Which will provides better sound quality: analog or optical connection?

Also, hooking them up to a TV, not a computer, if that makes a difference.

S/PDIF's been the best for a while but I believe receivers that accept HDMI have surpassed it. If your choices are between S/PDIF and line level audio I'd go for S/PDIF

>>60169488
optical.
Lower probability of leaking EMI to the DAC and amplifier

>>60169488
TOSLINK/Optical/SPDIF

>chink shit

Neither, they will both be equally shit.

Optical means a fiber optic connection. Nothing more than that.
However, that is a TOSLINK connector, which is a digital standard.
This means your speaker has its own DAC and amp, which are liable to be shit regardless of what kind of speaker you have.

An analog connection is better because you simply use the speaker as a speaker, and you can source the audio from your own DAC and amp. Sound quality is most affected in the order of its propagation--most by the quality of the waveform (the filetype), then by the DAC, then the amplifier, then the speaker.

>>60170115
This means that if you aren't gucci enough to have a nice sound system or a DAC worth a hundred burger coupons, it may be worth it to experiment with both and see how good one setup is versus the other.

>>60169488
optical is digital and has to be eventually converted to analog by a DAC inside the speakers

so it partially depends on whether the DAC in your computer or speakers is better; but what's more likely is that your computer's analog output is shoddy and introduces noise

all else being equal, the optical is better

>>60169488
USB > S/PDIF Optical > S/PDIF RCA >>>> analog

No noise. USB is slightly better because connection is sturdier but otherwise yeah

>>60170160
usb may close ground loops if the equipment is shitty.

>>60170115
>Sound quality is most affected in the order of its propagation--most by the quality of the waveform (the filetype), then by the DAC, then the amplifier, then the speaker.
that's true "all else being equal" but way, way off base in practice; the distortion introduced by a cheap DAC versus a good one is orders of magnitude less than the distortion introduced by cheap speakers. you can get good sound from $1000 speakers with a $35 DAC, but you can't get good sound from $35 speakers with a $1000 DAC

None of those. If you truly cared about minimizing EMI, you'd put the DAC as close as possible to the speaker's drivers and convert the entire signal path to digital transmission.

If you aren't using network cables for your speakers, you've already fucked up.

>>60170214
There's significant diminishing returns past the $200 in all of the involved hardware though.

>people think you can "undigitalize" digital audio with a DAC

my fucking sides kek, it's no different than turning a jpg to a png

Solid gold wire spliced to the anus and mouth of a LIVING, NOT DEAD gerbil produces the cleanest audio you will ever hear.

I hate audiophiles so god damn much

Anyway use the fucking optical