ralphpnj wrote:
Don't be sad - there's an app for that!
Ah, yes, it is always nice to be able to be sad in a trendy hipster way.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool
Archimago wrote:
It's HDTracks, Pono, etc.'s turn to give some evidence to justify their
position that 24-bit hi-res in whatever sample rate has any value even
within the audiophile crowd.
Hear, hear!
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art
netchord wrote:
sure i do. music is not defined by bits.
You can only know what you think you hear - unless you verify it by
objective means. Which you don't want to do. So we are back where we
started - no way of knowing if there was a change in the actual sound
waves in your room - and
get.amped wrote:
Everything Matters should have a (TM) after it. Soft of like Best
Buy(TM) to indicate a slogan that is patently not true but may be
useful in marketing.
More than just may. It is a great tool for marketing that speaks to
the OCD side in us. If everything matters, your system
netchord wrote:
something you cannot possibly say w/ any certainty since you have not
heard my system either before or after the config change, and with my
ears, and my own mental processing.
all you can say is that some theoretical system, with a theoretical
listener, might sound the
netchord wrote:
you may be able to say the -files- have not changed.
If the files haven't changed, the music being sent to your DAC hasn't
changed, unless aliens are using their transmogrification beam.
the music definitely has.
You don't know that.
To try to judge the real from the
darrenyeats wrote:
Disabled just for you!
Appreciated! :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
netchord wrote:
what was the expectation, or perception bias in this instance?
I guess primarily the expectation that your sensory system is a
well-calibrated, precise and consistent measurement system.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of
netchord wrote:
what was the expectation, or perception bias in this instance?
It sounds very much like a lot of other similar cases I have
experienced. Someone makes a small change that really shouldn't affect
the sound at all (such as rearranging the record collection in the shelf
next to
netchord wrote:
everything matters.
But not equally.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
netchord wrote:
frankly, it seems your biases are much more thoroughly ingrained
Indeed. I am a very strong believer in provable facts, but more than
happy to be proven wrong - with facts and evidence. Please do!
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
probedb wrote:
Next you'll be telling us you renamed the files and moved them to
another drive and the change in sound was night and day.
This is the audiophile subforum after all... :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity'
netchord wrote:
you're imagining it
Your words, not mine. I prefer to talk about expectation bias,
perception bias and other well-documented phenomena instead of using
emotionally loaded terms. Some people seem to assume that the human
sensory system is a well-calibrated, precise and
darrenyeats wrote:
That the hearer really hears the difference is undeniable ... the only
question is why.
Indeed.
The problem is ubiquitous but it causes most havoc when judging
potential differences that are subtle.
Yes. Much easier when it is clear that there is no rational physical
netchord wrote:
but it seems just as likely that the server has to work less hard, and
this explains the change.
No, not really. While the server might work marginally less hard, it is
extremely unlikely that it would result in audible differences, while
the other explanations offered here
netchord wrote:
what's the basis for this ranking of likelihood?
Occam's razor. One explanation stipulates mechanisms beyond current
scientific and engineering knowledge, the other doesn't.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
netchord wrote:
i'm really hearing it
How did you verify that?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
I was going to ask how many of these apply to hi-fi?, but then I
realized it is probably better to ask any that don't apply?
'Business Insider: 58 Cognitive Biases That Screw Up Everything We Do'
(http://www.businessinsider.com/cognitive-biases-2014-6)
To try to judge the real from the false
Gandhi wrote:
Good stuff.
While I admit to suffering from all of these problems, it's not
immediate clear to me how the following pertains to audiophilism: Affect
heuristic, Duration neglect, Galatea effect, Hard-Easy bias, Omission
bias.
Hmm... Yes, those ones are pretty hard to apply
Gandhi wrote:
EDIT: Better make that sines with cosines on the side. To go.
Well, a cosine is a sine that is running a bit late... :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will
andy_c wrote:
Just ran across the '_My_Time_At_Hovland_'
(http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/227913-my-time-hovland-hp-100-lore.html)
thread at diyaudio.com. Funny stuff!
Excellent!
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
Gandhi wrote:
How does one avoid becoming (even more) cynical with the accumulation of
knowledge? Please let me know.
If you find out, please let me know as well!
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear
... goes to Helmut Brinkmann of Brinkmann Audio GmbH, manufacturer of
the Balance 2 vinyl player and RöNt II power supply.
