The designers of 3.5 mm audio jack made the decision to keep it's length long (about 19 mm). They could have easily gone shorter lengths. Does longer length provide some noticeable improvements?

From what I see on Wikipedia, people have tried to do 15 mm & 17 mm variants, but they seem to be incompatible.


closed as primarily opinion-based by Chris Stratton, Dmitry Grigoryev, awjlogan, winny, Elliot Alderson Oct 17 '18 at 18:30

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Of course they are, one side of the connection expects the dimensions of the other, not something shorter \$\endgroup\$ – PlasmaHH Oct 15 '18 at 12:21
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The designers designed the female part at the same time as the male. So, they could've made both shorter. \$\endgroup\$ – Ashish Ranjan Oct 15 '18 at 12:24
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Well, it had to be some length. My guess is that 19mm was just an arbitrary choice, perhaps related to ease of manufacture or just what the designers felt was aesthetically pleasing. At the time they were designed, there wasn't as much of a drive to make things as small as possible as there is now. Note that this is just a guess, there may well have been some good reason for the length they are. \$\endgroup\$ – Hearth Oct 15 '18 at 12:34
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ They already were short, the original phone switchboard jacks were closer to the 6.3 mm size. The 3.5 mm one just has about the same aspect ratio. \$\endgroup\$ – Richard the Spacecat Oct 15 '18 at 12:37
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ And a good thing they did. That left enough space to add more rings later \$\endgroup\$ – Maple Oct 15 '18 at 13:24

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.