1m long, solid silver, AQ's best ever digital cable.
Cost £150, asking £50 posted anywhere in the world.
Simon

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:47:12 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Simon Connell wrote:
1m long, solid silver, AQ's best ever digital cable.

Just about any cable ever made would carry digits over that distance.

Especially in the not so demanding world of digital HiFi. I mean, what is
cd, 150k/s? A £1 length of cat5 is good for at least 100M/s, enough for
more than 600 cd streams.

--
Jim H

Hi,

In message , Jim H
writes
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:47:12 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Simon Connell wrote:
1m long, solid silver, AQ's best ever digital cable.

Just about any cable ever made would carry digits over that distance.

Especially in the not so demanding world of digital HiFi. I mean, what
is cd, 150k/s? A £1 length of cat5 is good for at least 100M/s, enough
for more than 600 cd streams.

Right idea, but you're mixing bits and bytes.


--
Glenn Booth

In article ,
Jim H wrote:
1m long, solid silver, AQ's best ever digital cable.

Just about any cable ever made would carry digits over that distance.

Especially in the not so demanding world of digital HiFi. I mean, what
is cd, 150k/s? A £1 length of cat5 is good for at least 100M/s, enough
for more than 600 cd streams.

Yup. But you've got to understand the thinking. It's conceivable that
really poor (high capacitance) or extra long interconnects can make a
difference to an analogue signal - especially if high impedance valve
equipment is used.

So for those who don't *want* to understand any theory, *all*
interconnects can make a difference. That the signal is digital makes no
difference to this thinking at all.

--
*If at first you don't succeed, redefine success.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:16:54 +0100, Glenn Booth
wrote:

Hi,

In message , Jim H
writes
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 23:47:12 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Simon Connell wrote:
1m long, solid silver, AQ's best ever digital cable.

Just about any cable ever made would carry digits over that distance.

Especially in the not so demanding world of digital HiFi. I mean, what
is cd, 150k/s? A £1 length of cat5 is good for at least 100M/s, enough
for more than 600 cd streams.

Right idea, but you're mixing bits and bytes.


Oops. Never can get used to network engineers measuring everything in bits.
Anyway, I forget which is b/B so you can get either 600/8 or 600*8 cd
streams down cat5, both of which are contsiderably more than what you're
likely to actually need, 1

--
Jim

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:38:28 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Jim H wrote:
1m long, solid silver, AQ's best ever digital cable.

Just about any cable ever made would carry digits over that distance.

Especially in the not so demanding world of digital HiFi. I mean, what
is cd, 150k/s? A £1 length of cat5 is good for at least 100M/s, enough
for more than 600 cd streams.

Yup. But you've got to understand the thinking. It's conceivable that
really poor (high capacitance) or extra long interconnects can make a
difference to an analogue signal - especially if high impedance valve
equipment is used.

So for those who don't *want* to understand any theory, *all*
interconnects can make a difference. That the signal is digital makes no
difference to this thinking at all.


My favourite bit is when WhatHifi etc claim a CD transport to be "working
very hard". Yeah, right, that's why a £15 pc cd rom drive can read with
*ZERO* error at 30-50 times that speed!

--
Jim H

A certain Jim H, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Especially in the not so demanding world of digital HiFi. I mean, what
is cd, 150k/s? A £1 length of cat5 is good for at least 100M/s, enough
for more than 600 cd streams.

Y'all got that right. This is snake-oil at it's finest.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com