[[email protected]]

Chris:

Regarding RCA-males(the actual connector), I've always considered this: http://www.av-iq.com/avcat/images/pr...0Connector.jpg higher quality, and
this: http://img.dxcdn.com/productimages/sku_216717_3.jpg cheap! Look at the shield,
half the connecting area of the first example.

[isw]

In article ,
wrote:

Chris:

Regarding RCA-males(the actual connector), I've always considered this:
http://www.av-iq.com/avcat/images/pr...20Connector.jp
g higher quality, and

The "high quality" one (or similar "machined" ones I've used) can be a
combination of so stiff and not springy that it's either too tight or
too loose, so it's difficult to get a good connection. And if it's loose
and you try to bend in the "flags" to tighten it, you can easily crush
the outer ring. Basically, they're made out of the wrong kind of metal.

this: http://img.dxcdn.com/productimages/sku_216717_3.jpg cheap!
Look at the shield, half the connecting area of the first example.

Yes, but it goes over a socket that is a continuous ring, so the gaps
just don't matter. Plus, the stamped metal type is far more likely to
have a bit of springiness, which makes for a nice, tight connection.

Isaac

[[email protected]]

isw:

I'd still sprint for RCA males that look like the first
picture than that in the second. More contact area!

I agree though on choice of materials mattering.

[isw]

In article ,
wrote:

isw:

I'd still sprint for RCA males that look like the first
picture than that in the second. More contact area!

I agree though on choice of materials mattering.

If you think about it, unless the inner diameter of the plug's outer is
exactly the same as the outside diameter of the jack's outer, there will
actually be only one or two point contacts on each of the four "flags".
And if one of those is displaced outwards *at all*, then it won't make
any contact.

Why do you think that lots of contact area is better?

Isaac

[None]

"isw" wrote in message
...
In article ,
thekma @ gmail.com wrote:

isw:

I'd still sprint for RCA males that look like the first
picture than that in the second. More contact area!

I agree though on choice of materials mattering.

If you think about it, unless the inner diameter of the plug's outer
is
exactly the same as the outside diameter of the jack's outer, there
will
actually be only one or two point contacts on each of the four
"flags".
And if one of those is displaced outwards *at all*, then it won't
make
any contact.

Why do you think that lots of contact area is better?

He just wants to make sure that everyone knows what a dumb**** he is.

[[email protected]]

The best gift I can give this one: http://christiananswers.net/jesus/

Because NOBODY who knows Christ and has Him in their heart
acts that way!

[[email protected]]

isw wrote: "Why do you think that lots of contact area is better? "


Common sense. Higher signal to noise ratio. Lower resistance.

Why do you young folks always like to challenge long-established
electrical standards & practices?

[None]

theckmama @ gmail.com wrote in message
...
isw wrote: "Why do you think that lots of contact area is better? "

Common sense.

Dumb****ery.

Higher signal to noise ratio. Lower resistance.

Why do you young folks always like to challenge long-established
electrical standards & practices?

Is it a long-established practice to babble about S/N without
understanding what it is? Is it an electrical standard to insist that
you're getting more contact area, despite the simple explanation of
why you probably aren't? You obviously know virtually nothing about
long-established electrical standards and practices? Why do you old
dumb****s always like to challenge long-established electrical
standards & practices? Without even understanding them?

Higher signal to noise ratio? LOL!

[isw]

In article ,
wrote:

isw wrote: "Why do you think that lots of contact area is better? "


Common sense.

When I was managing design engineers, that would never fly as a
justification in a design review.

Higher signal to noise ratio.

I doubt that the SNR difference between those two connectors could be
measured in a real-world situation, and even if there is a difference,
it will be insignificant.

Lower resistance.

How much lower, and can you show why the lower value actually matters?

Why do you young folks always like to challenge long-established
electrical standards & practices?

Oh, I dunno. Maybe it's my 40-plus years of professional engineering
background, much of which was in audio and video, both analog and
digital.

Isaac

[geoff]

On 5/07/2015 12:42 a.m., wrote:
isw wrote: "Why do you think that lots of contact area is better? "


Common sense. Higher signal to noise ratio. Lower resistance.

Why do you young folks always like to challenge long-established
electrical standards & practices?


You can have essentially zero resistance with a smaller contact area,
and increasing the contact area may not actually make any significant
difference at all.

geoff

[Kevin McMurtrie[_3_]]

In article ,
wrote:

Chris:

Regarding RCA-males(the actual connector), I've always considered this:
http://www.av-iq.com/avcat/images/pr...20Connector.jp
g higher quality, and
this: http://img.dxcdn.com/productimages/sku_216717_3.jpg cheap! Look at
the shield,
half the connecting area of the first example.

Buy connectors at an online store for professional PA equipment if you
want top quality. The parts cost a bit more than Radio Shack junk but
are far less expensive than "audiophile" snake oil.

The RCA cables are usually considered low-end for PA equipment. They're
mechanically weak and can't handle much shield current. That said, you
can get heavy plated brass connectors that have strong spring tension in
the fingers and room in the housing for oversized cables.

The good cables are shielded balanced pair using 3 conductor 1/4 inch
jacks. You can have an amp of EMI current in 100 feet of cable with
bass visibly shaking everything and it is fine

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google
because they host Usenet flooders.