Hdmi Vs Optical Digital Connection

[astral]

In my new system I am still playing around to try and optimise the setup, particularly for music.

I do enjoy classical orchestral and choral music.

I decided to add an optical link from WD player, to the AV receiver to see if there is any difference.

The hdmi connection is digital? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

So I was not sure what to expect.

I think I hear a little more clarity with the optical cable

but can that really be so?

Can anyone offer any experience or advice here.

[Satcommlee]

I would have thought the exact opposite...

Both methods are digital, so I would not expect any noticeable difference if it is simple audio, HDMI 1.3+ is superior to TOSLINK (optic), it has greater bandwidth capabilities.

But it depends a lot on the sound format, if it is Dolby 7.1, DTS etc then this could only be transferred by HDMI, so I would say in this case HDMI should be the superior one.

[David006]

I would have thought the exact opposite...

Both methods are digital, so I would not expect any noticeable difference if it is simple audio, HDMI 1.3+ is superior to TOSLINK (optic), it has greater bandwidth capabilities.

But it depends a lot on the sound format, if it is Dolby 7.1, DTS etc then this could only be transferred by HDMI, so I would say in this case HDMI should be the superior one.

The limiting factor with multimode fibre is usually the attenuation caused by poor quality fibre,reflection, dirty or marred contact surfaces in couplers ,misalignment of couplers, whether led or laser emitters, distance etc ..

...newer MM fibres can handle greater ie more than adequate bandwidth using lasers rather than LEDs. over the short distances for home entertainment applications.

Having said all that would stick with copper wire....HDMI ,coax, Cat 6 ,whatever....

[Benjie]

I would have thought the exact opposite...

Both methods are digital, so I would not expect any noticeable difference if it is simple audio, HDMI 1.3+ is superior to TOSLINK (optic), it has greater bandwidth capabilities.

But it depends a lot on the sound format, if it is Dolby 7.1, DTS etc then this could only be transferred by HDMI, so I would say in this case HDMI should be the superior one.

The limiting factor with multimode fibre is usually the attenuation caused by poor quality fibre,reflection, dirty or marred contact surfaces in couplers ,misalignment of couplers, whether led or laser emitters, distance etc ..

...newer MM fibres can handle greater ie more than adequate bandwidth using lasers rather than LEDs. over the short distances for home entertainment applications.

Having said all that would stick with copper wire....HDMI ,coax, Cat 6 ,whatever....

It's digital, the signal either gets through without fault or not (in which case it would be obvious).

Should be no difference between the HDMI and SPDif unless the WD is sending out different signals via one over the other, which is doubtful.

[doctorproc156]

The quality would be exactly the same, they are both digital. Although HDMI allows you to stream at much higher bitrates and channels.

[eTiMaGo]

I almost got into a fight with a salesman when he tried to sell my friend insanely expensive fancy-brand HDMI cables... Digital is digital, either the cable is too crap to use or it'll be perfect...

As for HDMI audio vs Optical, good question, I know coax digital is recommended over optical due to higher bandwidth, but I'm not sure how that applied with HDMI... sure beats all in terms of convenience, though!

[TS79]

I almost got into a fight with a salesman when he tried to sell my friend insanely expensive fancy-brand HDMI cables... Digital is digital, either the cable is too crap to use or it'll be perfect...

As for HDMI audio vs Optical, good question, I know coax digital is recommended over optical due to higher bandwidth, but I'm not sure how that applied with HDMI... sure beats all in terms of convenience, though!

Tell that to the guys who review stuff in What Hifi magazine etc. The quality (expensive) cables always get better scores.

[Dork]

Doesn't matter which IT centre you go to in BKK, those small booths selling cables & accessories are everywhere including the best (=highest rent) locations. That gives us an idea of the profit margins on things like HDMI cables.

I learned the hard way that the difference between cheap and expensive HDMI cables is the packaging.

[eTiMaGo]

I almost got into a fight with a salesman when he tried to sell my friend insanely expensive fancy-brand HDMI cables... Digital is digital, either the cable is too crap to use or it'll be perfect...

As for HDMI audio vs Optical, good question, I know coax digital is recommended over optical due to higher bandwidth, but I'm not sure how that applied with HDMI... sure beats all in terms of convenience, though!

Tell that to the guys who review stuff in What Hifi magazine etc. The quality (expensive) cables always get better scores.

LOL must be "sponsored" reviews...

[astral]

Remember HDMI is an active cable.

Buy cheap and you may find it does not detect your equipment,

and even worse fails after a short time

I agree that digital should be just that,

but in the analog world I know from practical experience

that good cables can make a difference

[eTiMaGo]

yes you do get what you pay for, to a certain point... I would not trust a 100B HDMI cable (though it may work just fine). But a decent, 500B one will be just as good as some 5000B ripoff...