PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

So I am curious about what real benefit this standard gives us compared to SP/DIF. I know there is some benefitial performance over long distance cables. But I also read some comments on internet forums how much better AES/EBU is compared to SPDIF and they would never revert back to the consumer version of the standard.

Is this just an illusion or a matter of perspective by each user, just like people argue that 24/96 sounds so much better than 16/44.1 yet others say there is no advantage. But I see the cabling standard is much sought after many Scope users alike, yet I am inclined to think that most of us will most probably not use cables further than 3 meters within our home studio.

So I would appreciate some comments, really just to know what you people think the truth or fact is.

Thanks.

it's the same code either way. AES/EBU is just balanced +4, S/PDIF is -20 unbalanced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPDIF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES/EBU

I noticed the difference on a hardware reverb where SP/DIF, and AES/EBU's were available, but it was fixed by a little make up gain, or hotter outputs.

The only reason I use it w/ Scope is because my hardware reverbs are analog I/O, or AES/EBU I/O. Anything analog I/O into Scope unless it's a vocal, or an analog synth via the A16 Ultra sounds muddy.

I think AES EBU has some sort of syncing ability, a useless application for consumer gear.

they are the same thing! one is +4 balanced and the other is -20 unbalanced.

jitter comprarisons would be interesting! - if you dont have a DAC with a jitterremoving curcuit on your main speakers, jitter might be a problem at some level

they are the same thing.

theoretically, aes/ebu would be a cleaner signal, being balanced, but in the real world, maybe, maybe not....