|
|
Post by frets on Jul 27, 2020 16:06:46 GMT -5
Hey Guys, A fellow Luthier sent the following to me today. I apologize beforehand if you’ve already bounced this one around. It’s a “Pure Tone Jack”. Below is its sales pitch followed by photos. I dunno about this one...interested in your opinions, they’re $5 a pop. “A standard 1/4 inch jack utilizes a pressure ground and a single hot positive connection; as actual grounds are not connected to the sleeve, the pressure of the tip dictates how good the ground is, resulting in inferior sound quality (I.e., that "static sound"). Not only is the signal strength compromised and weaker, the actual sound is inferior because you never have a solid ground and the poor connection at the tip contact is so minimal. With the new Pure Tone Jack, the audio jack as you know it will never be the same again. The Pure Tone audio jack has 2 actual concave ground contacts that hug the sleeve on both sides and 2 concave hot leads wrapping both sides of the positive tip. Not only is the signal much cleaner, stronger, and clearer, but all aspects of the EQ spectrum are also greatly improved while eliminating those nasty spikes. In addition, the Pure Tone jack has greatly increased the voltage handling capacity while leaving a smaller footprint for those tight spaces. The new standard jack has been born! The Pure Tone multi-contact jack was invented by Dave Linsk, lead guitarist of the International recording group Overkill. The jack was created as a result of constant failures of the current production jack models that have been available on the market until now. As it turns out, the 100 year old audio jack design really needed some changes to make it road worthy!”   |
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 27, 2020 16:16:27 GMT -5
Actually I quite like the idea of it. Two contact points for each of ground and hot, and symmetrical design, all seems good. For $5 Id use them.
I get worried about jacks at the other end of the chain. I have been doing quite a lot of work with attenuators for tube amps, and those use 1/4" jacks to carry several amps. A concept like that could add reliability, although for that job I'm usually wanting an insulated body.
I sometimes use a stereo jack socket even for mono, wiring the ring connection to ground. It grips the plugs better and at least adds redundancy to one of the connections.
|
|
|
|
Post by frets on Jul 27, 2020 17:57:45 GMT -5
John, I’m thinking about using them in my builds; but, you bring up an interesting point with utilization of a stereo jack. It seems you focused in your take on the actual security of connection being superior to a regular jack; however, do you believe their construct of overall improvement in the signal? I guess it would make sense that a more secure connection in the manner by which they have designed it would increase the stability of the signal. But would it (conjecture) be superior in sound as they claim? And, if the enhancement pertaining to security of the plug:jack is the sole benefit, would not the use of a cheaper stereo jack be the better choice? Opinions? Doods?
- Cindi
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 27, 2020 18:09:43 GMT -5
Id not expect to be able to tell any tone difference from a guitar signal, as compared to a normal jack in good condition. But if any degradation occurred to contacts, due to oxidation, sweat, beer, other bodily fluids etc, then I reckon the new design could reduce any crackles and glitches, since at any one instant so long as one connection side is good, its then a good connection.
It might also depend.. on how it feels, if its nice and solid to insert the plug but not too stiff.
|
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Jul 27, 2020 18:25:21 GMT -5
for high current applications (amp to cab) nothing beats the industry standard (for pretty much everyone but guitarists) speakon connector. besides being robust, locking, potential for 4 conductor it doesn't have the body connected to any of the conductors so a high power bridge mode power amp doesn't have current on something i can touch
i buy a ton of 1/4" jacks (this Marshall rebuild has 4 shunt tip jacks and 5 standard ts jacks) which cost me about a buck or two apiece... 45 bucks just on jacks is nuts in my book
if there's that much force in the cable I'd rather it pull out
|
|
|
|
Post by ourclarioncall on Jul 27, 2020 20:09:28 GMT -5
I like the look of that . If it’s a bit more sturdy and stable then I would give it try for sure. I’ve never been a fan of strat jacks. Switchcraft are okay and seem a bit stronger but never tried one of these.
