HOLY MACKERAL!! Wrong?????

[jneutron]

In looking through some of the stuff over on CA, I came across a really interesting thing.

Jon Risch made the statement that WBT now has a 75 ohm RCA connector...

Wow...so I looked at it..
Part number WBT-0110.
It is a wideband plug for digital and analog connections...
Now, it seems that an apology is needed...
In response to an article written here, Jon put on AR, a "scathing" diatribe, slamming Gene and the AH crew for such errors...

Here is the archive link...

http://archive.audioreview.com/03/0EF9530A.php

It takes a huge amount of time to download, the archives there are terrible..

I copied the relevant parts...Jon's ERRORS are colored in red to show all...
Gene's article excerpts are green..and one of my posts in the thread is colored blue...

Needless to say, it was a 7 part rebuttal..so I didn't copy it all...but everybody can find it if they wish...

re: Critique of Video Cable Tech Article, Part 2 (this is by JR)


SEC 2.3
[ Mismatched impedance is one of the most common and most frequently experienced sources of signal degradation. This phenomenon occurs when a 75-ohm signal encounters different impedances through its signal path, usually on the order of 35-ohm or 50-ohm for Home Theater applications. It can occur in video cables that do not use true 75-ohm RCA connectors, .... ]

Well, that would be great, except that there is no such thing as a true 75 ohm RCA phono connector! More on this later, in response to section 3.5


Whoa! This would be funny if it weren't stated in an entirely serious manner. Apparently, the writer has swallowed some manufacturer's hype about "true 75 ohm RCA plugs", which is ironic given that the avowed purpose of the article is to provide solid information about video cables, rather than to parrot what has been hyped.

Bottom line: no matter what the RCA plug itself is doing, the female RCA jack is not 75 ohms impedance. Period. End of discussion.
Even if, by some miracle, the RCA plug itself could be made to be a 'true' 75 ohm impedance, which I am not convinced that it can be (nor are quite a few knowledgeable RF folks and engineers), then it would still be a moot point since the RCA female jack is not a 75 ohms Z.

Yes, the RCA plug on the right will be slightly worse than the one on the left, as it does have a "constriction" in the overall diameter of the barrel to center pin, as shown. This is not necessarily a show stopper, or a huge problem. After all, as we have seen earlier, the plug shown as being of a 75 ohm impedance, has an impedance discontinuity due tothe differing diameter of the inner barrel where it is cut out for access to the center pin.

So these RCA plug related impedance discontinuities are more a matter of dgree, rather than any sort of absolute.

[ That being the case, only a few component video cables actually have true 75-ohm RCA connectors since very few exist. ]

In point of fact, no real 75 ohm impedance RCA plugs exist. Much has been made of a certain brand of plugs that do everything they can to promote this myth, but if the claims and wording of this brand of plug is examined closely, one will find that words and phraseing like "75 ohm coaxial cable compatible", or "impedance-matched" or they make reference to a VSWR measurement, but they really never come out and SAY that the plugs are actually endowed with a 75 ohm impedance, nor do they mention if the plugs were measured for VSWR when actually plugged into a female RCA jack!


So it should be clear at this point, that it is not possible for an RCA plug to acheive a true 75 ohms impedance.

Now, further down the thread, I describe very clearly, how it is indeed possible to make a true 75 ohm RCA connector set...


Hi Jon jneutron
Jan 14, 2003 11:57 AM Thanks for the analysis, Jon. The .33 is the diff from Bruce, he estimated .25.

Spiral was proposed to meet existing equipment form factor, and to allow non keying operation. And nothing prevents the female from spiralling in the other direction. If the two spirals contact in more than one point, the impedance is certainly of concern. But, arranging the spirals to only cover 180 degrees on each part can guarantee only one point contact.

And, if instead of spiralling wires, use a flat ribbon on each, with correct geometry for the dielectric type of course, and now you have to key the new type to guarantee alignment of the ribbon contact, with the keying mechanism not affecting the compatability in any direction. Compatable keys are easy to design to allow old and new to be completely interchangeable.

It is definitely possible.

Cool..I like the technical conversations.

Cheers and thanks, John

First and foremost.......where's that retraction from Jon Risch??? He was so confident...wasn't he?

Second...I detailed exactly how to make one, and if you look at the time stamp, all can see that I, Johnny Escadillo, laid the foundation for this 75 ohm rca plug on January 14,2003 at 11:57 AM....(not sure what time zone that is, of course...)

