r00ty

Yeah but if a normal cable stops the music entirely you clean the contacts or buy a new one and then suddenly it’s back to a perfect reproduction.

Well. I wasn’t really thinking of a rolex specifically. Just comparing the use of precious metals or gemstones on a watch that doesn’t increase the functionality in any way, in the same way the gold plating doesn’t increase the functionality of the optical cable. But it sure looks good.

So I guess, yes. Lol.

deleted by creator

Well. If it negotiates a lower bit rate I’m pretty sure the audiophile level kit will tell you it’s no longer 24 bit 96khz or whatever the cool kids use now.

But I’m pretty sure most High bitrate systems will have some level forward error correction, when the cable cannot deliver the snr needed to repair errors the signal will usually completely drop out. It will be perfect then gone.

Without error correction, random bit errors in digital audio are seriously jarring.

Having high quality (in terms of screening and contacts) won’t have the kind of subtle change it can have with analogue signals. With analogue you’re fighting things that can be minor like induced noise.

I did qualify that I was talking about electrical cables distinctly and precisely because the image is of an optical cable.

Isn’t that pretty much what I said?

With a digital cable (the electrical kind) you don’t hear the difference. Either the connection is good enough to get the data stream error free, or it will be dropping in and out and you’d need to clean the contacts or get a new cable.

Now go read my other comment in this thread and realise this was about as obvious as you can make sarcasm…

I do kinda see some point in gold plating electrical cables. Gold doesn’t tarnish so much and is also often used on computer edge connectors.

The issue has always been “audiophiles” telling you they can tell the difference with a gold or gold plated digital connector. Of course you cannot, you either are getting bit errors or not with digital audio. But they do generally provide a more reliable connection overall.

Now don’t ask me about my opinion, you’re talking to the guy that makes radio antennas with speaker wire. I am truly uncultured in terms of electrical connectivity.

See depends how you look at it. Will it make the cable perform better? No. But then neither do the diamonds around the edge of an expensive watch.

The gold is just there so you know it’s a quality cable. It’s like a rolex fibre cable.

Are you sure it was dot pitch and not dot clock?

Dot pitch on a crt might make the image look bad (trying to draw onto the shadow mask) but I doubt it would damage it.

Setting an invalid dot clock could damage some crts. But most of the modern (read from mid 90s on) would just go to the power save mode when they got a clock they couldn’t use. The warning did still remain on the xfree86 configuration guides though.

Showing my age perhaps.

More than 51 years if there’s one of those updates that will randomly decide to overwrite the UEFI removing your bootloader entirely :P

I’m going to give the fifa peace prize the same amount of respect I’d give a Nobel football world cup. Less even.

Well I mean it’s true if you also belive trigger’s broom in only fools and horses is still the same broom.

Probably only older people from the UK will get the reference. Sorry.

Yep. I also valid concerns. But those seem to be their next steps. I just wondered if there would be degradation. You wouldn’t even be able to tell until it reached the destination.

Definitely interesting stuff.

This is for communication, not computation or even cryptography. The point in transferring it this way is so as to maintain the unseen property of the photon.

I think my question on all this would be whether this would ultimately cause problems in terms of data integrity.

Currently most amplifiers for digital information are going to capture the information in the light, probably strip off any modulation to get to the raw data. Then re-modulate that using a new emitter.

The advantages of doing this over just amplifying the original light signal are the same reason switches/routers are store and forward (or at least decode to binary and re-modulate). When you decode the data from the modulated signal and then reproduce it, you are removing any noise that was present and reproducing a clean signal again.

If you just amplify light (or electrical) signals “as-is”, then you generally add noise every time you do this reducing the SNR a small amount. After enough times the signal will become non-recoverable.

So I guess my question is, does the process also have the same issue of an ultimate limit in how often you can re-transmit the signal without degradation.

Pretty sure this was made clear in the article but… I’ll outline the little I know on the subject as a complete layman.

Currently we have been able to use quantum effects to create single runs of fibre that cannot be intercepted. That is, if the data is intercepted by any known means the receiver will be able to detect this.

The shortcoming of this method, is that of course when you need to amplify the signal, that’s generally a “store and forward” operation and thus would also break this system’s detection. You could I guess perform the same operation wherever it is amplified, but it’s then another point in which monitoring could happen. If you want 1 trusted sender, 1 trusted receiver and nothing in between, this is a problem.

What this article is saying, is they have found a way to amplify the information without ever “reading” it. Therefore keeping the data integrity showing as “unseen” (for want of a better word). As such this will allow “secure” (I guess?) fibre runs of greater distances in the future.

Now the article does go into some detail about how this works and why. But, for the basic aspect of why this is a good and useful thing. This is pretty much what you need to know.

Thanks AI. Remind me how many megawatt hours your model consumed to create?

This is the world most of us want to live in I would think.

He is not the one to deliver it. He doesn’t really want that. If he did, he wouldn’t want $1t let alone fight to get it. Let alone all the other vile shit he has done, and will do.