The normal output jacks are Too wobbly and fragile for my liking . The jacks on the guitar cables seems too long to me, if it could be shorter then there would be less leverage to knock it around and make it wiggle and work it’s way loose or work the dreaded common cold of the guitar, that nut that keeps coming loose on the jack plate 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 28, 2020 6:14:45 GMT -5
I'll buy JohnH's idea that these might prove more robust than a standard jack. But I smell a good deal of snake oil with statements like: Huh? Huuuuhhh?  ? Either an electrical contact is made, or it is not. If contact is made in two places at once, current will flow only through whichever one has the lowest resistance, not through both at once. So how is the signal thereby made "stronger" or "clearer"? ("Clearer" presumably means less distortion, while "stronger" means more current, both of which are measurable. So, show us the data on this one . . .) This reminds me of ads for supposedly improved spark plugs for autos with dual electrodes, which claim better mileage, more power, etc. A spark will be made only at one of the two, whichever presents the least resistance, and the second electrode will quickly become soot-covered and won't make any difference. Possibly true but irrelevant to passive guitar circuits. So, perhaps some reliability advantage, but for the rest . . .  |
|
|
|
Post by ashcatlt on Jul 28, 2020 12:00:51 GMT -5
Either an electrical contact is made, or it is not. Well sort of. These things are supposed to be self-cleaning, but that depends on a good snug connection so that plugging in and out scrapes away any dirt or oxidation from both jack and plug. If you’ve got enough gunk between them, though, it is at least like a series resistance and possibly more like a series capacitance. If there’s just barely not actual contact, you might again have a capacitive connection. It’s also at least possible to have a sort of slight intermittence that changes at audio rates while the guitar is shaking, which could have some strange effects on what comes out. This is just false. We have all kinds of parallel paths in our guitars and I promise there is current flowing through each. |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 28, 2020 12:03:34 GMT -5
But I smell a good deal of snake oil.... As well we all should, you too, frets . EGHHHH! Wrong answer, me bucko; ever heard of a "ground loop"? Such are constructed exactly from what you just described. [Marketing crap deleted for brevity] What, or rather Who, it should remind you of is Monster Cable and their totally-off-the-rails Marketing Gelderfarb. My first impression on reading this was that M.C.'s M.D. was turned loose into the wild, and what frets just presented to us is the culmination of what they ate for lunch. (Hint: think of that old rhyme "beans, beans, the musical fruit".  ) HTH sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by ourclarioncall on Jul 28, 2020 12:09:50 GMT -5
the poles doesn't have the same mass
It does look a bit thin(Possibly weak) now that you mention it Hmm, actually now that I look at comparison pics , maybe not 🤔. |
|
|
|
Post by ourclarioncall on Jul 28, 2020 12:18:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ourclarioncall on Jul 28, 2020 12:26:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ourclarioncall on Jul 28, 2020 12:35:56 GMT -5
frets have you tried it yet ? Or still considering ? I think I’ll get one and give it a shot 😎 here was a review with some potential issues. It was from 2018 tho “Excellent product apart from 1 minor issue.. The threads didn't match any of the other jack socket nuts I had or the original socket plate in my telecaster which made fitting them a minor problem as I had to fiddle with them to fit them correctly to my guitars.”
|
|
|
|
Post by frets on Jul 28, 2020 13:59:03 GMT -5
Clarion,
No, I’ve ruled it out. I’ll stick with regular Switchcraft’s.
|
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Jul 28, 2020 14:54:09 GMT -5
frets have you tried it yet ? Or still considering ? I think I’ll get one and give it a shot 😎 here was a review with some potential issues. It was from 2018 tho “Excellent product apart from 1 minor issue.. The threads didn't match any of the other jack socket nuts I had or the original socket plate in my telecaster which made fitting them a minor problem as I had to fiddle with them to fit them correctly to my guitars.” I have often seen jacks have difficulty fitting in to the cavity, and this added bulk might worsen that. Mostly, however, I can see larger insertion and removal forces (which is already sufficient in regular jacks). The standard jack design pushes against the tip connection from the side, and thereby creates force at two locations on the sleeve against the barrel of the shield of the jack. That seems good enough and I seldom have trouble there - mostly I have seen trouble on the tip connection and even then far less than I see on the guitar cord. If I were to improve the system I would look first at the design of the cord connection to the plug. |
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Jul 28, 2020 14:58:49 GMT -5
my logic is the same amount should get in and get out. if one side of the equation has too much metal then it drinks the electricity.
maybe we are talking here in a diferential of potential maybe negligible, or maybe not, i'm not the electron to feel the flux, but my common sense dictates that the pole of the guitar jack that is using the biggest part of the plug deserves an smaller gauge wire, just in case.
I cannot see any electrical theory that supports that notion, at least not at audio frequencies. Nothing drinks electricity, but your intuition here might be that the larger amount of metal will have a higher level of capacitive coupling to the surrounding metal and therefore will 'suck' out the high frequencies from the signal. This is possibly true for very high frequencies, but I cannot say that it would be at all noticeable at audio frequencies. |
|
|
|
Post by b4nj0 on Jul 28, 2020 16:33:08 GMT -5
Ah- a square wheel ...
Y'all must lose sleep over B9A "valve" bases then?
Agreed- feldegarbe,but at five bucks a throw they're not fixing to rob anyone.
e&oe ...
|
|
|
|
Post by JohnH on Jul 28, 2020 17:19:35 GMT -5
I'm not rating the all the BS blurb! But I do think its a better design and I'd pay that couple of extra $ at least to try one. The rubbishy marketing words miss the point and don't even address why it is actually a good idea IMO.