Third...once a patentable design is part of the public record, it can no longer be patented as a world patent...this is what I have to deal with in my work environment....a paper or presentation, once given, voids worldwide patents..

Fourth...a USA patent can be applied for, within a year of entry into the public record......and I believe, only by the person who entered it into the public record....dat be me...(but, I am not 100% sure of that point, the lawyers here seem to kinda waffle on that)

Fifth...once an idea has been in the public domain for one year, it cannot be validly patented...

Can anyone tell me when the 75 ohm rca was patented by WBT??? I tried their site, and was only able to find the patent covering the clamping mechanism, not the mods for 75 ohm...

If they filed after Jan 14, 2004....then their claim is invalid..and they will be unable to defend their right to the connector....meaning anyone can build them without restriction...It would have been so much easier just asking me....I woulda been happy to assign rights, for perhaps a nickel or dime a connector....If they filed within the specified timeframe, then they have to provide proof that they came up with the idea BEFORE I made it public record...

Geeze, it ain't about the money....but manufacturers who choose to take an idea from a forum, and run with it....gotta be smarter..

Course, if they filed before Jan 14, 2003....then I have a severe case of egg on face... Unfortunatly, I've ben unable to find a patent on the 75 ohm...any help out there??

And the REAL LESSON here????? It is quite clear that Jon was in error on that point...painfully so...and yet, he blasted another, quite a few times.. Granted, HE was unable at the time, to imagine a solution to the problem, but I did...and, WBT did..

Doesn't mean he's always wrong..but, how many people believed what he said??

Is an apology warranted from RISCH? Nah...although he stated absolutes, really all he was stating was that he could not do it...

Hey, we are all right at times, wrong at times...it's the attitude that we will be remembered for..

Cheers, John

 

[Francious70]

Umm... layman's terms please??

Paul

 

[jneutron]

Umm... layman's terms please??

Paul

Your killin me, Paul...

Gene wrote an article here on video stuff..

Jon slammed the whole ball of wax...it took him seven posts to do it.

In it, he said 75 ohm RCA connectors were impossible...and he knew many rf and electrical engineers who agreed with him..

I said it could be done...and I posted how...specific design elements..

Now, a manufacturer in Germany is making them.

Proving me right, Jon wrong..

A real question: can they patent it? I posted it Jan 14, 2003. Did they patent it after seeing my post? Can they defend a patent on an idea that is posted on the world wide web? Did they patent it, and did they pre-date my post..

A real point: sometimes the person that says it's impossible is run over by one doing it..

Relevance?...75 ohm is the cable type used for video connections, dvd to tv, for example. But, the connectors used, called RCA connectors, are not right for the job..

I designed one that was...and WBT is making and selling them...

A real question...JR was so adamant that it was impossible...and yet, voila...

Another real point...how sure are we that cables don't make a difference? As sure as Jon was with the RCA thing???

Self reflection and humility are nice attributes...

Cheers, John

 

[Audioholics]

Gene and I are toying with the idea of a fairly robust DBT in the near future... It would be open invitation and we'd go through a thorough round of procedural suggestions before we did it...

It would most likely have several phases so that different methods of conducting the listening tests could be entertained.

Not that it matters, but yeah - we want to hear some cables and see if we're correct - or not. Our theorem: only poorly designed cables sound different.

 

[jneutron]

Our theorem: only poorly designed cables sound different.

My theorem....Nothing in my understanding contradicts yours..

But of course, you'll forgive me for trying...

Cheers, John

 

[mtrycrafts]

Why not send an email to them and ask for the patent info.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Another real point...how sure are we that cables don't make a difference? As sure as Jon was with the RCA thing???

Self reflection and humility are nice attributes...

Cheers, John

Greenhill demonstrated many years ago that indeed many could identify 24 ga cable from 16 ga and 12 ga.

"Speaker Cables: Can you Hear the Difference?", Greenhill, Larry, Stereo Review, Aug 83, pg 46-51.

Not so between the others when it came to music
When someone can demonstrate it in a credible manner, then we can all post less I have no problems with that.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Gene and I are toying with the idea of a fairly robust DBT in the near future... It would be open invitation and we'd go through a thorough round of procedural suggestions before we did it...

It would most likely have several phases so that different methods of conducting the listening tests could be entertained.

Not that it matters, but yeah - we want to hear some cables and see if we're correct - or not. Our theorem: only poorly designed cables sound different.

You might want to consider contacting Tom Nousane and discuss your idea. He might even join you? I have his email.

