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

USB-C head-to-head comparison

lumafield.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 232 posts

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#201

Post by _moof »

ivanjermakov wrote: post #164
mensetmanusman wrote: post #48

“ Another curiosity hidden in the circuit board is this wiggle on one of the traces. It contains a tiny detour to make sure it’s the same length as its paired trace, which is especially important when dealing with extra-high-speed data transmission.” A wiggle that small is adding picosecond delays. I’m surprised that’s necessary. Cool!

Today I learned! I'm curious to see approaches to solving optimal pathing of traces to keep them equal length.

There's not much to it. You route them without worrying about equal length, and then your EDA tool adds serpentine tracks to the shorter one to match its length to the longer one.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#202

Post by lxgr »

ac29 wrote: post #195
scarface_74 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as a compliant USB A to USB C adapter and some combination may fry your device. https://hackaday.com/2022/12/27/all-about-usb-c-illegal-adap...

Your article says USB A male to USB C female is noncompliant. It doesnt say USB A female to USB C male is noncompliant. These are reasonably common and I had one included with both my current laptop and my current smartphone, for example.

Yes, I meant female A to male C. These are compliant and even have specific resistor coding so that dual-role USB-C devices know what they have to do, since USB-A ports are directional.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#203

Post by asicsarecool »

alvarop wrote: post #158
bloopernova wrote: post #3

I wish these were more widely available: https://caberqu.com/home/20-42-c2c-caberqu-746052578813.html... I have one from the kickstarter, and every new USB-C cable gets tested and labeled. Most are USB 2.0. A few will have the power delivery pins. It's such a crapshoot on any shopping site. It should be mandatory that these cables are correctly spec'd and labeled.

Shameless plug: I made a version of this you can order yourself from JLCPCB (with some bonus connectors.) https://alvarop.com/2023/07/usb-cable-tester Github project: https://github.com/alvarop/usb_c_cable_tester

That is freaking awesome.

Feels like every nerd should have one.

Would be cool to have a version where it measures the resistance of the power wires too

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#204

Post by Smoosh »

joshstrange wrote: post #194
MBCook wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a fan of GALKZ or FRELP? Gotta love those random 5 letter “brands” amazon is covered in these days.

Personally it's become my hobby to read out amazon product titles to annoy my partner and/or coworkers. Even brands I trust more so do this awful keyword stuffing, example: the first result on my amazon for "USB-C": > Anker USB C Charger Cable (6ft 100W, 2Pack), USB 2.0 Type C Fast Charging Cable for iPhone 15 / 15Pro / 15Plus / 15ProMax MacBook Pro 2020, iPad Pro 2020, iPad Air 4, Samsung Galaxy S23+/S23 Ultra It's…

I used to have a Soniq brand TV. To emphasise the stupidity of the name I insisted on pronouncing it not as "sonic" but with the final q as the weird sound which begins "quack".

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#205

Post by Krasnol »

ErneX wrote: post #181
Krasnol wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their choice is remarkably ridiculous. It looks like they start at a 10 and then continue with 4, 3, 2. I wonder who paid for this...how is this even getting so many upvotes? It's pretty much useless.

It’s not useless and they said on X they will buy more cables and scan those too.

Why didn't they make the post after they made this immense additional investment for more cables?

Yeah...it's not useless for their and Apple's marketing department. For everybody else, it is.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#206

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

fireflash38 wrote: post #163
moonfern wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"USB-IF strongly discourages its members and the industry at-large from using specification names/terminology in consumer-facing branding, packaging, advertisements, and other marketing materials." They recommend the following naming: XYZ's USB 40Gbps 60W USB Type-C® Cable or USB 40Gbps 60W USB Type-C® Cable USB 40Gbps... correspond to the USB4 Gen 3×2 mode Hi-Speed USB is USB 2.0 (High-Speed). A tip usb cable and a…

What a clusterfuck of branding. The inability to easily differentiate between capabilities makes everything the same as the lowest common denominator - the shittiest USB-C cable from wish.

There should be a colour banding system, like resistors use.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#207

Post by eqvinox »

alvarop wrote: post #158
bloopernova wrote: post #3

I wish these were more widely available: https://caberqu.com/home/20-42-c2c-caberqu-746052578813.html... I have one from the kickstarter, and every new USB-C cable gets tested and labeled. Most are USB 2.0. A few will have the power delivery pins. It's such a crapshoot on any shopping site. It should be mandatory that these cables are correctly spec'd and labeled.

Shameless plug: I made a version of this you can order yourself from JLCPCB (with some bonus connectors.) https://alvarop.com/2023/07/usb-cable-tester Github project: https://github.com/alvarop/usb_c_cable_tester

I think your tester would actually break that active Apple cable (because an active cable essentially behaves as a "device" since it has active circuitry on the high-speed lines.)

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#208

Post by ftigis »

pipeline_peak wrote: post #199
namtab00 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"lightening" as in pocket-lightening?

Umm what?

"Lightning" in "lightning cable" is spelt "lightning" and not "lightening". Lightening is "to make lighter", and "pocket-lightening" likely refers to him/her not liking to spend money on lightning cables or that he/she thinks that they cost more than they are worth.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#209

Post by fxtentacle »

LeanderK wrote: post #60
mastax wrote: post #29

> Why does this cable have all 24 pins when only half of them are connected? The extra pins could help the plug sit more securely in its socket. Another guess: the same factory makes Thunderbolt cables, and it’s cheaper to maintain just one design, even though that means wasted material and effort. The highest volume manufacturers may be fully integrated. Usually how it works, especially for these relatively low volu…

are they really hand-soldered? They look so small! Isn't there a machine that is cheaper for high volume soldering of those small connections?

Typically you have a stencil that you squeeze the solder paste through and then you put the IC on top with a tweezer and bake the whole thing with something like a hair drier. It's not that difficult to get good results without using an expensive pick&place robot.

Re: USB-C head-to-head comparison

#210

Post by extraduder_ire »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #206
fireflash38 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a clusterfuck of branding. The inability to easily differentiate between capabilities makes everything the same as the lowest common denominator - the shittiest USB-C cable from wish.

There should be a colour banding system, like resistors use.

Something like that was tried with usb 1.1, 2, and 3, being white/black/blue. But many manufacturers got very loosey-goosey with it.

I'm sure it'd be worse as soon as a common spec for this popped up for USB-C.

Post reply on HN