Posted by Adrian A on 10/14/06 19:35

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

[Back to original message]