[Rameish]

Sovkiller,

Get Bulletplugs. They don't look like much and are rather expensive but they let you hear the copper wire rather than the brass plug - if u know what I mean.

 

[Chipko]

Got plugs and cable from Maplin in the UK. The connectors were £1.99 each and the cable £1.99 per meter. It's 8mm in diameter and pearlescent white which doesn't photograph very well but it looks very good in real life.

 

[Sovkiller]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chipko Got plugs and cable from Maplin in the UK. The connectors were £1.99 each and the cable £1.99 per meter. It's 8mm in diameter and pearlescent white which doesn't photograph very well but it looks very good in real life.

this is exactly the type i do not want sorry, I want the thicker borders connector, like the monsters, or AR, or like those;

not like this:

see the differences of the outer ring, one is thin and the other is thick, and I preffer the thick, just for cosmetic, nothing else......maybe are worst or maybe are better, who knows....

 

[CBMC]

I had the same problem with the solder not sticking to the canare terminals, the problem came in with the ground. Didn't have a problem with the ring or sleeve. Kind of odd. I am using Kester 60/37/3(I believe).

 

[aos]

I had a lot of problems with solder not sticking to many plugs and jacks and switches - all-metal DC jacks from Radio Shack for example. I honestly don't see what is the point of making the contacts from a metal that doesn't let solder stick to it.

 

[jeffreyj]

You need a hot and high-wattage (~40W) iron to solder onto the shield connector of many plugs. The 40W iron from Radio Shack won't cut the mustard, but a 40W Ungar or Weller (with a 900 degree F element) will.

As far as the Ratshack RCA plugs go, they do seem to have a strange coating or something which resists soldering for several seconds (the solder just balls up and rolls off). Heating with a hot iron (or a 100/140W gun) for more than 5 seconds before feeding in the solder seems to work for me.

But... I hate RCA connectors. They are one of the stupidest connectors ever made (the PL-259 is worse, but not as common). If you want top-notch interconnects, use BNC connectors and good quality RG-174 coax - if this is good enough for a 100+ MHz scope probe, it's good enough for audio. Ahem.

Or spend $100 on some Canare this and Neutrik that

.

 

[Voodoochile]

The Canare and Neutrik is actually pretty reasonable, and I'd even say a very good value for the construction quality. But yes, you are still talking RCA connectors. The Radio Shack stuff is barely less money, and is definitely not the same quality.

I figure that $2.50 for the Canare F-10 will make a very good connection for the form factor. Hard to imagine paying over $25 for WBT locking RCAs when they are still... RCAs. Seems that XLR or BNC would be a far better choice, but I won't be retrofitting my stereo with them anytime soon.

Jeffrey- Do you know why the BNC never really caught on? (not rhetorical)
edit: in audio terms, that is

 

[jeffreyj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Voodoochile ...Seems that XLR or BNC would be a far better choice, but I won't be retrofitting my stereo with them anytime soon.

Honestly, the RCA gets the job done for audio. The lack of constant impedance versus frequency is irrelevant at audio frequencies while the inner conductor mating before the shell is more problematic but still not a "show-stopper"... usually. So it generally isn't worth the effort to modify your *existing* equipment to take BNCs.

My big problem with all of this interconnect hoop-la is that extreme amounts of effort (and money, at times) is spent on making cables that, from an engineering perspective, amount to nothing more than casting the proverbial pearls before the proverbial swine. Will these fancy custom I/Cs deliver higher fidelity than the cheap cords that come with low-end consumer electronics gear? Probably, yes. Will they prove more accurate than pre-made I/Cs the next step up the price ladder? Probably not.


Quote:

Jeffrey- Do you know why the BNC never really caught on? (not rhetorical) edit: in audio terms, that is

I hadn't really ever though about it, but it does seem curious now that you've mentioned it. So what's the story?

 

[Voodoochile]

I'm asking you! I have always heard that they (BNC) are pretty much ideal.

By the way, the Canare crimp-on RCAs are assembled in a similar fashion to the BNCs- you crimp a center pin, then insert it into the plucg until it clicks (and also engages the skirt under the shield), then crimp the band over the skirt. It's a real 75 ohm plug.
Not the same as the F-10 (pictured in linked thread below), which is a regular solder plug. Some people solder the crimp-type 75-ohm Canares, but I have to wonder if that would negate the benefit of using it in the first place. Supposed to make an excellent digital or component video cable, which stands to reason- that's what it is manufactured for.
(F-10)

 

[jeffreyj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Voodoochile I'm asking you! I have always heard that they (BNC) are pretty much ideal.

Oh... I guess the "not rhetorical" part should've clued me in on that one, eh?

I have no idea, really, why the BNC never caught on for audio, but it is a an excellent connector from DC to a couple of GHz. Much above that and you need a waveguide instead of a wire.

At any rate, there are so many different connectors out there that I suspect 50% of them are the result of reinvention of the wheel while the other 50% are from a manufacturer's (usually backfiring) attempt to ensure brand loyalty.


Quote:

...Some people solder the crimp-type 75-ohm Canares, but I have to wonder if that would negate the benefit of using it in the first place.

To crimp or to solder is the subject of much debate. What it all boils down to, IMNSHO, is that it is harder to make a proper crimp, but the result is that the wire is less apt to break when flex; a soldered joint is easier to make, but if improperly done (usually from too little heat) will set up an electrolytic junction that will happily spew several microvolts of noise into your circuit at random. All joints between dissimilar metals are subject to the Seebeck effect (thermocouple) so that is a moot argument. Blah, blah, blah... You get the picture

edit: typo

 

[tangent]

Probably BNC didn't catch on due to cost and the somewhat more complicated assembly process.

It's been a while since I crimped any BNCs (ah....10Base2 anyone?) but I recall it being a moderate pain, even with the specialized stripping tool and a high-quality crimper.

And as for cost, I bought some BNC panel-mount connectors a few months ago for making boxes to go between a scope and something else, and they're 'spensive! I just did a search on Mouser, and the cheapest ones are in the $1.50 range, and some are up around $15! We're talking nickel-plated industrial quality stuff here, not audiophile exotica. I imagine if Cardas made BNCs, they'd be $45 each.

 

[aos]

I'm pretty sure it's the cost and bulkiness of the cable itself. It's expensive and it's rigid. I imagine the BNC connector cost and size play the factor (if you have a router it's probably easier to deal with RJ-45 or whatever the name is jacks). Same as for networking - we used those coax cables but they got phased out eventually.

 

[jeffreyj]

I suggested BNC in the first place because $17.00 for a flatly inferior type of jack is ridiculous; the worst kind of snake oil, really.

aos - coax definitely got phased out of networking, but it wasn't from any concern towards the poor guys that installed it. UTP took over because some genius engineer* finally realized that it's far cheaper to clean up a digital signal that is totally buried under noise than it is to use coax of any kind.

BTW - RG-174, being a small diameter coaxial cable, is quite flexible and much more discreet in appearance than those monstrous cables photographed in this thread. 'Course, there's no accounting for taste

* - an exaggeration, of course.