Toslink Cable Upgrade?

Ditto Sdcampbell. My experience is the same. Sony DSS to Lexicon MC1. The sound is better with the Monster Toslink . I have not tried one of the truly expensive ones though.

I found the Kimber toslink ($50.) to be an improvement over an inexpensive Rat Shack toslink, but I've had no experience with the Monster. Craig

There was a thread back a couple of months ago, and one individual claimed that the issue with Toslink was not the cable, but the sending and receiving boards/electronics used by the audio component manufacturers; I believe dealing with wildly varying quality of components used in construction of same. (For the record, I own/used Monster Toslink, compared them to digital coax, and I prefer electrons over photons with my equipment.) Garfish's comments are noted, but don't you think that fiber optic cable is fiber optic cable, and photons are photons? Maybe I opened a can of worms by saying that.

I have tried three different Toslink cables; Kimber. Monster Lightspeed 100 and Optichord (UK). I purchased the Optichord after reading a review in What Hi-Fi magazine. IMHO the Optichord is the clear winner. The music is smooth, full and clear. Some newer reviews have preferred the Van den Hul Toslink over the Optichord. I have found digital cables and connectors to make a big difference in sound. Reducing jitter improves depth, ambience, bass ...

Massvm; Maybe the worms are loose? I'm certainly no expert in these technologies, and my observations were based on listening tests rather than on engineering considerations, and I'm comfortable with that. But I do think there are average copper wires and excellent copper wires (ie, ICs and speaker cables).

Aren't there both glass and plastic fibre-optic cables? If so, that could be an important difference, and I think the connectors may be important as well. Electrons may all be alike, but behave differently in different type/quality materials? Yes? Same with photons? The Kimber Toslink cable has more positive connectors. Cheers. Craig