From: Woody on
Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> In article <68c0vkF2qo636U1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
> >Yes. When did we get 3.06 as a measurement.
>
> It's because they're multiples of 133MHz.
>
> 2.4 = 18x, 2.66 = 20x, 2.8 = 21x, 3.06 = 23x.


Still, 3 would sound a lot better than 3.06

--
Woody

www.alienrat.com