video! Never knew HDMI was an option for strictly audio purposes.
Only if your tv and soundbar/amp supports it. But also look into the issues it can cause. It can be problematic for some. I tried arc, it was so frustrating that I went back to optical.