151–160 of 266 posts
> 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…
> 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…
Because the spec is applied for either $1 Chinese toy or $10000 Apple Mac studio. Such dynamic range requires a lot of detail
Clear big labeling saying version, speed, watts or similar mix so everybody can quickly glance and know whats being sold. Whatever chinese crapware has mislabeled is another topic.
> 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…
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.
I just pay a premium to a reliable source: Apple 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
I don't know how my wife and kids are treating charging cables, but the cables seem not to live that super long in their hands :) So paying premium constantly seemed like a money sink hole for me. Strangely enough once they start to buy their own damn cables instead of me paying, the lifespan of said cables seemed to quadruple. Strange strange universe we live in. :)
I'd say most of us have experienced this ourselves in some form at some point in our lives
> 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…
This would completely defeat the point.
There is a range of needs for cables. Some devices have simple needs for power/data transfer/extra functionality, and some devices have more. A $3 USB-powered lamp does not need a cable for gigabit data transfer and 100W charging - this cable would be more expensive than the product. Similarly, new features & performance levels will emerge and we want to be able to use these in new cables backward compatibly.
Given a range of needs, you have two options:
- A single cross-compatible connector, but with a range of capabilities
- Different types of connector for every capability
We used to be in the latter situation, USB-C is an attempt to do the former. Having different capabilities for same-shaped cables is the goal.
Labelling would be great, but standardizing one single spec for all cables would defeat the point.
As always, these testers (the affordable ones) are capable of testing continuity, and, I guess, the cable chip report. If you want to test bandwidth, that's a five- or six-figure bit of gear.
This keeps needing to be pointed out every thread this appears on. Plenty of cables have eMarkers that claim "40Gbps" or whatever speeds, or support 240W PD...but absolutely cannot deliver either of those. And none of these consumer level testers can test either of those claims. Resistance measurements can cursorily test claims of 240W but resistance changes with temperature which changes with current...so unless you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Think about it. You need to generate a precise, calibrated, 40GHz signal, transmit it, then precisely measure the returned signal for phase, amplitude, and waveform integrity -at that speed. Oscilloscopes and logic analyzers that run at that speed, are damn expensive.
But for bandwidth can't you just have two simple computers at either end that can send a 100GB file and if it arrives in 20 seconds, you know you have 40gbps of bandwidth?
Because that is not reproducible and introduces all sorts of other random variables to your test.
Expensive equipment is the only answer here.
Its a bit like when you ask an electrician to install network cable (yuk !).
They consider their job done after a continuity test (if they bother to do a continuity test at all).
Meanwhile, if you put a Fluke on it, you will pick up all sorts of subtle faults that the electrician's continuity tester will never pick up, but will cause subtle and hard-to-diagnose problems when you try to push data over the cable.
Its the same thing with all those cheap USB testers.
They might have all sorts of fancy displays, but in the end they are no substitute for the real thing and will end up lulling you into a false sense of security.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 sta…
> now we’re living in the hell we asked for N=1, but my quality of life has greatly improved. Literally all devices I use daily (laptop, phone, mp3 player, Bluetooth speaker, headphones) I charge from a single cable. I'm still grateful for this unification every time I charge my phone via the laptop charger.
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
They are not TB5 compatible though, and if you are going to drive monitors through it, or connect external GPU, 120Gbit (TB5) is much better than 40Gbit TB4 gives you. If you are willing to pay a bit more, consider TB5 cables from CalDigit, StarTech, CableMatters, or Apple.
> 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…