 

[jaxvon]

Wow, that's a nice load of crap. They do indeed have something exactly as your describe. Also, why would a manufacturer use platinum plating? Compared to gold, copper, or silver, platinum sucks for conductivity. WBT uses this with their 110 AG RCA plugs, I guess because it still looks like silver. Just looks like a way for them to extort more money from customers for an idea that isn't theirs.

 

[Mudcat]

Gene and John,

Since I know you are reading this thread. Did you get my email? The one with the word doc attached about calculating the voltage drop in cables and correlating it with a test or dB calc or whatever.

 

[J Risch]

Jon Risch made the statement that WBT now has a 75 ohm RCA connector...

No, no I did not say that exactly.

I said:
"The reflection's are due to a less than perfect load termination (as has been often discussed, the RCA plug/jack are NOT of a true 75 ohm impedance, with the possible exception of the WBT New Gen plugs, and ONLY when used in jack/plug pairs), and so, they are not at near full strength, but are at some level less than near full strength."
in this post:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/99290.html

I fail to see how the phrase "possible exception" is the same as "they have them".

Now, it seems that an apology is needed...
In response to an article written here, Jon put on AR, a "scathing" diatribe, slamming Gene and the AH crew for such errors...

See this post:
http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/cables/messages/99591.html

At the time of the posts, what I wrote was true, at that time, no such RCA plug/jack existed. In point of fact, the only way it could work, is if you use BOTH the special WBT Nextgen RCA plug AND the special WBT Nextgen RCA jack, assuming that they are indeed a true 75 ohms Z. Using either a conventional RCA plug OR a conventional RCA jack would disturb the characteristic impedance again, just as bad.

Thus, at the time of the article, they were in fact, wrong. Besides, they were showing pictures of the Canare plug used by one of the advertisors, it wasn't to hard to figure out which plug they thought had a 75 ohm impedance.
In point of fact, the video cable article WAS quietly corrected, and the parts about "true 75 ohm plugs" taken out, along with approx. 12 more of the 16 major errors that I pointed out in the first place. The only note of these changes that I am aware of is a SMALL footnote of corrections and a date for the corrections, no other details. I was never credited for providing the corrections in the first place, and to this day, the false claims that I was wrong about the article errors is still used by certain folks as 'evidence' that I am wrong about cable issues, when in fact, I was not the one who was in error.

Now, further down the thread, I describe very clearly, how it is indeed possible to make a true 75 ohm RCA connector set...

You described rather crudely, a germ of an idea for a possible method of making a 75 ohm characteristic Z RCA plug/jack. You stated several different versions that you thought might do the trick, I do not recall you providing any measurement results from your prototype.

First and foremost.......where's that retraction from Jon Risch??? He was so confident...wasn't he?

At the time given the current state of existing plugs, it was not going to be possible.
We still don't know that it has happened, as I have not seen an independant test of the WBT Nextgen plugs.
I find it amazing that you, of all people, are more than willing to absolutely accept without question, claims from a cable company ad, without any sort of verification or third party review involved. Does this mean I can now cite any other cable company ads as a scientific citation or as a rebuttal?
It does seem strange that you are so willing to comletely accept their claim, when it agrees with YOUR POV, yet for anything else, they are to be rigorously questioned. Isn't that a double standard?

In any case, I am going to say for the record that you did indeed come up with a germ of a idea that MAY be similar to a plug that MAY actually achieve a 75 ohm characteristic impedance, or at least, a reasonable fascimile thereof.
You may have been right.

Should I apologize to you for this? I don't recall getting all over your case at the time, nor do I recall that you got that excited about it THEN.

However, you have gotten all excited about it now, and seem to be gleefully trying to paint yet aother picture of me as wrong. Since I have pointed out the several fallicies involved with that stance, I have to wonder WHY are you pursuing this course so strongly? There does seem to be an ulterior motive.

Finally, regarding all the patent stuff, I think you will find out pretty quick how expensive it is to seriously litigate patent issues. Good luck, and don't say you weren't warned!

Jon Risch

 

[mtrycrafts]

Wow, that's a nice load of crap. They do indeed have something exactly as your describe. Also, why would a manufacturer use platinum plating? Compared to gold, copper, or silver, platinum sucks for conductivity. WBT uses this with their 110 AG RCA plugs, I guess because it still looks like silver. Just looks like a way for them to extort more money from customers for an idea that isn't theirs.

I am confused
Is this for me, since it is under my post, or to jneutron?
If it is to me, I am at a loss.
If it is for him, he may not read it and then you will not get an answer?

