|
|
Posted by guv on 10/14/06 19:42
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:35:36 +0100, "Adrian A" <anca@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
>guv wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:39:04 +0100, "Adrian A" <anca@bigfoot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> guv wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:58:48 +0100, "Adrian A" <anca@bigfoot.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> guv wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:52:33 +0100, "the dog from that film you
>>>>>> saw" <dsb@REMOVETHECAPITALSbtinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ....looking at toslink optic cables, as mine has gone
>>>>>>>>> walkies... and they seem to be making a deal out of the tips
>>>>>>>>> being gold.
>>>>>>>>> Now surely this is daft, as the material of the end casing
>>>>>>>>> cannot effect an optical transmission in any way...can it??
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would imagine its something to do with electrical current and
>>>>>>>> interference at the point of contact.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I dont know if that is the case, but the logic sounds
>>>>>>>> reasonable!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> its digital.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I realise that!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if the interference was bad enough to make a difference you'd
>>>>>>> hear it - you'd have dropouts and nasty clicking.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What other reason can you suggest for the notion that using gold
>>>>>> is better?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's just a marketing gimmick, only an idiot would think it makes a
>>>>> difference to an optical signal.
>>
>>>> Well I dont regard myself as an idiot and would add that if they are
>>>> claiming there is improved performance - that cannot be gained -
>>>> they risk law suits from trading standards and competitors etc.
>>>> Whilst they may be willing to gamble on this, I've seen nothing to
>>>> conclusively prove there isnt.
>>>>
>>>> You wont argue that all CD or DVD players are equal would you? Thats
>>>> digital also!
>>>
>>> Well I haven't read the claims they make so they probably only imply
>>> improved perfmorance, though you could well be regarded as an idiot
>>> as you seem incapable of using apostophes.
>>
>> How fucking ironic.
>>
>> What are "apostophes" and "improved perfmorance"? Technical terms I'm
>> not aware of perhaps? Or just proof you are not as smart as you think
>> you are? I'll assume the latter.
>>
>> And if you haven't read it, how the hell can you claim they only
>> "imply" improvements? Psychic perhaps?
>
>You've proved what a prat you are. PLONK
Thank fuck I won't have to read through your idiotic trolling replies
then.
Good riddance, fuckwit.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|