Gold-plated Optical Cables?????!!!!!

On 20/01/2014 16:34, Java Jive wrote:

I can, just, see that gold-plated electrical contacts may be a selling
point to the uninitiated who don't understand about contact pds etc,

It's no good. I'll have to bite. I always thought gold plated contacts
seemed like pretty sound logic. It seems to be borne out by experience
too on things like PCB edge connectors or charging cradles. Does that
make me uninitiated?

Probably overkill on things like phonos and the like, but it doesn't
hurt the price much and it looks nice...

Cheers,

Colin.

Colin Stamp wrote:

It's no good. I'll have to bite. I always thought gold plated contacts
seemed like pretty sound logic. It seems to be borne out by experience
too on things like PCB edge connectors or charging cradles. Does that
make me uninitiated?

I think there's a risk of context-shifting here. We all agree that
gold-plated contacts are a waste of time on an optical cable, yes?

As for electrical contacts, I'm tempted to disagree with JJ's
implication. True, the contact resistance of a gold-plated contact
versus normal ones (tinned? nickel-plated?) is only slightly better.

BUT - the big difference is long-term stability. Gold won't oxidise,
so the contact resistance won't change significantly. For all* other
(non-noble) contact metals, oxidisation *does* occur and the contact
resistance increases.

*The exception is where the contact pressure is so high as to achieve a
gas-tight connection. Going back a few decades, I learned that these
offered such a connection: turned-pin IC sockets;
insulation-displacement crimps; and those connections that were made by
a machine twisting a copper wire about a dozen times around a square
post. The common factor being a very small contact area, thus a very
high contact pressure - enough to exclude air molecules.

In other words, most connectors have non-airtight connection surfaces,
so will suffer increasing contact resistance over time unless they are
gold plated. Having been an electronics tech for a while, I can
confirm this problem. Nine times out of ten you can clear the fault
just by unplugging and replugging (thus scraping the oxide off). On a
couple of occasions I've rescued non-functional electronics kit by the
simple expedient of unplugging every socketed IC, rubbing the IC legs
with a glass fibre brush, and replugging.

I've *never* had to do with with turned pin IC sockets, though, which
confirms what I was taught - they are airtight enough not to suffer the
oxidation problem.

--
SteveT

On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:12:55 -0600, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Colin Stamp wrote:

It's no good. I'll have to bite. I always thought gold plated contacts
seemed like pretty sound logic. It seems to be borne out by experience
too on things like PCB edge connectors or charging cradles. Does that
make me uninitiated?

I think there's a risk of context-shifting here. We all agree that
gold-plated contacts are a waste of time on an optical cable, yes?

As for electrical contacts, I'm tempted to disagree with JJ's
implication. True, the contact resistance of a gold-plated contact
versus normal ones (tinned? nickel-plated?) is only slightly better.

BUT - the big difference is long-term stability. Gold won't oxidise,
so the contact resistance won't change significantly. For all* other
(non-noble) contact metals, oxidisation *does* occur and the contact
resistance increases.

*The exception is where the contact pressure is so high as to achieve a
gas-tight connection. Going back a few decades, I learned that these
offered such a connection: turned-pin IC sockets;
insulation-displacement crimps; and those connections that were made by
a machine twisting a copper wire about a dozen times around a square
post. The common factor being a very small contact area, thus a very
high contact pressure - enough to exclude air molecules.

In other words, most connectors have non-airtight connection surfaces,
so will suffer increasing contact resistance over time unless they are
gold plated. Having been an electronics tech for a while, I can
confirm this problem. Nine times out of ten you can clear the fault
just by unplugging and replugging (thus scraping the oxide off). On a
couple of occasions I've rescued non-functional electronics kit by the
simple expedient of unplugging every socketed IC, rubbing the IC legs
with a glass fibre brush, and replugging.

I've *never* had to do with with turned pin IC sockets, though, which
confirms what I was taught - they are airtight enough not to suffer the
oxidation problem.

Tight high pressure contact connections (e.g. wire wrap and IDC) rely
upon welding of the contact surfaces to exclude the oxidising effect
of the atmosphere but even here, the contact area will still be
attacked by the atmospheric oxygen from the edges, it just slows the
process down by a few orders of magnitude due to the much smaller
exposed surface and the deeper penetration required by this process to
finally compromise the connection.

Gold plating contacts achieves a similar result at workable contact
pressures normally used by plug and socket connectors due to its
greater ductility and immunity to oxidisation. The gold plating acts
just like a gasket joint which provides a much larger effective area
of contact, significantly reducing contact resistance.
--
Regards, J B Good

"Johny B Good" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:12:55 -0600, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Colin Stamp wrote:

It's no good. I'll have to bite. I always thought gold
plated contacts
seemed like pretty sound logic. It seems to be borne out
by experience
too on things like PCB edge connectors or charging
cradles. Does that
make me uninitiated?

I think there's a risk of context-shifting here. We all
agree that
gold-plated contacts are a waste of time on an optical
cable, yes?

As for electrical contacts, I'm tempted to disagree with
JJ's
implication. True, the contact resistance of a
gold-plated contact
versus normal ones (tinned? nickel-plated?) is only
slightly better.