 

[jneutron]

No, no I did not say that exactly.

I said:
"The reflection's are due to a less than perfect load termination (as has been often discussed, the RCA plug/jack are NOT of a true 75 ohm impedance, with the possible exception of the WBT New Gen plugs, and ONLY when used in jack/plug pairs), and so, they are not at near full strength, but are at some level less than near full strength."

I know exactly what you said...and it is very clear that duplicating your exact wording is entirely meaningless, as the content was the important item....you brought to the table, the existance of an RCA that WBT sells that is 75 ohms out to 1 Ghz..it serves no purpose to clarify a point which is not in contention..

I fail to see how the phrase "possible exception" is the same as "they have them".

I didn't take your word...I went to their site..

They do indeed have them.

At the time of the posts, what I wrote was true, at that time, no such RCA plug/jack existed. In point of fact, the only way it could work, is if you use BOTH the special WBT Nextgen RCA plug AND the special WBT Nextgen RCA jack, assuming that they are indeed a true 75 ohms Z. Using either a conventional RCA plug OR a conventional RCA jack would disturb the characteristic impedance again, just as bad.

Absolutely correct. And indeed, your analysis of the geometry was (almost)correct, requiring a dielectric constant that didn't exist. (you said negative coefficient, I did not disagree, but I believe it really should have been a less than 1 coefficient).

Thus, at the time of the article, they were in fact, wrong.

Indeed. However, within several days of learning of the problem, I showed that it is possible..and that your statements that it is impossible and it would take a miracle....were incorrect.

In point of fact, the video cable article WAS quietly corrected, and the parts about "true 75 ohm plugs" taken out, along with approx. 12 more of the 16 major errors that I pointed out in the first place.

And that is exactly how collaboration is supposed to work.

The only note of these changes that I am aware of is a SMALL footnote of corrections and a date for the corrections, no other details. I was never credited for providing the corrections in the first place, and to this day, the false claims that I was wrong about the article errors is still used by certain folks as 'evidence' that I am wrong about cable issues, when in fact, I was not the one who was in error..

And, who is to blame for that? You did not collaborate with them, you just slammed them, and have done so at every opportunity..

You described rather crudely, a germ of an idea for a possible method of making a 75 ohm characteristic Z RCA plug/jack. You stated several different versions that you thought might do the trick, I do not recall you providing any measurement results from your prototype...

"Crudity" of description is actually your perspective simply because you do not have an exceptional understanding of e/m theory and 3 D field perspectives...I do, as do most of my co-workers...it took even less of a description to convey the problem and solution to them...Indeed, the explanation was elegant in it's simplicity, as I could have easily provided a 3 dimensional field map and integral equations...alas, that type of conveyance tends to blur the mind and hides the solution...

If you wish a prototype....just get one from WBT..

At the time given the current state of existing plugs, it was not going to be possible. ...

Had I machined a set, it would have been a week..as it is, I'm suprised it took WBT so long..

We still don't know that it has happened, as I have not seen an independant test of the WBT Nextgen plugs.
I find it amazing that you, of all people, are more than willing to absolutely accept without question, claims from a cable company ad, without any sort of verification or third party review involved. Does this mean I can now cite any other cable company ads as a scientific citation or as a rebuttal?
It does seem strange that you are so willing to comletely accept their claim, when it agrees with YOUR POV, yet for anything else, they are to be rigorously questioned. Isn't that a double standard?...

What is so amazing? They claim...actually they specify, that their plugs are flat out to a Gigahertz.. They do not claim that the "purity of essence" of their plug is somehow massaging the electrons, or any other wild and crazy explanation...they state specifically a test regimen that is easily repeated by anybody in the world, using equipment that has been available for decades now, shows their plug good to 10⁹ Hz. That is a claim that you, as an electrical engineer, can understand if you so choose...it is also a claim that WBT can be hung to dry if their product does not meet it. Do you really thing that they would make that claim and commit it to paper, copyrighted btw, if they were unsure???

In any case, I am going to say for the record that you did indeed come up with a germ of a idea that MAY be similar to a plug that MAY actually achieve a 75 ohm characteristic impedance, or at least, a reasonable fascimile thereof.
You may have been right.

I believe WBT has proven me right...but, thank you..

Should I apologize to you for this? I don't recall getting all over your case at the time, nor do I recall that you got that excited about it THEN.

I did not ask you to apologize to me...and, if you look, I stated that at the time, you did not believe it possible. You were, as it turned out a week later, incorrect...A retraction would be what I would have recommended..

