61–70 of 181 posts
I actually purchased one of these as this article has surfaced before. It’s well worth the hype, I used it to audit all my cables (both for home and work) and it’s amazing how many thick and unwieldy cables are actually terrible for data. For example I purchased a pair of B&W Px8 S2 noise cancelling headphones, which boast a DAC if you connect via USB-C directly, the cable it came with though was thick but only rated…
One of these devices for approximately $100 would sell all day long.
The thing that has been bothering me for a while is that the USB spec allows for software detection of capabilities. You can read the emarker data and see the supported protocols, speeds, voltages, etc. But there is not standard for usb controllers to present this data to the OS. So it’s stuck in the low level firmware and never passed up. In theory we could have a popup box that tells you that both your computer and…
> But there is not standard for usb controllers to present this data to the OS. So it’s stuck in the low level firmware and never passed up. In theory we could have a popup box that tells you that both your computer and other device support higher speeds/more power, but your cable is limiting it. There is. I used to use a KVM with USB 2 ports connected to my PC's USB 3 port, to which I connected a monitor with integr…
I actually purchased one of these as this article has surfaced before. It’s well worth the hype, I used it to audit all my cables (both for home and work) and it’s amazing how many thick and unwieldy cables are actually terrible for data. For example I purchased a pair of B&W Px8 S2 noise cancelling headphones, which boast a DAC if you connect via USB-C directly, the cable it came with though was thick but only rated…
Is there any audio you might play that doesn't fit in 400Mbps?
It’s rigid and thick, like a Thunderbolt 3 cable, yet only supports USB 2.0 speeds and fast charging for a device that doesn’t need fast charging.
Compare that to Apple’s iPhone USB-C cable which is thin, flexible, and supports the same features.
That matters because someone might grab that cable assuming it’s a “better cable”: it came with a £629 product, it’s thick and feels serious, so surely it’s capable. But it isn’t. And there’s nothing marked on it to tell you otherwise.
The whole system ends up relying on presumption, which is exactly the problem the device in the article is solving.
The thing that has been bothering me for a while is that the USB spec allows for software detection of capabilities. You can read the emarker data and see the supported protocols, speeds, voltages, etc. But there is not standard for usb controllers to present this data to the OS. So it’s stuck in the low level firmware and never passed up. In theory we could have a popup box that tells you that both your computer and…
> In theory we could have a popup box that tells you that both your computer and other device support higher speeds/more power, but your cable is limiting it. I'm pretty sure my old Dell XPS laptop with Windows 10 had pop-ups just like this. "This device can run faster" or something.
I wasn't surprised to learn that when Linus Tech Tips released those new usb-c cables, that they all sold out almost instantly. They put their entire reputation on the line to claim (and label) the exact capabilities of their usb cables. Isn't that all we really want?
Of course they are advertising their own new USB cable, but as someone who didn't know much about USB cables I find it quite interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there any audio you might play that doesn't fit in 400Mbps?
The point isn’t really about audio bandwidth; it’s about the cable being strangely overbuilt for what it actually does. It’s rigid and thick, like a Thunderbolt 3 cable, yet only supports USB 2.0 speeds and fast charging for a device that doesn’t need fast charging. Compare that to Apple’s iPhone USB-C cable which is thin, flexible, and supports the same features. That matters because someone might grab that cable as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point isn’t really about audio bandwidth; it’s about the cable being strangely overbuilt for what it actually does. It’s rigid and thick, like a Thunderbolt 3 cable, yet only supports USB 2.0 speeds and fast charging for a device that doesn’t need fast charging. Compare that to Apple’s iPhone USB-C cable which is thin, flexible, and supports the same features. That matters because someone might grab that cable as…
The reason it is thick is because it supports 65W charging. Apple did the same with the USB-C cables that shipped with the pre-MagSafe MacBooks. It was a thicker cable that supported 100w charging but was only USB 2.0.
Or, why Apple manages the same in half the footprint?
Or, why someone would expect that a cable that came with a pair of headphones actually charges things at over 65w?