I happened to read the review in Hi-Fi News (the only non-pro audio mag
I still subscribe to - they used to be pretty good, with decent
measurements for the hi-res record
Wombat wrote:
RöNt = Tube-PSU
Ah! Should have figured that out...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
lrossouw wrote:
What is interesting to me is that the effect works both ways. Peoples
beliefs (good or bad) stop them from seeing/accepting the truth.
'Confirmation Bias' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_Bias)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
darrenyeats wrote:
For example, it's obvious someone who is against vaccines is very likely
to be distrustful of the motives of the establishment and the health
industry.
Just like someone who believes in UFOs is very likely to be distrustful
of the motives of the establishment and the
darrenyeats wrote:
Julf, I think we agree about what the study involved and what its
conclusions were. I'm just saying the result was no surprise!
I agree. But a lot of scientific research involves actually confirming
things that come as no surprise to anyone.
To try to judge the real from
Audiotic wrote:
I think we can trust the Germans here.
Trust but verify...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
Audiotic wrote:
My own ears tell me that.
Just like your eyes tell you that the orange dot on the right is larger
than the one on the left?
15969
Have you tried using *only* your ears?
+---+
|Filename: Mond-vergleich.jpg
Audiotic wrote:
From SBT to Transporter yes, and from Transporter to Linn (which I had
before the Marantz). Not from Linn to Marantz.
How did you do the tests (SBT vs Transporter and Transporter vs Linn)?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art
bonze wrote:
So he named his software after you. That's either very sweet or very
creepy.
Indeed. And while I think it is an honor to have soft#7811;are named
after you, it is somewhat moderated by the usefulness (or rather lack of
it) of this particular piece of software.
At least SBGK
lrossouw wrote:
It does become trickier when the opposing views lacks all scientific
method. I'm happy to accept that you subjectively find something
better or suitable but if you want to say that it's objectively
better you are going to have to prove it.
Agree. Just like there is per se
SBGK wrote:
It wasn't my fault you got banned from computer audiophile and tirna
hifi, but thanks for the shout out.
Indeed. In no way your fault that as soon as I made my first posting,
you stated that you refused to participate in the forum as long as I was
a member. True.
To try to
foxx wrote:
I'd like to add the whole of the NAIM forum
In that case, I nominate all of Computer Audiophool.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W
andy_c wrote:
One of my favorite posts over there is '_this_one_by_Cookie_Marenco_'
(http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f13-audiophile-downloads/sound-better-uncompressed-downloaded-files-6158/#post70764),
in which she claims that sound quality of music files degrades when sent
by email, and
Mnyb wrote:
I do like to compare it with cargo cults.
Hey! Don't diss people's religious beliefs!
I was a practising Cargo Cultist until I was Touched by His Noodly
Appendage. That doesn't make me a bad person (as I was one already).
To try to judge the real from the false will always be
ralphpnj wrote:
So let's have a little fun picking some low hanging fruit(loopery).
SBGK's 'MQN Player'
(http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f11-software/visual-studio-2012-c-and-wasapi-minimalist-player-15401/),
where minor differences in the player software make night and day
differences to
jimmypowder wrote:
I have listened to 7.8 and I have to admit the soundstage is fuller .the
vocals seem more detailed while the bass appears tighter . Any grain
in lower bitrate files has been diminished while the treble appears to
have greater clarity. My sound measurements have indeed
blacsno wrote:
The single most important piece is the DAC!
More important than the speakers? Or just more important than the
computer?
If you are converting CD to FLAC. Since hard drive space isn't a concern
anymore, I've moved onto aiff format with the added benefit of tagging.
Are you
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
I am excited enough about this new server software that I no longer have
to drink my Metamucil.
That is because you haven't yet hear how good it sounds when compiled
with the --audiphile option. Day and night difference, and so many veils
removed that it turns
jimmypowder wrote:
Quadruple blind
That only works for surround sound.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
Double blind with my equipment.
Speakers:Radio Shack Mono
Amp: Pylepro Walmart
Headphones: Beats by Dr.Dre
Control:Ipeng
Player:Squeezebox 1
Where's the your system is not resolving enough crowd? ;)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
I haven't trained myself to hear artifacts,I just have sensitive ears
and when I do my critical listening Im about 2 feet from the Genelecs on
my computer desk.