However, you have gotten all excited about it now, and seem to be gleefully trying to paint yet aother picture of me as wrong. Since I have pointed out the several fallicies involved with that stance, I have to wonder WHY are you pursuing this course so strongly? There does seem to be an ulterior motive.

There is no glee involved...I have not considered any of the other parts of the posts.

I have pointed out that your attitude in slamming the article was way overboard...that you were just soooo positive something was impossible...because nobody had invented it yet..even though it was simple enough that it took less than a week to figure out..

Ulterior motive???DAMN right, there is an ulterior motive...

I'm sick and tired of your (this is not just aimed at you, Jon..but I'll use "your" for simplicity...sorry) bas######zing of electromagnetic field theory, quantum theory, electron transport theory, dielectric theory, maxwell's equations...(the list is long). And, when others with far more knowledge in those fields disagrees with some claptrap explanation, get slapped with the same old naysayer BS, denigration...the typical schtick I receive from you when I point out errors and impossibilities.

The 75 ohm RCA solution was trivially easy for me to figure out...and I'm low on the food chain of e/m theory understanding here...the point I make is, the type of attitude and denigration you foster makes people like me (well, ok...smarter than me) not want to participate in these forums...why should we bother taking that kind of abuse from someone who doesn't really understand the subject..

That is exactly why I said you (meaning your attitude) are the biggest hindrance to the advancement of the field....because you drive the good ones away...only the stupid ones like me remain.

Finally, regarding all the patent stuff, I think you will find out pretty quick how expensive it is to seriously litigate patent issues. Good luck, and don't say you weren't warned!

You are indeed correct on that point...but you missed the real point Jon.

If I had intended to patent the idea, I would not have posted it. Posting it invalidates any possibility of an international patent, and since I did not persue it within a calender year, I also cannot patent it within the USA.

That is because I put it into public domain for use in the public domain. I do not derive income from my forays into audio...I have stated many times, this is an intellectual persuit.

And I have cautioned several manu guys now about this culling of good ideas from the net, ....the legal issues wbt could face from someone like Monster cable should Monster decide to mass produce the same thing? I ain't gettin involved.

Had WBT contacted me, a valid us patent could have been created...at a cost FAR below that any litigation could entail..

One also questions a patent search that didn't find my post...the protection of IP w/r to the web will get more interesting, as I pointed out in that thread..

Finally, these issues remain valid, even if WBT did not take the idea from my post...they would have to prove that legally...should the need arise.

Cheers, John

 

[Francious70]

Your killin me, Paul...

My bad.

Relevance?...75 ohm is the cable type used for video connections, dvd to tv, for example. But, the connectors used, called RCA connectors, are not right for the job..

Why not just use DVI connectors?? Lossless transfer, kinda like optical cables for audio.

Paul

 

[jneutron]

Aww, man...when I saw jneutron's initial post........ and it'll result in another locked thread!" Now it may be too late...at least it's here in the Steam Vent where flame wars can be allowed to burn out.

Your post timing suprises me...
Jon was here..he posted..made his points in a rather reasonable fashion...quite nicely..and received nice responses in return..so your fears at least for now, have not been realized..

I think the webmaster here has some work to do...the thread you did lock had hawk's post almost two hours before mine, and I did not see his post when I looked...

I also saw the forum software block me from posting, stating it was locked..but yet, the forum page did not indicate so..

strange..

Cheers, John

 

[jneutron]

Wow, that's a nice load of crap. They do indeed have something exactly as your describe. Also, why would a manufacturer use platinum plating? Compared to gold, copper, or silver, platinum sucks for conductivity. WBT uses this with their 110 AG RCA plugs, I guess because it still looks like silver. Just looks like a way for them to extort more money from customers for an idea that isn't theirs.

Perhaps not..and, it is not clear yet if it was their idea or mine..someone is looking into that with wbt..also, if they used my idea, it is not too difficult to word it such that the novel part of it is something other than what I posted..there are many ways around a patent..that is why a patent attorney is always a good idea.

Here at work, we use lots of wire and copper connections.

For a 30,000 amp connection, even with 4,6, or 8 of 3/4 inch diameter bolts holding them together, there is still a lot (well, relatively) of resistance between the parts, so when we power them, they still get very hot. To stop this, we sometimes use penetrox (I think that's the name).....it is a copper filled slurry of some kind of silicon based oil..(again, I think it's silicon based). It stains clothes something fierce...

