It would make sense to compare the expensive cable to other TB4 cables, and not just $3 USBC cables.
The video’s comment section is full of “no one needs this” and “overpriced” and all that, but I thought audiophiles - whom I would think want to make sure their digital signals actually get sent and received optimally - would find this interesting. Maybe still not worth the money, but interesting to see.
I thought audiophiles - whom I would think want to make sure their digital signals actually get sent and received optimally
Except nothing here addresses that at all. Thunderbolt isn’t designed to take a single digital audio stream and transfer it accurately. It’s designed to take hundreds of times as much data as a digital audio stream and transfer it accurately through what’s a ludicrously small cable.
I think one of the reasons is the speed that the cable supports. While the connectors are the same, Apple’s cables are rated for much higher speeds. It’s no different from HDMI cables, regardless of price, one rated for HDMI 2.0 is going to be capable of faster speeds and therefore higher resolutions and refresh rates than one that is HDMI 1.X.
If you are using it only for audio and not pushing the speed limits it should not affect sound quality.
This is third mention of this exact issue with some of the same wording to come across my feed in 24 hours. Wondering what the genesis is.
This is a great thing about that USB C connector. It can be pretty universal, from low power delivery only to Thunderbolt 4. That’s also a problem, in that Thunderbolt 4 and low power delivery don’t have anything to do with each other than that connector.
An analogy that springs to mind is electrical plugs. In the US, the same Edison plug can be used to connect a 1 watt LED or a 1750 watt water kettle into the same outlet. Once could use 22 gauge wire perfectly safely, the other one could burn your house down if you did that.