technically it is true. The better cable, the better the transfer. I use digital audio as a reference. I *Know digital for the 16 bit 44.1 mhz of audio, and higher, will do better with a better cable.
But that isn't where most folks are centered. The computer industry surely isn't centered there. It is hard enough to get *real audio folks to get past brand names, to some of the craziest things that you can replicate ; to finding the difference... the idea that a coat hanger is a good audio conducter is still near at hand. As long as Radio Shack sells a cable for less than $5; it is sadly a mute point. Now to the practical, if it is a critical or otherwise high demand app; you'll find that everything from the power supply, to the cards, shielding, and nearly every other point in the *separates used for the job, will be necessarily contributing to the final product. On Wed, 3 Oct 2007, robert moore wrote: > Tom If any one says not to use cheepies unless over a long distance? > Correct me if I am wrong but as a general principle if quality is a concern > would you not think that the longer the travle data has to go the more you > might be concerned about the quality that is needed to cary the data? > I am not an electronics guy but it just seems logical. > Robert > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Tom Fowle > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2007 6:07 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [BlindHandyMan] New Tool Review > > I picked up a little pack including a so-called USB A to A cable > and a set of adaptors from USB A to several things. This was at a local > Big Lots store and didn't cost more than a few bucks. > > Anybody tells you not to use cheap USB cables, unless over a very long > distance, is nuts, cheapies work fine. > > tom > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >
