|
Home > Archive > Electrical Engineering > May 2006 > Gold on jack and phono plug/socket
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Gold on jack and phono plug/socket
|
|
| Alex Coleman 2006-05-22, 1:21 am |
| Does the gold plating on various plugs and sockets (jacks, phono, SCART,
etc) make any real difference?
I notice that on my PC the PCI sockets have a gold color (is this gold
or phosphor bronze or something else?)
On the other hand the jack sockets, USB, D sockets, etc all have tinner
contacts.
So is gold significant?
Are othe rmetals more significant?
| |
| Dave Platt 2006-05-22, 1:21 am |
| In article <Xns97CB306DB341B71F3M4@127.0.0.1>,
Alex Coleman <no@no-email.com> wrote:
>Does the gold plating on various plugs and sockets (jacks, phono, SCART,
>etc) make any real difference?
My understanding: in some applications, using a good gold-to-gold
contact can reduce (or almost eliminate) contact oxidation over time,
and thus increase the reliability of these contacts. This is
especially beneficial when the contacts are not expected to be
unplugged and replugged at all frequently (an action which will tend
to break up oxide films via the wiping action, but which can also wear
away thin gold plating).
Thin, cheap gold plating may not be of much if any benefit over time.
A thin gold "flashing" on a base metal such as copper may wear away,
and I believe it's actually possible for the copper to migrate through
a thin surface layer of gold. I had some gold-plated phono cables
years ago - Discwasher "Gold-ens" - and after a decade or so they
showed extensive tarnishing on the surface.
>On the other hand the jack sockets, USB, D sockets, etc all have tinner
>contacts.
The general rule is "gold to gold, tin to tin". Using tin and gold
contacts together is not a good idea - the tin contact will degrade
faster when in contact with gold.
>Are othe rmetals more significant?
Silver is often used for high-quality RF connections. Other precious
metals (palladium and rhodium in particular, if I recall correctly)
are also used in some applications.
Nickel is very common in consumer-type applications.
--
Dave Platt <dplatt@radagast.org> AE6EO
Hosting the Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior
I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will
boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
| |
| electricitym@yahoo.com 2006-05-22, 2:21 am |
| The gold color is many times it is just for show... and to increase
sale price....
BUT if it is real gold plating it will not oxidise and will provide
much better contact over time..... but compared with new cheap
connectors that are not tarnished or oxidised.... NO DIFFERENCE....
can't measure it, can't see it, can't hear it..... kinda like the
expensive Monster (type) cables.... big money, big and fancy claims and
wording , and a complete waste of money.
electricitym
| |
| Ross Herbert 2006-05-22, 3:21 am |
| On 21 May 2006 22:14:33 -0700, electricitym@yahoo.com wrote:
>The gold color is many times it is just for show... and to increase
>sale price....
>BUT if it is real gold plating it will not oxidise and will provide
>much better contact over time..... but compared with new cheap
>connectors that are not tarnished or oxidised.... NO DIFFERENCE....
>can't measure it, can't see it, can't hear it..... kinda like the
>expensive Monster (type) cables.... big money, big and fancy claims and
>wording , and a complete waste of money.
>electricitym
real gold is much too soft for direct use on connectors. the gold
flashing used on connectors is usually a harder alloy containing
cobalt and does in fact provide a better connection due to its
resistance to oxidation, as compared to nickel plating.
| |
| Long Ranger 2006-05-22, 10:21 am |
|
"Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:5nl272hsgg49fb54fu1c8eroq43sknt3ft@4ax.com...
> On 21 May 2006 22:14:33 -0700, electricitym@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> real gold is much too soft for direct use on connectors. the gold
> flashing used on connectors is usually a harder alloy containing
> cobalt and does in fact provide a better connection due to its
> resistance to oxidation, as compared to nickel plating.
I would say it does provide a contact that doesn't degrade much over time
due to the fact that it doesn't oxidize. However, it starts out as a higher
resistance joint than many other metals would be, so calling it "better" is
somewhat dubious.
| |
| Anthony Fremont 2006-05-22, 12:21 pm |
|
"Alex Coleman" <no@no-email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97CB306DB341B71F3M4@127.0.0.1...
