CheezyWeezle

If you have only one device on Wi-Fi, multiplexing turned off, or especially if you have MU-MIMO support, Wi-Fi can be faster than a single wired connection. It is still higher latency and subject to other drawbacks such as security and power consumption, but of course it offers advantages that can outweigh the disadvantages depending on use case and user needs.

That said, it’s technically not faster than the cable, but rather faster at the data link or network layer. For example, CAT8 physically supports up to 40Gbps, but most consumer and even professional electronics only support up to 2.5Gbps. Only really enterprise level switches can push up to like 100Gbps onto copper, and even then that’s using QSFP transceivers, not RJ-45 connections. Fiber cables regularly push 400Gbps.

When WSL first came out, all the documentation i read from Microsoft led me to believe it was intended to help developers who are cross-developing software for both Linux and Windows to more easily test features and compatibility and to ensure software behaves consistently. It never seemed like they intended it to be used to run Linux programs fully and integrate into the Windows environment. It always seemed like it was just there for convenience so a smaller budget developer could develop on one machine and not need to be constantly rebooting or running VMs.

So, wait, you are claiming that a Windows update broke your hardware so bad you had to reinstall the firmware, but it magically worked on a linux distro? First of all, that means it wasn’t “permanently stopped [from] working”. Second, I hate to break it to you, but it sounds like Windows might have fucked up a setting, and then you user-errored your way into breaking things. I’ve never had something break that can’t be fixed with a full system restore or reinstall, and it sounds like you had a problem just like that. If it worked on Linux, you could have gotten it working on Windows, too, because it’s clearly a software error at that point.

You may know the difference between a DAC and Amp, but you clearly don’t understand what I’m trying to say. I’m saying that a DAC doesn’t have its own power output. It literally takes a digital signal, and converts it to analog. In order for it to add any power to the signal, it needs to include an amplifier. Otherwise, the signal will always be a little bit weaker due to the power loss from traveling through the DAC. Most DAC units have at least a weak amplifier for this reason, but there are some units that are just a DAC. And the Amp part isn’t going to be controlling the digital volume, i.e. changing the system volume on your device. It will operate on its own volume control, so regardless of how limited the output is from your phone, it will still be made louder as it amplifies the volume independently of the phone. A unit that is just a DAC doesn’t have any way to amplify the signal it receives, so it will never be able to make it louder.

You said explicitly that the android system will limit the output of any DAC, but that is wrong on multiple counts. The android system will not limit the output of a DAC because a DAC itself just 1:1 outputs an analog signal converted from a digital source so there is nothing to limit. The android system will also not limit the output from an Amplifier because it literally is not capable of that. That’s like saying your water faucet can limit how hot your water can get when you boil it on the stove. An Amp increases the power of the signal after it has already left the phone.

Well the problem is that a DAC doesn’t have any power to it at all. What you are thinking of is an amplifier, which a lot of portable DAC units have in them, but not all of them do. For example, the DAC/AMP I have is the iFi iDSD Black Label, which has its own Amp that is controlled through an analog dial.

If your unit doesn’t have its own volume controls then it is likely just a DAC with no Amp, meaning you are limited to the power output of your source.