BUT - the big difference is long-term stability. Gold
won't oxidise,
so the contact resistance won't change significantly. For
all* other
(non-noble) contact metals, oxidisation *does* occur and
the contact
resistance increases.

*The exception is where the contact pressure is so high as
to achieve a
gas-tight connection. Going back a few decades, I learned
that these
offered such a connection: turned-pin IC sockets;
insulation-displacement crimps; and those connections that
were made by
a machine twisting a copper wire about a dozen times
around a square
post. The common factor being a very small contact area,
thus a very
high contact pressure - enough to exclude air molecules.

In other words, most connectors have non-airtight
connection surfaces,
so will suffer increasing contact resistance over time
unless they are
gold plated. Having been an electronics tech for a while,
I can
confirm this problem. Nine times out of ten you can clear
the fault
just by unplugging and replugging (thus scraping the oxide
off). On a
couple of occasions I've rescued non-functional
electronics kit by the
simple expedient of unplugging every socketed IC, rubbing
the IC legs
with a glass fibre brush, and replugging.

I've *never* had to do with with turned pin IC sockets,
though, which
confirms what I was taught - they are airtight enough not
to suffer the
oxidation problem.

Tight high pressure contact connections (e.g. wire wrap
and IDC) rely
upon welding of the contact surfaces to exclude the
oxidising effect
of the atmosphere but even here, the contact area will
still be
attacked by the atmospheric oxygen from the edges, it just
slows the
process down by a few orders of magnitude due to the much
smaller
exposed surface and the deeper penetration required by
this process to
finally compromise the connection.

Gold plating contacts achieves a similar result at
workable contact
pressures normally used by plug and socket connectors due
to its
greater ductility and immunity to oxidisation. The gold
plating acts
just like a gasket joint which provides a much larger
effective area
of contact, significantly reducing contact resistance.

When you look at this
http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...XBEIFNEWTGWPKD
just ask yourself the question how a short cable carrying
serial data can affect the sound? Russ thinks it does!

Gold plated contacts are better used for connections that
are regularly made and unmade - which is why USB pins have
been gold-flashed from day one. Some designer knew what was
what methinks.


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:37:37 -0000, "Woody"
wrote:

"Johny B Good" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 17:12:55 -0600, "Steve Thackery"
wrote:

Colin Stamp wrote:

It's no good. I'll have to bite. I always thought gold
plated contacts
seemed like pretty sound logic. It seems to be borne out
by experience
too on things like PCB edge connectors or charging
cradles. Does that
make me uninitiated?

I think there's a risk of context-shifting here. We all
agree that
gold-plated contacts are a waste of time on an optical
cable, yes?

As for electrical contacts, I'm tempted to disagree with
JJ's
implication. True, the contact resistance of a
gold-plated contact
versus normal ones (tinned? nickel-plated?) is only
slightly better.

BUT - the big difference is long-term stability. Gold
won't oxidise,
so the contact resistance won't change significantly. For
all* other
(non-noble) contact metals, oxidisation *does* occur and
the contact
resistance increases.

*The exception is where the contact pressure is so high as
to achieve a
gas-tight connection. Going back a few decades, I learned
that these
offered such a connection: turned-pin IC sockets;
insulation-displacement crimps; and those connections that
were made by
a machine twisting a copper wire about a dozen times
around a square
post. The common factor being a very small contact area,
thus a very
high contact pressure - enough to exclude air molecules.

In other words, most connectors have non-airtight
connection surfaces,
so will suffer increasing contact resistance over time
unless they are
gold plated. Having been an electronics tech for a while,
I can
confirm this problem. Nine times out of ten you can clear
the fault
just by unplugging and replugging (thus scraping the oxide
off). On a
couple of occasions I've rescued non-functional
electronics kit by the
simple expedient of unplugging every socketed IC, rubbing
the IC legs
with a glass fibre brush, and replugging.

I've *never* had to do with with turned pin IC sockets,
though, which
confirms what I was taught - they are airtight enough not
to suffer the
oxidation problem.

Tight high pressure contact connections (e.g. wire wrap
and IDC) rely
upon welding of the contact surfaces to exclude the
oxidising effect
of the atmosphere but even here, the contact area will
still be
attacked by the atmospheric oxygen from the edges, it just
slows the
process down by a few orders of magnitude due to the much
smaller
exposed surface and the deeper penetration required by
this process to
finally compromise the connection.

Gold plating contacts achieves a similar result at
workable contact
pressures normally used by plug and socket connectors due
to its
greater ductility and immunity to oxidisation. The gold
plating acts
just like a gasket joint which provides a much larger
effective area
of contact, significantly reducing contact resistance.

When you look at this
http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...XBEIFNEWTGWPKD

I like the reference to the Fubar II USB DAC

FUBAR stands for ****ed up beyond all recognition/repair/reason

just ask yourself the question how a short cable carrying
serial data can affect the sound? Russ thinks it does!

I doubt he thinks that at all. He's just implying such by using
pseudo scientific specifications for his product descriptions to
reassure the gullible that the extra cash will actually buy them an
improvement. The strange thing here is he fails to mention gold plated
contacts - an opportunity missed, methinks.