> Does the gold plating on various plugs and sockets (jacks, phono,
SCART,
> etc) make any real difference?
>
> I notice that on my PC the PCI sockets have a gold color (is this gold
> or phosphor bronze or something else?)
>
> On the other hand the jack sockets, USB, D sockets, etc all have
tinner
> contacts.
>
> So is gold significant?
>
> Are othe rmetals more significant?
Gold is a relatively poor conductor when compared with copper. It's
major benefit would be lack of oxidation over time. Of course the
audiophool thinks that gold is better at everything because it shines.
Silver is a far better conductor, even better than copper. Of course it
oxidizes fairly rapidly, but only the portion exposed to the air. The
connection itself will not really degrade as long as it is tight.
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-22, 12:21 pm |
| Alex Coleman <no@no-email.com> wrote in
news:Xns97CB306DB341B71F3M4@127.0.0.1:
> Does the gold plating on various plugs and sockets (jacks, phono, SCART,
> etc) make any real difference?
>
> I notice that on my PC the PCI sockets have a gold color (is this gold
> or phosphor bronze or something else?)
>
> On the other hand the jack sockets, USB, D sockets, etc all have tinner
> contacts.
>
> So is gold significant?
>
> Are othe rmetals more significant?
>
Gold is significant. While it's not the best conductor, it will maintain a
good connection for a long time if undisturbed. It's not the resistance
that matters, it's the electrical noise of corrosion. That's especially a
problem with low voltage signals from tiny coils where energy output is so
small that you might want the current as well as the voltage to get an
efficient signal from them. When using a 200 ohm input, the resistance of
gold contacts is still insignificant, but the noise of any corrosion won't
be.
On a standard input, greater than 10K or even 100K, a bit of tarnishing
isn't going to matter unless it's so bad that it changes resistance
dramatically in a short time. It's still worth having a very low ground
contact resistance though, to prevent hum loops. It's not only audiophools
who might want to consider this.  Ground loops are a royal pain, and a
bit of gold plating is usually a cheaper way to avoid it if you want to use
the system instead of tweaking it all the time. Just avoid butch-looking
cabkes with go-faster stripes and predatory names.
--
----------------------------------------
http://save.nazanin.googlepages.com/home
| |
|
|
"Alex Coleman" <no@no-email.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97CB306DB341B71F3M4@127.0.0.1...
> Does the gold plating on various plugs and sockets (jacks, phono, SCART,
> etc) make any real difference?
Basically - All contacts, except gold, oxidize over time.
Contacts are designed to mechanically "wipe" when inserted, i.e., remove
oxide by scraping, or to remove oxides and refuse by using current density
in the connection.
Low level signals like in phono plugs don't have the power to burn
through oxides except on very small connections, but 1) since low level
signals usually see hi impedance and 2) since they don't need as much area
to conduct as does the human hand needs in order to hold the pin, even if
there is some corrosion,
there is usually still a decent path for conduction of low level signals
for most connections (indoor, a year or so in place, not damp, etc.), and
the resistance is small relative to the input impedance.
In my experience -
Use gold plated contacts if you are going to leave them in place for some
time (video/audio connections in the back of the equipment left for years,
in warm moving air that can build up a charge, outdoors)
Use the chrome/silver plated contacts where it will be inserted and
removed often.
( I have only seen a few corroded silver/chrome connectors indoors, and
they were left in place for 20 years)
>
> I notice that on my PC the PCI sockets have a gold color (is this gold
> or phosphor bronze or something else?)
>
> On the other hand the jack sockets, USB, D sockets, etc all have tinner
> contacts.
>
> So is gold significant?
>
> Are othe rmetals more significant?
| |
|
|
But what use is a connector that will last 20 plus years,
when the electronics of today might only last 8 months to a year ?? Just a
thought.........
"hob" <dehoberg@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bbydnZgWAfKDQ-zZRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Alex Coleman" <no@no-email.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97CB306DB341B71F3M4@127.0.0.1...
