Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

makeuseof.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 266 posts

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#81

Post by j16sdiz »

HDBaseT wrote: post #36
safeimp wrote: post #11

Verge recently posted this (free) app for testing on Mac's: https://www.theverge.com/gadgets/963759/whatcable-usb-c-cabl...

This effectively only tells you what the E-Marker reports though, the actual capabilities of the cable are still unknown. You can say the cable can do whatever you want on the E-Marker, its not the source of truth. The problem is, to actually benchmark everything, voltage drop, resistance, actual bandwidth (especially at Thunderbolt 5 speeds) requires a lot of hardware. Using a USB-C Test Controller ($13,000), connec…

Yes and no..

Oscilloscope is needed for things like frequency response.

but most consumer care only the power loss and bandwidth only.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#82

Post by stouset »

ryandrake wrote: post #70

> But I shouldn't have had to do any of this. It's time cables came with a label of their own, or some sort of color coding. 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. T…

> 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.

Then USB is forever frozen in time, unless we start using new connectors.

This was the tradeoff we got when standardizing on one connector. The protocol versions change (USB, USB-PD, Thunderbolt), the cables that go between each connector change based on the needs of the spec they supports. But the connectors stay the same.

In my opinion, this was a poor tradeoff and now we’re living in the hell we asked for.

If you want every cable to support the latest and greatest of whatever exists as of right now, you can do that. By all means, buy Apple’s USB-C Thunderbolt 5 cables. They’ll run you $70 apiece but you’ll be buying a cable that makes no compromises.

My personal approach is to just use whatever cable came with the device for anything for which that’s convenient and plausible. For mobile devices with relatively limited charging speeds over USB-PD and for which portability and durability are typically important, I buy the latest Apple woven cables. For high-bandwidth devices I spend the big bucks on the Apple Thunderbolt 5 cables. I discard any cables of unknown provenance.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#83

Post by palmotea »

I use one of these to check the wiring of the USB cables I get, especially if I'm getting a weird one. I've always been a little freaked out by the story of that Google employee who posted very trusted USB-C cable reviews to Amazon, then got his equipment fried by one that crossed the wires.

https://www.tindie.com/products/bittradeone/usb-cable-checke...

But when I care about performance, I just get a cable from Anker and don't worry too much about it.

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS: WHERE CAN I GET ONE OF THOSE TINY GREEN MILK CREATES IN THE PHOTO?

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#84

Post by stouset »

ryandrake wrote: post #73
Kirby64 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you want all cables to be thick, $60, and cap out at 1 meter long, this is not a reasonable standard. 480mbps USB-C is perfectly adequate for many applications. Likewise for 60W cables.

So, call it USB-D or something, if one cable is significantly different (in purpose, performance, form factor) than another cable. Don't just call everything the same label, and let the non-technical buyer beware.

Okay, great, it’s called USB-D. Is this a new connector? Or do we now need to resort to labeling cables and checking the label?

Do we do this for every new version and combination of versions for USB? USB-PD? Thunderbolt? DisplayPort?

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#85

Post by Kirby64 »

ryandrake wrote: post #73
Kirby64 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you want all cables to be thick, $60, and cap out at 1 meter long, this is not a reasonable standard. 480mbps USB-C is perfectly adequate for many applications. Likewise for 60W cables.

So, call it USB-D or something, if one cable is significantly different (in purpose, performance, form factor) than another cable. Don't just call everything the same label, and let the non-technical buyer beware.

USB-A has many variants and we don’t call it a different connector. Heck, USB-B and micro USB both have 3.0 variants that are physically different and we don’t call them something different either. I don’t see the problem here. This is just semantics, especially when they aren’t even labeled period… people just see a cable and will try plugging it in.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#86

Post by Terr_ »

orbital-decay wrote: post #77

That's an ad. There's a lot of cable testers around, most of them are crap. Cheap testers like this one are based on generic chips reading e-markers and aren't even guaranteed to support all quick charging standards. And bandwidth is another matter entirely.

Yeah, I found it odd that the author started talking about bandwidth and data concerns, but then testing part is only about power-transfer.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#87

Post by XYen0n »

ryandrake wrote: post #70

> But I shouldn't have had to do any of this. It's time cables came with a label of their own, or some sort of color coding. 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. T…

USB-C is just a connector. A cable can be a USB-C connector USB 3.0, power delivery 3.1 cable, or it can be a USB-C connector Thunderbolt 4 cable, or it can be a USB-C connector DisplayPort 1.4 cable.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#88

Post by Kirby64 »

synack wrote: post #71

I came up with a color code based on the wiring: Red for Power Only, Blue for USB 2.0, Green for USB 3 (the ones with the extra pairs connected). I use paint pens to mark every cable I come across with this code. Generally speaking, only the Green ones have special PD emarker chips. It doesn't cover every possible configuration, but it's good enough for when I'm like "I need a USB cable" vs "I need a good USB cable"…

E markers are required for USB3, so that’s why. If you have a cable capable of 100 or 240W, they will also have a marker (it’s required), even if they only do USB2 speeds.

Re: I stopped trusting USB-C cable labels and started testing them

#90

Post by Kirby64 »

bariumbitmap wrote: post #76

> Any cable that can transfer data faster than USB 2.0 speeds also requires a chip to do so. I always found this confusing because USB 3.0 Micro-B cables can transfer data faster than USB 2.0 without needing an e-marker, so why do USB-C cables need one if they already have the Tx and Rx SuperSpeed wires? It seems like the answer is, roughly, "it's complicated". https://old.reddit.com/r/UsbCHardware/comments/1ow1tpf/w…

If you’re following USB-C standard, all cables with faster data than 480mbps and more power than 60W require an e marker, period. Whether devices will still function for USB3 without that marker… that’s another story and will depend on the device.
Post reply on HN