And you use duble-blind ABX?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
SBGK wrote:
with mp3 vs cd all that is required is to find a complicated bit of
music and it will be evident that the psychoacoustics employed by mp3
cannot resolve the detail and it becomes slurred, no A/B testing
required just listen to a 10s segment for slurred detail compared to the
CD
get.amped wrote:
Neil deGrasse Tyson recently said during an interview on The Colbert
Report, Once science has been established, once a scientific truth
emerges from a consensus of experiments and observations, it is the way
of the world. What Im saying is, when different experiments give
Archimago wrote:
Yes. I'll see about subjecting the data to stats analysis of
significance. As of today, I've got 50 responses and hope to achieve at
least 150 like I did with the MP3 vs. FLAC test last year by the end of
it.
Great! Really looking forward to the results!
To try to judge
marflao wrote:
So does that make me a non-believer? Guess not.
Just out of curiosity, what would it take?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W
So in the endI´m looking forward to the findings.
@Archimago: have you thought about analyzing the statistical
significance of the results? What conclusion can be drawn, if, let's
say, 62% of the responses show a preference for the real 24-bit
tracks?
To try to judge the real from the
marflao wrote:
what I meant is that even I heard no difference based on the way I
tested it I do respect others findings that there is/might be a
difference between the files. Just from sonic point of view.
Fair enough! I am just curious about what it would take, in general, to
convince the
Archimago wrote:
As if there's some kind of heretical thinking going on here
Well, I definitely felt a bit of a heretic when I got a 1-week ban on
Pink Fish for saying Any evidence?. Yes, those two words was all I
responded, and that got me banned. :)
Speaking of heresy... I also left a
Triplefun wrote:
It seems I require a 5db XLR line attenuator (=20*log(1.63/3.00) =
-5.3db).
This seems rather low and is it really required?
The value itself is correct, as the attenuation you need is not very
much (and so little that I wouldn't bother with it) *if* you want to be
able to
Mnyb wrote:
It would work fine without it to , but ipk3 based squeezeboxes (sb3
transporter etc ) has a very rare bug when they sometimes emit noise at
full volume , you get it every 5 years or soo :) , fix is a xilink reset
.
Ah, yes, good point.
To try to judge the real from the false
Gandhi wrote:
Somewhere in this thread there are suggestions to also compare 16/44.1
and 24/96.
The issue with that is that it is even harder to make that test
non-cheatable. One approach I tried was to use material that doesn't
contain much HF energy (so that anything beyond 22 kHz drowns in
Gandhi wrote:
Silly me. Why would anyone want to trust the principle that makes it
possible to evaluate medical drugs and build functioning rockets and
nuclear powerplants.
Not only that, but also used to develop all the technologies (starting
with the transistor) that make audio systems
Gandhi wrote:
Placebo is well known, but could somebody perhaps recommend some good
research regarding flaws in auditory perception?
There is of course quite a lot of psychoacoustic research published, but
Oliver Sacks has done a pretty good job of popularising some of the
stuff in
Archimago wrote:
Indeed Julf. The Theory of Knowledge class was one of my favourites when
I did IB in high school back in the late 80's! (Diploma program with
Extended Essay and all...)
Glad to hear! My wife is a teacher and IB coordinator, and used to do
the ToK...
To try to judge
deadushka wrote:
From abracadabra above I understand that you didn't notice the
difference. Too bad. You're running for Deaf Skunk Award.
I think I have to question your use of the word understand. I think
you failed the Turing Test.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be
deadushka wrote:
Did you listen to 7.8.0?
Yes. I could hear the hard disk rotating, but it sounded pretty much the
same as with 7.7.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will
Thanks for moving the thread to where it is more appropriate (albeit
deleting it might have been even better).
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W
deadushka wrote:
Try some jazz or any other uncompressed music.
I feel sorry for the poor horse, pining for the fjords while being
flaggellated way beyond what could be considered proper...
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
Mnyb wrote:
Another troll sign.
Which is why I suspect a relative of 'Mark V Shaney'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_V_Shaney).
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool
deadushka wrote:
Well, suit yourself. I'm perfectly happy with the sound I get now.
So am I.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
Archimago wrote:
Just invited the boys at ComputerAudiophile General Forum last night...