I have jacks on my Fender and my Gibson that both have intermittent problems, and I should replace them. But, here's the real advantage; an intermittent problem, or a crackle, created by one contact is not a problem at all if a parallel contact does not have such an issue at that very instant. Parallel redundancy is a massive benefit to reliability in all kinds of systems from guitar jacks to interplanetary spacecraft.
|
|
|
|
Post by ourclarioncall on Jul 28, 2020 17:30:33 GMT -5
I sometimes use a stereo jack socket even for mono, wiring the ring connection to ground. It grips the plugs better and at least adds redundancy to one of the connections. so I could use one of these in my strat copy ? think I have a normal mono switchcraft jack in there already , but I would be keen to add more stability if possible www.allparts.com/products/ep-0555-switchcraft-2t11-dual-contact-1-4-in-input-jack |
|
|
|
Post by ourclarioncall on Jul 28, 2020 17:47:55 GMT -5
Sounds like a good review. Marketing aside, “as good as , if not better than (the standard) switchcraft “  |
|
|
|
Post by ourclarioncall on Oct 4, 2020 5:24:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Oct 4, 2020 15:26:58 GMT -5
Nice to see someone take a page out of Monster Cable's workbook, in an attempt to use it against them.. As 1/4" jacks go, these things were designed for Military use during WWII (to replace all of the myriad styles of screw-in connectors), and they're still around today, for a good reason - they do the job as intended. Any 'new' aspirations are just gilding the lily, unless we're gonna talk about very high voltages and amperages (as in, way too high to be safe for human consumption). As always, one should treat any MarketingSpeak with a kiloton of precaution. But I still contend, and always will, that an RF cable beats the pants off of any other cable ever seen (or made, even) by mankind. sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Oct 5, 2020 0:30:30 GMT -5
As always, one should treat any MarketingSpeak with a kiloton of precaution. I'm disappointed, not only did you use the imperial (and presumably, US, short) ton, which is smaller than a metric tonne (though bonus points for being as ambiguous as most marketing, as a British imperial ton is larger than the metric), but don't you know a gigagramme is so much obviously bigger than a kiloton, 'cause it's both a bigger word AND "giga-" is a MILLION times bigger than "kilo-"!
Anyhow, back to the not-very-Qi-p-Jack, the first thing I noticed was the comparison pic between their jack and the traditional: the jack plug in the traditional hasn't been inserted fully. Manufacturing sockets & cables they must be aware of this, so why show the traditional jack in this position? Probably because it's misleading: a fully inserted jack plug would show better a mechanical/electrical connection with the spring contact 'locking' into the notch of the jack plug -- a feature which seems conspicuously missing in their improved design. Looking at the supposed benefits in their FAQ, they make a big deal about "Secure Connection", of the traditional design they say:Aside from doubts about "simply falling out" without significant previous mishandling (e.g. strong collisions with a jack plug inserted *), I don't disagree that replacement is a common solution (as and when this issue does occur), but it is not always the necessary solution. Issues can be fixed, or at least staved off for time, by simply bending the spring to make firmer contact. Also if their product does offer a more secure connection, I'd expect to see a fuss made over how the new design favourably compares in terms of the rated number of mating cycles, but no mention of such a thing. Just something about "The physics behind the bent brass is less effective and not as long-lasting". "Please help! The physics behind the design of the jack plug in my guitar has completely expired! Is it still safe? Does anyone know where I can get some fresh, longer-lasting, physics? Do you think I might need a new jack -- one that has a nearby mention of some well-know German-born theoretical physicist?"As an aside, a manufacturer of the antiquated style of jack socket (Switchcraft), rates theirs at ten-thousand mating cycles. (That's enough for one cycle per day for about 27 1/ 3 years.) Later on in the same FAQ, under "Low Contact Resistance":Great so you'll be telling us your measurements then? Ha, fat chance! Once again, Switchcraft have no issue disclosing this: Switchcraft's 1/4" open frame mono jack product page, for reference.
* I've read somewhere that the use of a plastic jack plate on a LP is such that if you happen to slam an inserted plug, then jack plate is a cheaper sacrificial part that reduces the potential for damage to the cable/plug, socket, and surrounding wood. That's an interesting idea, alas I have literally zero proof. |
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Oct 5, 2020 1:00:42 GMT -5
I'm wondering if the 10000 cycle rating is just a number they decided to stop at. at some point you gotta figure they had to go out for lunch or a smoke break and didn't want to watch anymore cable boudoir
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Oct 5, 2020 5:35:22 GMT -5
I own a dozen or so guitars at present, and have had several others over the years that are no longer with me. The oldest is over 50 years old. While I have had wiring to a jack go bad, requiring resoldering, I have never had the jack itself fail.