>
> Basically - All contacts, except gold, oxidize over time.
> Contacts are designed to mechanically "wipe" when inserted, i.e., remove
> oxide by scraping, or to remove oxides and refuse by using current density
> in the connection.
>
> Low level signals like in phono plugs don't have the power to burn
> through oxides except on very small connections, but 1) since low level
> signals usually see hi impedance and 2) since they don't need as much area
> to conduct as does the human hand needs in order to hold the pin, even if
> there is some corrosion,
> there is usually still a decent path for conduction of low level
> signals
> for most connections (indoor, a year or so in place, not damp, etc.), and
> the resistance is small relative to the input impedance.
>
> In my experience -
> Use gold plated contacts if you are going to leave them in place for
> some
> time (video/audio connections in the back of the equipment left for years,
> in warm moving air that can build up a charge, outdoors)
>
> Use the chrome/silver plated contacts where it will be inserted and
> removed often.
>
> ( I have only seen a few corroded silver/chrome connectors indoors, and
> they were left in place for 20 years)
>
>
>
>
| |
| Sjouke Burry 2006-05-22, 6:21 pm |
| Anthony Fremont wrote:
> "Alex Coleman" <no@no-email.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97CB306DB341B71F3M4@127.0.0.1...
>
>
> SCART,
>
>
> tinner
>
>
>
> Gold is a relatively poor conductor when compared with copper. It's
> major benefit would be lack of oxidation over time. Of course the
> audiophool thinks that gold is better at everything because it shines.
> Silver is a far better conductor, even better than copper. Of course it
> oxidizes fairly rapidly, but only the portion exposed to the air. The
> connection itself will not really degrade as long as it is tight.
>
Silver oxyde has the nice property,that it is
somewhat conductive,and in a thin layer that
is acceptable.
| |
| Long Ranger 2006-05-23, 2:21 am |
|
"Anthony Fremont" <spam@nowherest.com> wrote in message
news:1273jj054in6550@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Alex Coleman" <no@no-email.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97CB306DB341B71F3M4@127.0.0.1...
> SCART,
> tinner
>
> Gold is a relatively poor conductor when compared with copper. It's
> major benefit would be lack of oxidation over time. Of course the
> audiophool thinks that gold is better at everything because it shines.
> Silver is a far better conductor, even better than copper. Of course it
> oxidizes fairly rapidly, but only the portion exposed to the air. The
> connection itself will not really degrade as long as it is tight.
>
Plus, silver oxides, unlike most other oxides, are good conductors
themselves.
| |
| Long Ranger 2006-05-23, 2:21 am |
|
"rb" <123@Ishotmr.lee> wrote in message
news:o_mcg.8013$8T4.3013@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
>
> But what use is a connector that will last 20 plus years,
> when the electronics of today might only last 8 months to a year ?? Just a
> thought.........
My Pioneer SX-1250 says NOT! And my 40 year old JBL speakers.
| |
| Ross Herbert 2006-05-23, 7:21 am |
| On Tue, 23 May 2006 05:02:33 GMT, "Long Ranger"
<worpylorpkins@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>"Anthony Fremont" <spam@nowherest.com> wrote in message
>news:1273jj054in6550@news.supernews.com...
>Plus, silver oxides, unlike most other oxides, are good conductors
>themselves.
>
Strange you say that...
When I worked in telecom maintenance the bane of relays using pure
silver contacts was that the oxidation played merry hell with signal
transmission. Unless the circuit was arranged to have a tiny DC
"wetting" current which minimised contact resistance caused by
oxidation, we were forever burnishing them. Nickel silver or platinum
contacts were much better in this regard.
| |
| Tim Williams 2006-05-23, 9:21 am |
| "Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:ran572h3to98c62kmubfpsemno8egugs8h@4ax.com...
>
>
> Strange you say that...
<snip>
Not to mention the more common silver sulfide which is not conductive.
Tim
--
Deep Fryer: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
| |
| electricitym@yahoo.com 2006-05-23, 12:21 pm |
|
Long Ranger wrote:
> My Pioneer SX-1250 says NOT! And my 40 year old JBL speakers.