Interesting - that will test how good your masking is - if one of them
figures out a way to tell the samples apart, they will all use that
instead of actually listening (this based on a similar listening
Mnyb wrote:
Deadushka is some kind of troll dont respond to it see the other tread
it started :)
Ah, yes, thanks for the heads-up! :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will
deadushka wrote:
That's only because your system doesn't have enough resoluton to show
the difference IMHO.
Ah, yes. Could also be my ears aren't refined enough, or that the
negative vibrations from my scepticism blocks any differences. Do you
think sticking a price tag with a really big
Mnyb wrote:
or do people turn up the reverbtails with headphones or creep closer to
their speaker and turn up or what ?
Even then they probably won't hear a difference - I guess that's why
they are resorting to null tests and other technotrickery...
To try to judge the real from the false
Mnyb wrote:
But whats the point :) i dont get their mindset .
being right is what counts :)
this pinkfish forum are there many in the trade around who might have a
vested interest in proving things one way or another ?
(I dont expect people that sells 1000$ power cords to people with
mlsstl wrote:
I use a tube amp, not because it sounds better, but because I like tube
equipment for aesthetic reasons -- a fondness from building and working
on tube gear over 40 years ago.
Not only that, but I actually like the sound of my tube amp - for some
types of stuff. But I *know*
darrenyeats wrote:
But the fact sighted impressions are unreliable doesn't mean they are
wrong.
Unfortunately that is logically pretty close to just because we have no
evidence that unicorns might exist, we can't prove they *don't* exist.
There is no mention of double blind listening in
darrenyeats wrote:
The point being, you are not necessarily the victim of bias because you
hear something.
Indeed. Which is why I wrote:
Julf wrote:
So the next step, if you think you can hear a difference, is to verify
it. By double-blind listening.
Sent from my desktop computer using
darrenyeats wrote:
I would very much like to see a new set of standardised tests which can
really represent a rich, complex signal in a meaningful way.
That rich, complex signal will consist of a sum of sine waves.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
ralphpnj wrote:
Here in the USA we are quickly learning that the old adage quoted above
also applies to education. By basing so much on a few standardized tests
we are discovering that teachers simply teach to the test, students do
well on the tests and learn basically nothing useful.
darrenyeats wrote:
Julf, yes it's a sum of sine waves (kind of, for the purposes of this
discussion) but where do we actually test a sum of sine waves?
When testing for intermodulation. Two is many, any additional ones are
just extension of the same model.
A single sine wave test reveals
dhallag wrote:
Overall, I am very happy to know scientifically that as long as you have
a shielded cable, that's all you really need and thus no need to waste
money on cables. Much appreciated the advise to read Archimago's
measurements.
Glad to hear. Just like Archimago, I too started out
Archimago wrote:
Wondering what the tube-DAC-loving folks are hoping to achieve.
I think you answer this yourself: :)
The tube output stage certainly made things sound (and measure)
different!
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
dhallag wrote:
I'm not sure if all USB cables are created equal and would imagine not.
Why not? Have you seen archimago's tests?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool
dhallag wrote:
ok -- thanks for the education! I guess it doesn't make a difference.
There are people who really, really believe (almost like the Elactric
Monk) that they do make a difference, but funny enough they tend to go
quiet when it is pointed out that if there is a difference, the
firedog wrote:
1. I own 2 SBT's and a fit pc. The Sony is much better sounding. No
comparison.
To you. How do you know that it will be better sounding to anyone else?
BTW, if you haven't heard a native DSD recording of acoustic
instruments, you might be amazed at how good it sounds.
BTW,
dhallag wrote:
yes it is when I asked that question, I got a long answer about
power and better spdif out.
That sounds a bit like it is better because it is better :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery
dhallag wrote:
So this is for sale on ebay and I wanted to ask you experts if you
thought this is worth the price? I talked to the store manager the
other day...
Do they provide any sort of evidence that the modifications actually
improve the sound?
To try to judge the real from the
dhallag wrote:
isn't that in the ear of the beholder?
It is hard to listen to the product through ebay.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W
No need to move. For just $ 4999.75 I can sell you our wonderful
powerline filter, originally designed to remove the horrible,
radioactive electrons from nuclear power plants. Our Mk II can filter
away any gas-generated electrons, leaving a pure stream of carbon
electrons. On our web site you can
dhallag wrote:
I've seen that updating the power for the Touch really makes a
difference
Where have you seen that? Just because somebody sells a product doesn't
mean that that product is actually needed.