Most of the time, we just machine the surfaces to under 250 micro-inch finish (surface roughness less than that number), and then silver plate the entire contact surface..We have a silver plate kit, a dc supply with some cyanide solutions of silver (scares me to use it). Silver plate will reduce the resistance of the connection.

Gold and platinum, although less conductive, are both noble metals, and do not oxidize..so they are very good for the contact resistance. Ive some nickel plated 1/4 jacks that I used for a pa app, they always give me grief with loose contacts....I replaced them with some dayton black case gold plate barrel, and they worked all summer no problem.

So, I don't think the plating is far off...I don't buy the "metal sound" stuff really, but I've certainly experienced the contact resistance issue.

Here's a pic of one of the small dewars, and the copper buss work that feeds power for the superconducting magnets........this is only setup for 10 kiloamps, so there's not that many 500 mcm wires. As such, there is still a 3 foot dia floor fan to keep the wires from catching fire, I just moved it out of the way for the pic. (ten 500mcm wires is inadequate for 10 Kiloamps, especially with them bundled so close to each other..) But, if you look closely, you can see under the closer wires, the 1.5 inch thick by 8 inch wide copper buss, it is horizontal, about 3 feet long, and has holes in it for bolts. I apologize for the color rendition of the camera, but the copper buss is really silver plated.

The black fan on the right is to keep the nitrogen and oxygen ice from growing too much...that white pipe in the middle is the liquid helium return pipe covered with solid room air..it's a different kind of burn hazard.

Oh...the fluke 77?...it's there so it looks like I actually do something..besides take pictures.

Cheers, John

 

[gene]

I think the webmaster here has some work to do...the thread you did lock had hawk's post almost two hours before mine, and I did not see his post when I looked...

I also saw the forum software block me from posting, stating it was locked..but yet, the forum page did not indicate so..

John, if you spent more time on our site rather than forum, you would know we are upgrading servers This is likely why you are seeing glitches in posting. Our new server system is gonna rock! Hopefully wont have to upgrade again for a long time!

John, also regarding our Component Video Cable article you mentioned I wrote: It was actually my brother Steve that wrote it FYI.

Mudcatt;

I did get your email, haven't had time yet to digest and comment. Hopefully next week.

 

[jneutron]

Why not just use DVI connectors?? Lossless transfer, kinda like optical cables for audio.
Paul

75 ohm RCA useage is actually kind of a legacy thing....lots of it around. And cables can be had very cheap.
I guess the newer stuff will eventually all be designed with the correct connectors, rather than just pulled out of the parts bin like the RCA was for video use.

I must admit, I did not know what DVI was when you mentioned it..

I then though...why not use this site to learn??...so I went to the sticky:..Audio and Video connections..the definitive guide...and very quickly read about that and the other standards...

Gene...excellent job...I am duly impressed with the site resources..

hey....you don't have to send me any money for that plug...you can, of course, send a check to my favorite charity...the Community Awareness for Safe Housing...yes, it's a long name, so just use the initials...and send it to me, I'll make sure it gets there..

Cheers, John

 

[Leprkon]

Also, why would a manufacturer use platinum plating? Compared to gold, copper, or silver, platinum sucks for conductivity.

the only reason I can think of is that platinum is one of the hardest of the noble metals (hence its use in long-life spark plugs). electrical properties aside, it could repeatedly be plugged and unplugged without damaging itself.

the flip side of that is that you have transferred the wear pattern and are now damaging your COMPONENT I/O's more quickly than your cables. this only makes sense if the cables are more expensive than the components...

just more snake oil for people who want to say they have platinum tips ( and you can't even use it for killing the werewolves that invade your house when you were watching Lord of the Rings)

all I can say is " what a load of crap ".... oh wait, that's been said before

 

[toquemon]

Here is a review of the new connectors, one ot them is the WBT 75 Ohm connector you're talking about.

http://www.armonia-avm.com/aavm-foro/wbt-nextgen/wbt-nextgen1.jpg
http://www.armonia-avm.com/aavm-foro/wbt-nextgen/wbt-nextgen2.jpg
http://www.armonia-avm.com/aavm-foro/wbt-nextgen/wbt-nextgen3.jpg
http://www.armonia-avm.com/aavm-foro/wbt-nextgen/wbt-nextgen4.jpg
http://www.armonia-avm.com/aavm-foro/wbt-nextgen/wbt-nextgen5.jpg
http://www.armonia-avm.com/aavm-foro/wbt-nextgen/wbt-nextgen6.jpg

I don't know if it's snake-oil, but at least it was interesting for me.