USB 3.0 Micro B Cable

Have a rather short USB 3.0 Micro B Cable to my external drive and
looking for a longer one, if it was 3 meters would that impact transfer
speeds?

On 05/03/2020 12:35 AM, Dex wrote:
Have a rather short USB 3.0 Micro B Cable to my external drive and
looking for a longer one, if it was 3 meters would that impact transfer
speeds?

No. But there may be an 8-yoctosecond delay.

Sunlight takes 8 minutes to get here. Starlight could take 80,000 years.
Transfer speed is the same.

And when you call India for tech support, Raj isn't speaking slowly.

On Sun, 03 May 2020 08:35:44 +0100, Dex wrote:

Have a rather short USB 3.0 Micro B Cable to my external drive and
looking for a longer one, if it was 3 meters would that impact transfer
speeds?

Doubt it if so sold. Unless spliced by M/F adaptors a cable isn't
going to be expected, reasonably, to be manufactured out of specs to
cause errors. There may be, aside, other factors, such as a USB hub
that operates a cable at different throughput specifications than the
source input USB, presumably at standard USB MB specifications. As
specifications relevant to cable length I might tend to doubt an
overriding for, say, a 20-foot USB, 6M cable, than perhaps your
proposed 3M.

I have a 3M USB cable, near or perhaps more, for discrete
computer-component, equipped with USB, Fx/effects processing on
instrumental music. Likely an afterthought I purchased at some point,
which works fine so far as control interface to the unit's parameters:
an onboard microprocessor control loops, which effects a secondary
loop comprised from sound instrument's analogue pick-up, also plugged
into the unit.

Not exactly, at USB2 and a few bits to turn on a reverb, say, type and
depth, what the throughput demands are to USB3 limits across a SSD or
USB3 flashstick, which, so I hear, can't get somewhat toasty hot in
latter instances. Then again, what I paid for that standard USB2 3M
cable should be entirely independent of form factoring the micrco-city
of connection types;- Not much (nickel-dime on pre-Trump antipartisan,
anti-Chinese tariffs), or something generally useful to at least test
considerately bandwidth copy errors. Keep your existing cable,
though. That you have external USB3 speeds is nice, something not
given all cases over enduser dissatisfaction between newer USB3
docking stations, and what at least some brands may purport and have
in fact to do.

Dex wrote:
Have a rather short USB 3.0 Micro B Cable to my external drive and
looking for a longer one, if it was 3 meters would that impact transfer
speeds?


Someone at a trade show here, got to test his USB3 camera,
with a cable manufacturer "active repeater" cable, to a
length of 14 meters. That's not a passive cable. A passive
cable would have checksums on packets, indicating corruption,
and the result should be a retransmission - because if the
protocol was not reliable, you would soon notice a
corruption issue. Even with a checksum, that only adds
about 3 orders of magnitude to the noise floor. The disk drive
itself has its own background error rate.

https://www.lumenera.com/blog/usb-3-...-you-really-go

To a certain extent "shorter is better", but the person making
the cables, should send them out to a lab that can do an
eye diagram and verify the eye opening is correct.

Whether manufacturers do this or not, the trademarked symbol
a manufacturer might receive a license to use, could specify
what has to be done to legally use the symbol. Whether the
standards body chooses to enforce "good quality" in products,
is another matter. There is probably a ton of rubbish on the
market - we have no way of knowing without very expensive kit
(storage scope with optional eye diagram software),
as to how much loss the cable has at the (recommended) max
length. The scope could cost $100K at speeds like that,
and have rigid plumbing for the interconnect.

You can go at least 300 meters with fiber optic cable,
not that this matters, as it's rather inconvenient stuff
to work with. Such a scheme can't be any cheaper than
a dollar a meter, and the terminal units on the
ends could cost an astronomical amount extra. Then
there's also the issue of someone testing such an
expensive scheme, for its impact on transfer speed.
If nobody owns stuff like this, we'll never know.

Paul

On Fri, 08 May 2020 01:36:04 -0400, Paul
wrote:

You can go at least 300 meters with fiber optic cable,
not that this matters, as it's rather inconvenient stuff
to work with.

SPDIF, red-laser optical transmission of audio to intermittent stages,
DAC stages into vacuum-tube preamps, have been interesting. The
board, itself generating the laser, is ASUS' contribution, PCI
soundboards, to a "World of Economical HiFi". Whereas ASUS' own
onboard DAC, though well received, would seem less than a capacity for
raw SPDIF output, in mating CS8416 digital receiver chip for the final
DAC analogue conversion (vis a mixer and vintage DBX compression unit)
to a pair of final vacuum-tubed preamps for bi-amping).

Considering audio in any traditional sense, this is in a newer cabling
interconnection of "hybridized" digital computer interfaces to
traditional analogue hi-wattage amps. At the lower-end cost
denominators of HiFi, as a pro-SPDIF unit can run up into the
thousands of dollars when engineering, rather tailoring digital sounds
by preference to headphones.

In any event, the fiber optical cables I handpicked, for the least
costly of the lowest, of course, would expectedly have proved rather
problematic, at least in a most common form, that being the
square-plug S/PDIF connection variety;- I haven't worked with laser as
a coax option on costlier DACs. The thing being with inexpensive laser
cables, is the innermost laser-carrier conductive within the cable.
The optical receiver mating, specifically, inclusive of such as laser
splitters for branching out from one source into two or more laser
cables. Inner-cable slippage is occurring, to where end laser
refractions deflect from proper signal mating. By pushing on the
cable, slippage can be observed for adjustment to where the
inner-cable's laser actually ends, in relation to the cable plug, and
how that is consequent, quite, to a female receptor wherein its
destined for mating.

Periodic randomness from pops and click is one fault, in instance of a
DAC's synchronization occurring infrequently, to altogether a
immediate synchronization failure fault. Much worse, altogether,
whereby to judge a sensitivity factor, physically, than decently solid
analogue jacks of yesteryear. On the other hand, although practically
this is as much a "left field" endeavor, the results given to S/PDIF
packet conventions over some DAC offerings are pretty sweet-sounding
indeed. The CS8416 DAC is aureally an airier transposition, and, for
one certainly within economical hobbyist pricing, nevertheless well
worth a decided temperament to optical routing. (Two CS8416 equipped
units may not, however, be engineered, nor branded, to hardly be
expected to sound quite alike, but for, perhaps, characteristics
similar to the CS8416 DAC, as opposed to other DAC designs.)