The touch as it is, with the stock power supply, gives a great sound.
To try to
dhallag wrote:
My impression is that many people that have done things to upgrade the
Touch have done so by updating the power.
Yes, as it is the easiest tweak to do - but I still haven't seen any
proper evidence it makes any real difference. I couldn't hear any
difference when I was using
Archimago wrote:
Note that I will upconvert the 16-bit version back to 24-bits for the
test plus maybe a few tweaks to help disguise the files from simple
16-bit detector programs :-).
Proper dithering should do it.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
snoogly wrote:
http://www.japantoday.com/category/new-products/view/hi-res-audio-stereo-system-and-speaker
Seems it can up-sample turds into diamonds.
Yes, the kind of magic called marketing :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high
Mark Waldrep seems like a good, clued-up guy. I did get a 1-minute
sample from Robert von Bahr of BIS for a test a couple of years ago, but
it was only vocal music with almost no energy above 15 kHz, so not the
best test sample, and after the attempt at an objective test caused a
huge amount of
Mnyb wrote:
Since I assumed you are a recording pro.
Definitely not a recording pro, just some experience with pro gear and
installations.
Would not air be good at absorbing ultrasonics?
While absorbtion definitely goes up pretty steeply with frequency, it is
still less than 1-2 dB/m even
Archimago wrote:
40 years ago would have been about Dark Side Of The Moon (1973).
Clearly those old tapes have provided us with excellent quality
remasters over the years. In time, if Morning Phase ever were to be
reissued, I wonder just how much improvement could be had from those
master
RonM wrote:
Shouldn't that be OUR misguided beliefs?
Sure, if you consider belief in evidence a misguided belief. :)
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people
Quad wrote:
PS: But remember, I passed a properly designed ABX test for MP3@320kbs
vs. FLAC with a recording I own physically, ripped and converted by
myself. I would be more than happy to reproduce the result for you at
any time. Sorry couldn't resist. :-)
I am sure you are aware that some
Quad wrote:
There is no better way to explain doublethink.
That a hearing defect prevents something that makes assumptions about
your hearing from working?
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid
Quad wrote:
To me it sounds clearly better than Windows 8 without any adjustments.
And your auditory memory is long enough to be able to make a reliable
comparision?
What aspect of the audio data that the computer sends out to the network
do you think can be affected by any OS tuning as long
Mnyb wrote:
He using Squeezeplay ON that computer ...
Ah! Thanks!
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear a solid gilt
edge that will fool many people - Paul W Klipsch, 1953
Daverz wrote:
I would also want to test 24/44 against 16/44. I have an impression
that the bit depth matters, but it's untested.
There has been quite a lot of scientific studies and tests. Bit depth
only affects dynamic range/SNR, and 16 bits already give more than any
source material needs.
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
Well if a lossless music service comes along(I think France has one) you
certainly won't be able to play it on the Touch.
Really? For most new services there has been a 3rd party app supporting
it pretty quickly.
Maybe Pono(Neil Young's upcoming music service)
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
The only 3rd party app i see is Triode's Spotify app.
I see at least BBC iplayer, NPR radio, Radio Paradise, Classic FM,
jazzFM, Quobuz. RTE, Wefunk, Youtube and bandcamp.
Are you saying when mysqueezebox ends,there will be developers chomping
at the bit to
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
Most of those 3rd party apps you don't need .Cant you play Radio
Paradise ,NPR,Clasic FM ,WEfunk by just adding the url to favorites?
Sure. The point is that there is a host of 3rd party apps.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
jhonsber...@msn.com wrote:
It can be extended.
With an active repeater that regenerates the signal, yes. But a normal
USB cable shouldn't be longer than 3 or 5 m.
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of 'high fidelity' the quackery will bear
garym wrote:
as an aside, what is the max length one can run a USB cable? Several
hundred feet? Not sure, just curious
Depending on speed and USB version, either 3 or 5 m (10 and 16 ft,
respectively).
To try to judge the real from the false will always be hard. In this
fast-growing art of
901 - 1000 of 1245 matches
Mail list logo