Gold plated contacts are better used for connections that
are regularly made and unmade - which is why USB pins have
been gold-flashed from day one. Some designer knew what was
what methinks.

The two guys at Intel, said to be responsible for that abomination we
know as USB, probably did know. In hindsight, it's patently obvious
that their design brief had been to invent an interface so blatently
innefficient of CPU cycles as to create an articial demand for Intel's
'next generation' CPU chips. In short, the advent of the USB interface
was simply an artifice used by Intel to drive the sales of faster CPU
chips.

Gold flashing usually implies the thinnest of coatings which
typically gives rise to insertion cycle lifetime ratings of 25 to 50
(typical ratings for the posher RS232 25 pin D connectors in the InMAC
catalogue a quarter of a century back - but I think this was pure
gold, rather than the more durable hard alloys of gold now used which
offer a compromise between life rating and low contact resistance
efficacy).

Gold flashing on the USB header pins on the MoBo makes good sense but
not so much on the A and B plugs which I suspect may actually be brass
rather than gold flashed (BICBW, they could actually be flashed with a
hard alloy of gold which looks more like brass than it does gold).
--
Regards, J B Good

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:37:37 -0000, "Woody"
wrote:

When you look at this
http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...XBEIFNEWTGWPKD
just ask yourself the question how a short cable carrying
serial data can affect the sound? Russ thinks it does!

More to the point, his ignorant rich customers think it does. It's
difficult to say if the deficiency is in their ears or between them.

Rod.

On 21/01/2014 09:26, Johny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:37:37 -0000, "Woody"

Gold plated contacts are better used for connections that
are regularly made and unmade - which is why USB pins have
been gold-flashed from day one. Some designer knew what was
what methinks.

The two guys at Intel, said to be responsible for that abomination we
know as USB, probably did know. In hindsight, it's patently obvious
that their design brief had been to invent an interface so blatently
innefficient of CPU cycles as to create an articial demand for Intel's
'next generation' CPU chips. In short, the advent of the USB interface
was simply an artifice used by Intel to drive the sales of faster CPU
chips.

Gold flashing usually implies the thinnest of coatings which
typically gives rise to insertion cycle lifetime ratings of 25 to 50
(typical ratings for the posher RS232 25 pin D connectors in the InMAC
catalogue a quarter of a century back - but I think this was pure
gold, rather than the more durable hard alloys of gold now used which
offer a compromise between life rating and low contact resistance
efficacy).

Gold flashing on the USB header pins on the MoBo makes good sense but
not so much on the A and B plugs which I suspect may actually be brass
rather than gold flashed (BICBW, they could actually be flashed with a
hard alloy of gold which looks more like brass than it does gold).

+1. I've never understood this fondness for gold-plated contacts which,
as you said, are very soft and will wear easily. I'm surprised that
Andrews hasn't come up with a platinum (or platinum group metal such as
rhodium) plated connector which is much harder and longer-lasting than
gold. Just think what he'd be able to charge for a platinum-coated
connector - "better than the best"!

--

Jeff

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:28:08 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:37:37 -0000, "Woody"
wrote:

When you look at this
http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...XBEIFNEWTGWPKD
just ask yourself the question how a short cable carrying
serial data can affect the sound? Russ thinks it does!

More to the point, his ignorant rich customers think it does. It's
difficult to say if the deficiency is in their ears or between them.


You must be wrong about that...

"There are those who will try to tell you that a USB cable can’t
possibly make any different to sound quality; bits are bits, etc, etc,
I wonder how many they have actually listened to because Paul Rigby
notes a number of clear improvements in his review."

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:28:08 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:37:37 -0000, "Woody"

wrote:

When you look at this
http://www.russandrews.com/product.a...XBEIFNEWTGWPKD
just ask yourself the question how a short cable carrying
serial data can affect the sound? Russ thinks it does!

More to the point, his ignorant rich customers think it
does. It's
difficult to say if the deficiency is in their ears or
between them.


You must be wrong about that...

"There are those who will try to tell you that a USB cable
can't
possibly make any different to sound quality; bits are
bits, etc, etc,
I wonder how many they have actually listened to because
Paul Rigby
notes a number of clear improvements in his review."


But there again if a reviewer works for a magazine that
needs advertising it is surely in their interest to find
some improvement however small? Then the thickies with loads
of spare cash and who always must have the best will beat a
path to Russ' door. QED.


--
Woody

harrogate three at ntlworld dot com

In article , Woody
wrote:


Gold plated contacts are better used for connections that are regularly
made and unmade - which is why USB pins have been gold-flashed from day
one. Some designer knew what was what methinks.

Alas all comments about 'gold plated' will in practice depend on the
details of how gold and various other materials are alloyed/layered. Simply
being 'gold' on the surface isn't a panacea.

That said: One of the hifi mags back in the 1980s had someone put some
effort into seeing if he could 'degrade' various types of connector by
trying to get them to oxidse or tarnish. He found this was harder than was
assumed if he started off with even half-decent examples, even when they
were grossly mistreated.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html