|
|
Posted by D A V I D L A N E on 03/19/07 08:13
The comment was in regards to the gold, not the cables. Jeez!
AGAIN: the plating is on the termination (read: contact surface). Not the
physical cable. THAT was my argument. The GOLD will retain it's value, not
the cable. And I wasn't suggesting it as a worthwhile investment. Just
making fun of the suggestion that the CABLES were gold plated.
Gold-plated cables have been produced and- as you state- have minimal
improvement on signal transfer. Although looking at the guts of your cell
phone, you might argue the point. Again, the gold is used to prevent
oxidation of circuits.
I was questioning his vernacular. "gold plated cables". Not the use of
gold on the terminations, which I clearly argued for.
"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in
message news:e0fsv2d1go7jp9nfdd00rg3kroc6d3pmni@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 15:39:25 -0800, "D A V I D L A N E"
> <davidlane@gci.net> Gave us:
>
>>
>>Gold-plated cables? Hah!
>
>
> The plating is micro-inches thick, and though it does NOT improve
> signal passage through the cable, it DOES make for less oxidized
> contact surfaces, and since gold oxidizes far less than standard tin
> contacts... The result IS better passage of signal due to better, less
> lossy contact at the terminations of the cables. Shitty old tin
> plated RCA connector on old stereos are perfect examples. Very badly
> oxidized, whereas today's modern stereos used gold as it almost never
> oxidizes, and oxidizes very little when it does.
>
> Strike three, you lose... again.
>
> Talk about uninformed... you take the cake, chucko!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|