As usual I suspect the war machine had much to do with it long before idle chatter and Al Jolson.
Mr.Curl,
For the most part I use the Neutrik gold plated XLR and Molex gold plated connectors for ribbon assemblies.
Jam
For the most part I use the Neutrik gold plated XLR and Molex gold plated connectors for ribbon assemblies.
Jam
We use the Neutrik XLR in the CTC Blowtorch, the Parasound JC2, JC-3 for example. Accept no substitutes! Test them with a magnet.
Last edited:
I have never used a $50 RCA connector, but I have used $20(retail) ones on occasion.
Last edited:
We should distinguish between preferences, coming from professional design requirements, and those from a DIY game. With DIY, one looks for personal satisfaction, not for prooving technical correctness of the choice made.
On the top of this, one never knows, measurementwise, whether some sonic effect will come from a fancy expensive connector. It depends on many many things. Sometimes one should try to go ahead, from a personal technical assignment, without thinking of how design will be repeatedly manufactured.
On the top of this, one never knows, measurementwise, whether some sonic effect will come from a fancy expensive connector. It depends on many many things. Sometimes one should try to go ahead, from a personal technical assignment, without thinking of how design will be repeatedly manufactured.
Last edited:
The latest line of RF "hardened" ones really work, -10 to -20dB on local computer generated trash over store bought XLR cables.
And if you test them with a magnet, you'll find that the contacts are magnetic as Neutrik uses a nickel barrier plating.
se
Scott, is that because of shielding materials, or better contacts, or built-in filtering?
For everyone else, I am primarily a single ended kind of guy. I have found that single ended design is simpler, quieter (sometimes) and a quality RCA is really the best connector. For long runs, let us say like preamp to power amp, I will use balanced, if convenient.
Next to me is an $1100 one meter pair of JPS Labs cables with WBT locking male RCA connectors on each end. Now what should I use for the female chassis connector, except something that is fairly high in quality? These cables are rather stiff, and will rip out cheap RCA connectors, by the way. It seems to me that you should match the connectors to the quality of the cables used, at the very minimum.
When I am working at VERY low levels, like 5uV at operating level, perhaps a better connector might make a difference.
Next to me is an $1100 one meter pair of JPS Labs cables with WBT locking male RCA connectors on each end. Now what should I use for the female chassis connector, except something that is fairly high in quality? These cables are rather stiff, and will rip out cheap RCA connectors, by the way. It seems to me that you should match the connectors to the quality of the cables used, at the very minimum.
When I am working at VERY low levels, like 5uV at operating level, perhaps a better connector might make a difference.
Don't know that I see a lot of war machine behind it. I see more radio than war machine. I mean, it was through the phone lines that radio sent content to the actual broadcast tower and this was done over special lines that needed to be of high quality and that gave rise to professional audio which still sometimes adheres to old standards such as 600 ohm impedance matching.
se
Magnets are amazing. Just test your connector with one. If you get 'true love' between the connector and the magnet, you have a problematic connector.
And don't forget to space your interconnects at telephone-pole heights above ground, and use the properly cured wood for the crosspieces, and the right compound for the insulators! 😎
Ah yes I remember hearing about these now, and some of the home-brew attempts with the capacitive coupling for pin 1.
Happily nothing is in series with or shunting pins 2 and 3 to speak of, particularly in a truly balanced system.
gold plating
always interesting when an argument is proffered using various aspects of a given technology (types of gold plating, for instance) in supporrt of "conclusions" and subsequent discussions then reveal said arguments in support of those conclusions are based on no understanding whatsoever of the technology involved.
"Pure" gold plating, 24K, Heavy Gold, whatever one chooses to call it, plating is VERY hard to come by, and standard plating houses simply don't offer it, even if they say they do. Most heavy gold implies > 100 uinc (2.5u), something few folks can produce, much less want to pay for. It's extremely difficult to maintain a large gold bath to produce > 99.9x pure gold over any length of time, as the chemistry is difficult. Anyone telling you otherwise hassn't done it. (From highly purified cyanide, chloride, or sulfite baths) for instance
Most "easy to use", standardd bright "24K" gold plating is actually 99.7% gold and ~.3% other stuff (nickel, cobalt,arsenic, carbon, sulfur etc.) that gets inevitably co-deposited, whether intentional or otherwise. To say otherwise, and attribute some sort of sound improvement to this is quite simply naive.
John L.
always interesting when an argument is proffered using various aspects of a given technology (types of gold plating, for instance) in supporrt of "conclusions" and subsequent discussions then reveal said arguments in support of those conclusions are based on no understanding whatsoever of the technology involved.
"Pure" gold plating, 24K, Heavy Gold, whatever one chooses to call it, plating is VERY hard to come by, and standard plating houses simply don't offer it, even if they say they do. Most heavy gold implies > 100 uinc (2.5u), something few folks can produce, much less want to pay for. It's extremely difficult to maintain a large gold bath to produce > 99.9x pure gold over any length of time, as the chemistry is difficult. Anyone telling you otherwise hassn't done it. (From highly purified cyanide, chloride, or sulfite baths) for instance
Most "easy to use", standardd bright "24K" gold plating is actually 99.7% gold and ~.3% other stuff (nickel, cobalt,arsenic, carbon, sulfur etc.) that gets inevitably co-deposited, whether intentional or otherwise. To say otherwise, and attribute some sort of sound improvement to this is quite simply naive.
John L.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.