- - - - - - -
Long Ranger:
I think that is the point.... exactly.
Today's electronics are not built as robustly as that grand old
mid-seventies Pioneer SX-1250 and it's contemporary competitors.
electricitym
..
..
| |
| ian field 2006-05-23, 12:21 pm |
|
"Tim XXXXXXXX" <tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote in message
news:NJCcg.260$541.258@fe06.lga...
> "Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:ran572h3to98c62kmubfpsemno8egugs8h@4ax.com...
> <snip>
>
> Not to mention the more common silver sulfide which is not conductive.
>
> Tim
>
> --
> Deep Fryer: a very philosophical monk.
> Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
>
Apparently, the key to avoiding silver sulphide on connectors & contacts -
is to stop farting!
| |
| gfretwell@aol.com 2006-05-23, 2:21 pm |
| On 23 May 2006 07:30:36 -0700, electricitym@yahoo.com wrote:
>Long Ranger:
>I think that is the point.... exactly.
>Today's electronics are not built as robustly as that grand old
>mid-seventies Pioneer SX-1250 and it's contemporary competitors.
>electricitym
I have an assortment of 80s and later amps around here, some bought by
me, some just given to me because they were "broke".
Every damned one of them has a bad input/output selector switch. Why
is it so hard for these companies to come up with a switch that works,
even when the equipment costs several hunderd 198x dollars? These
switches are of some proprietary design that you can't easily
replace with a decent off the shelf switch.
I ended up jumpering the switch out on a few of them, just to use one
input reliably for my MP3 players. The amp chip/module itself is
fairly bulletproof.
| |
| Long Ranger 2006-05-23, 8:21 pm |
|
<electricitym@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1148394636.722674.191350@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Long Ranger wrote:
>
> - - - - - - -
>
>
>
> Long Ranger:
> I think that is the point.... exactly.
> Today's electronics are not built as robustly as that grand old
> mid-seventies Pioneer SX-1250 and it's contemporary competitors.
> electricitym
Yeah, I guess it is, and to think, there was no gold on those contacts! I
wonder why they lasted so long? I never even gave them a thought in all
these years.
> .
> .
>
| |
| Alex Coleman 2006-05-24, 8:21 am |
| >> On 21 May 2006 22:14:33 -0700, electricitym@yahoo.com wrote:
[color=darkred]
> "Ross Herbert" <rherber1@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
On 22 May 2006, Long Ranger<worpylorpkins@mindspring.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>
> I would say it does provide a contact that doesn't degrade much
> over time due to the fact that it doesn't oxidize. However, it
> starts out as a higher resistance joint than many other metals
> would be, so calling it "better" is somewhat dubious.
Very roughly what sort of additional resistance would a nickel
plating have or how does the nickel's resistance compare to a plating
of regular metal on the connector?
| |
| Alex Coleman 2006-05-24, 8:21 am |
| On 22 May 2006, Anthony Fremont<spam@nowherest.com> wrote:
> "Alex Coleman" <no@no-email.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns97CB306DB341B71F3M4@127.0.0.1...
> SCART,
> tinner
>
> Gold is a relatively poor conductor when compared with copper.
Gold a poor conductor?
I though silver was better than copper and better still was gold.
Oh well.
> It's major benefit would be lack of oxidation over time. Of course
> the audiophool thinks that gold is better at everything because it
> shines. Silver is a far better conductor, even better than copper.
> Of course it oxidizes fairly rapidly, but only the portion exposed
> to the air. The connection itself will not really degrade as long
> as it is tight.
>
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-24, 1:21 pm |
| Alex Coleman <no@no-email.com> wrote in
news:Xns97CD764DC5DDF71F3M4@127.0.0.1:
>
>
>
>
> On 22 May 2006, Long Ranger<worpylorpkins@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Very roughly what sort of additional resistance would a nickel
> plating have or how does the nickel's resistance compare to a plating
> of regular metal on the connector?
