61–70 of 266 posts
The whole space is so scammy that I'd pay for a good USB-C cable tester
To actually test for the bandwidth those are hell expensive.
Now people starting test for the chip, those scammers will install more fake chip ...
LTT has created true spec cables with the actual spec mentioned on the cables but they can not keep up with demand despite being expensive get sold out as soon as new stock comes in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfovjw7Ts_U&t=974s
I managed to get a few and so far am impressed. They are definitely on the chunky side but that probably comes with the durability
Phones and macbooks have it done right where the outer portion of the port is built in to the device body, but most other devices don't do this.
Instead of using a dedicated device, on Macs you can also use the WhatCable app: https://www.whatcable.uk
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also crackle out of the package, or at least the 5 I got did. Kind of sound like the thin glow sticks a bit.
Could that possibly be shielding? I can't say I've seen it on USB-C-esque cables (except maybe a thunderbolt cable a while back?) but I've seen some cables use a type of aluminum or mylar-looking foil between the outer rubber sleeve and the inner sleeves and wires.
A USB-C cable really should be shielded. Here's a cross-section I took of a nice full-featured USB-C cable: https://ibb.co/svR5Yvyr . You can see the VBUS/GND (fat red/black), the SS pairs (white plus red/blue/yellow/brown, each one foil shielded on this cable), the USB 1/2 pair (white/green), and then the CC and SBU stuff is the remaining wiring. Notice how not just the whole thing is braid+foil shielded, but the SS pairs are individually shielded; that's really important at these speeds, and what you want to see on a good cable.
Compare with two USB 2.0 cables: https://ibb.co/BHz4v1mx and https://ibb.co/GfpJmgbx ; the first one has the shield braid, as it should, but everything else is nicer on the second one. Cables!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every not-broken USB C cable allows for 480Mbps USB 2 speeds and 60W charging. In USB C terms, it doesn't get any more basic than this; that's as low-and-slow the specification tolerates. The issues come into play with going beyond that. USB 3 speeds? USB 4? Thunderbolt? DisplayPort (4k uncompressed video!) alt modes? 240W charging? These are all practical things that regular people use USB C cables for every day, bu…
Not that I disagree with you, but I _wish_ "regular people" used 240W charging every day. As far as I can tell it's still pretty niche and hard to get 240W chargers
My desktop “server” with two 4K monitors doesn’t even reach 240W !
Is there a cheap, reliable tester that someone can recommend that will test multiple USB cable types (A, micro & C)?
$45 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DYJL5Z67 This is the one I use and I quite like it. I've had it for a little over a year and a half. I used it to sort (or trash) all my cables and to test new incoming cables.
It's only $14.
It even offers test pads you can use to test the cable with a much more expensive multimeter.
Regardless of tests they do charge my most energy hungry devices and everything else
Many of us are privileged enough to make our lives easier in this way and haven't thought about it
There shouldn't even need to be a label. A USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable should be a USB-C cable. There should be a single connectivity/performance spec, and if the cable meets it, it can be called a USB-C cable, and if it doesn't, it should have to be marketed as USB-JUNK or something.
This is what happens when the spec is awful and says "the cable must do 480Mbps, or it must do 40Gbps, or... whatever, have fun!"