Granted, I'm not a touring musician with a bunch of ham-handed roadies. But I think that this jack is a solution in need of a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Oct 5, 2020 7:02:31 GMT -5
I guess the possible downside though, would be that with double the contact area, your MISTAKES would be twice as obvious as well.....  |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Oct 5, 2020 12:36:47 GMT -5
As always, one should treat any MarketingSpeak with a kiloton of precaution. I'm disappointed, not only did you use the imperial (and presumably, US, short) ton, which is smaller than a metric tonne (though bonus points for being as ambiguous as most marketing, as a British imperial ton is larger than the metric), but don't you know a gigagramme is so much obviously bigger than a kiloton, 'cause it's both a bigger word AND "giga-" is a MILLION times bigger than "kilo-"! In my defense, I was referring to the basic unit of explosive power - we measure the power of an explosive devise in terms relative to a given amount of TNT, most often expressed in kilotons of released energy. I thought this would be sufficiently understood by a great majority of our readers, that's all. And for the record, I'm a snob when it comes to spelling - I refuse to waste ink and/or screen space (let alone the energy to stroke additional keys) just to add letters to words that don't change either the pronunciation or the meaning. Quite daffy of a whole nation to insist that "favor" should be spelled "favo ur" when the end effect is still the same pronunciation. Ditto for "tonne" and "gramme", what a waste. But for the record, don't get me started on the written French language, nor the miserably execrable way that the French people foisted upon the world their non-phonetic spelling of Asian language words/ideograms. That one really gets my knickers all up in a twist.  didn't want to watch anymore cable boudoir Now that's how to handle adult topics in a family-friendly forum!  |
|
|
|
Post by Yogi B on Oct 6, 2020 15:01:02 GMT -5
In my defense, I was referring to the basic unit of explosive power - we measure the power of an explosive devise in terms relative to a given amount of TNT, most often expressed in kilotons of released energy. I thought this would be sufficiently understood by a great majority of our readers, that's all. In my defence, I was thinking in terms of mass due to the equivalent in meaning idiom: "with a pinch/grain of salt". I didn't know I was supposed to be thinking in terms of saltpetre. Quite daffy of a whole nation to insist that "favo ur" should be spelt "favor" when the end effect is still the same pronunciation. The effect of "favor" for me is usually a double-take as my brain reads it as the Brazilian/Portuguese/Spanish 'fav-or', rather than 'fa-vor'. Pronunciation-wise, there is a difference between US and British "colour", "favour", etc. in that US speakers more heavily pronounce the ending "r", but that is the case no matter the spelling. I don't know if I'm imagining it, but I feel like the opposite of the above is true for these -- that in British English there is slightly more emphasis on the final "n" or "m", but this is definitely more subtle and probably not as consistent across regional variations. I can't actually remember the last time I've read or written out "-gram"/"-gramme" rather than the symbolic g, kg, etc. (in a non-French context), but it was likely the short form. The last time I read "gramme" within English was probably in a recipe. In any event, "tonne" is less ink/typing than "metric ton", the symbolic "g" is shorter than "oz"/"lb", whereas the spelt-out "grammes" is only one letter longer than "ounces" or "pounds". Or indeed indigenous American words, looking at you: Arkansas, Connecticut & Illinois.
This talk of pronunciation reminds me of a detail I neglected to mention in my previous post -- the first thing that made me sigh -- QiJack's tagline: "Engineered to sound the best". Because 'sounding the best' cannot possibly be, in any way, subjective -- oh no! Likewise with their choice quote at the bottom: "What an ingenious idea! Between the QiJack and the Analysis Plus cables, I now have the true tone of the pick-ups and strings on my guitar." Obviously, because since the fifties Fender, Gibson, and the like were all designing their guitars to only produce their "true tone" via a combination of output jack and cable designs that, in the earliest cases, wouldn't be around for over half a century. |
|
|
|
Post by gumbo on Oct 10, 2020 6:46:37 GMT -5
...and then there's that bit of driving on the right-hand side of the road too...  ...just 'coz they can't change gears with their left hands... Dunno, I stay away for a couple of days, and everyone thinks I've left the building and they have to do their own derailing.... ...sheesh !  |
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Oct 10, 2020 10:38:57 GMT -5
...and then there's that bit of driving on the right-hand side of the road too... ...just 'coz they can't change gears with their left hands... We drive on the right side of the road because it's the right side of the road. Definition of right (Entry 1 of 4) 2 : being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper
right conduct 3 : conforming to facts or truth : correct the right answer
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right |
|
?
)
...just 'coz they can't change gears with their left hands...