I doubt it's worth quantifying for signal connectors, not even those from
moving coil cartridges, where electrolytic action in corrosion is the
problem, not the initial resistance. Nickel is used with chromium in high
temperature resistance wire, for heaters, but in a thin plate with large
surface area, it will be micro-ohms or less, probably.
--
----------------------------------------
http://save.nazanin.googlepages.com/home
| |
| Lostgallifreyan 2006-05-24, 1:21 pm |
| Alex Coleman <no@no-email.com> wrote in
news:Xns97CD76889628571F3M4@127.0.0.1:
> On 22 May 2006, Anthony Fremont<spam@nowherest.com> wrote:
>
>
> Gold a poor conductor?
>
> I though silver was better than copper and better still was gold.
>
> Oh well.
>
Easy thing to fall for, progression through the masses in the periodic
table might indicate that it ought to be.. I've wondered about this one. If
anyone has a nice laymans-terms explanation, now would be a very good time
to post it.
--
----------------------------------------
http://save.nazanin.googlepages.com/home
| |
| Spehro Pefhany 2006-05-24, 1:21 pm |
| On Wed, 24 May 2006 15:43:45 GMT, the renowned Lostgallifreyan
<no-one@nowhere.net> wrote:
>I doubt it's worth quantifying for signal connectors, not even those from
>moving coil cartridges, where electrolytic action in corrosion is the
>problem, not the initial resistance. Nickel is used with chromium in high
>temperature resistance wire, for heaters, but in a thin plate with large
>surface area, it will be micro-ohms or less, probably.
Gold over copper virtually always has a much thicker layer of nickel
underneath anyway (as a barrier). Often nickel is used on other metals
as well before gold plating. The bling is just a surface treatment,
and the metals used underneath will dominate the total connector
resistance.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
| |
| Tim Williams 2006-05-24, 3:21 pm |
| "Lostgallifreyan" <no-one@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Xns97CDAB733C05Dlostgallifreyangmail@140.99.99.130...
> Easy thing to fall for, progression through the masses in the periodic
> table might indicate that it ought to be.. I've wondered about this one.
> If
> anyone has a nice laymans-terms explanation, now would be a very good time
> to post it.
Probably that copper atoms lose that electron easily, silver atoms slightly
easier, then gold (being so much heavier) hugs it a little tighter. Or
something.
Tim
--
Deep Fryer: a very philosophical monk.
Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
| |
|
|
"Long Ranger" <worpylorpkins@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:QYLcg.5790$x4.151@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> <electricitym@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1148394636.722674.191350@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Yeah, I guess it is, and to think, there was no gold on those contacts! I
> wonder why they lasted so long? I never even gave them a thought in all
> these years.
they wipe - some of the RCA connectors, on the other hand, turn a pleasing
fuzzy tan
>
>
| |
| ian field 2006-05-25, 2:21 pm |
|
"hob" <dehoberg@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:muadneih7YuS-ujZ4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
> "Long Ranger" <worpylorpkins@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:QYLcg.5790$x4.151@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> they wipe - some of the RCA connectors, on the other hand, turn a pleasing
> fuzzy tan
>
>
>
That's nicotine stain!
| |
| Michael A. Terrell 2006-05-26, 12:21 pm |
| gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
> On 23 May 2006 07:30:36 -0700, electricitym@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> I have an assortment of 80s and later amps around here, some bought by
> me, some just given to me because they were "broke".
> Every damned one of them has a bad input/output selector switch. Why
> is it so hard for these companies to come up with a switch that works,
> even when the equipment costs several hunderd 198x dollars? These
> switches are of some proprietary design that you can't easily
> replace with a decent off the shelf switch.
> I ended up jumpering the switch out on a few of them, just to use one
> input reliably for my MP3 players. The amp chip/module itself is
> fairly bulletproof.
Try "Coolamp" silver plating, if you want to repair the worn
contacts. It is used to replate large roller inductors and antenna
switches at AM radio stations. I'm told that it lasts as long as a new
part would, if the plating is thick enough. Replating the contacts of a
small switch wouldn't be easy, but don properly it would outlast the
original part.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
|
|
|
|
|