[HN Gopher] All About USB-C: Illegal Adapters ___________________________________________________________________ All About USB-C: Illegal Adapters Author : zdw Score : 183 points Date : 2022-12-27 18:14 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (hackaday.com) (TXT) w3m dump (hackaday.com) | zzo38computer wrote: | USB is really terrible for many reasons. This article describes | some of them, but it is worse than that. (I knew USB was bad; I | did not know it was quite that bad!!) | | I think for charging, there should be a charging only port, and | for data, having separate ports which you can tell which physical | port is in use, and perhaps RS-232 or MIDI would be good, than | USB which is no good. | RockRobotRock wrote: | USB is the worst connection standard, except for all the other | ones. | ec109685 wrote: | I get what the EU is aiming for by banning lightening connectors, | but it would be nice if it was coupled with improvements to | USB-C. | curiousgal wrote: | This is why I don't think that would change anything. I am more | that certain Apple would abuse the standard to force the users | to only buy its cables. | | Edit: I know complaining about downvotes only solicits more but | I am genuinely curious why two people thought this comment was | so irrelevant to the discussion that they downvoted it. Only | explanation is that they believe that Apple could do no wrong. | Lol | elzbardico wrote: | Really, the day the iphone gets a USB-C connector will be a | sad day to me. I hate that stupid male connector disguised as | a female smd mounted in a board. | scarface74 wrote: | Yes because it's not like Apple already has been shipping iOS | based devices that support USB C that can be used with any | USB C cable and supports all the relevant standards including | video over USB C. | | Also, Apple will be forcing all Mac apps to go through the | Mac App Store any day now. Since it introduced the Mac App | Store a decade ago. | jasonhansel wrote: | For a while, I've been using a USB-C female to USB-A male adapter | to connect my MagSafe charger to various old-school USB wall | chargers. Somewhat surprisingly, this works perfectly; the | charging speed is probably slower but I haven't noticed. | | That said, I'm guessing this violates some specification or | other. Ah, well, no explosions yet. | puzzlingcaptcha wrote: | About USB-C to barrel plug connectors: I think people generally | use a "PD decoy" board with that setup, which does Power Delivery | negotiation (usually based on the cheap IP2721 chip but you can | get a fancier one from ST) with a PD-capable power brick. This | way you can easily get 5/9/12/15/20V out of a single decent | quality GaN charger. | | Now obviously you want to be careful with where you plug it in | but it's still quite convenient. | | A more advanced way to do this is use an arduino board that can | negotiate arbitrary voltage in 20mV steps with a PPS-compliant | charger, effectively giving you a tiny lab power supply (although | you can't get under 3.3V and the chargers are still a bit pricy). | matthewfcarlson wrote: | I know I'm biased towards hackaday but I think this series is one | of the better ones they've ever done. The writing is tight and | clear. You can tell Arya is an expert in the area. | _Microft wrote: | Have a look at this tool to help find out what 'capabilities' | your cables have: | | https://github.com/alvarop/usb_c_cable_tester | | It has a number of connectors, the cable gets plugged into the | board with both ends and labelled LEDs will light up for wires | that are connected. It runs off a coin cell, no microcontroller, | no single-board computer, no nothing. Just a power source, LEDs | and connectors. | | From what I remember, the creator said that the repo should | contain everything required to have some manufactured by JLCPCB | (that's a large Chinese PCB prototyping service that also | populates boards with components if you like). | sschueller wrote: | Yes, you can get 5 boards assembled for around USD 44.- | https://github.com/alvarop/usb_c_cable_tester/blob/main/ORDE... | kps wrote: | I still have my RS232 version, but I thought those days were | over. | carabiner wrote: | I guarantee that within 3 years, a "USB-lite" will be announced | with minimal features in an attempt to solve this mess. Yay, now | you have n standards. | whatever1 wrote: | Is there any certification body that also has a list of certified | usb products ? | | I literally cannot predict if a cable can charge, transfer data | slowly, fast or if it will fry my device. | | I mostly want a *hard requirement for a specs label ON THE | CABLE*. How else am I supposed to know what they are for? Even | Apple is not labeling their cables. | | Same physical appearance and no labeling is recipe for disaster | randy408 wrote: | https://www.usb.org/products | whatever1 wrote: | That is very helpful thanks! | googlryas wrote: | What ever happened to "Benson from Google", who was probably | the closest thing to a certifying body that the public could | trust. | theshrike79 wrote: | If it's the same person I'm thinking of, most of the content | disappeared with Google Wave. | cactusplant7374 wrote: | Holy shit. I do have to flip my Type C extension cable sometimes. | This sort explains what is happening. | | I would like to have really long cables (12ft+). That way I don't | need to bring a bulky extension cord with me when traveling. Has | anyone found a way to make this work? | layer8 wrote: | At this point, they should rename it to MSB - Multiversal Serial | Bus. | hoosieree wrote: | Ah, this takes me back to that time I had to add a USB-2.0 | adapter inline with an all USB-C signal chain in order for the | operating system to recognize the device. | | And that charger I have which is USB-C but only works in one | orientation. | | And those expensive OpenFlow/P4 compatible switches in the | datacenter whose management interface is serial (as in RS-232), | but the form factor of the connector is USB-mini. | LarryMullins wrote: | I think there must be something fundamentally wrong with many | of the USB-C / USB 2.0 adapters on the market. I've burned out | 10 of them already, using them to connect my old trusty mouse | (5V, 100mA). The mouse works fine (20 years after I bought it!) | but the adapters only last a few months at most before they | start intermittently disconnecting, eventually failing | completely. I'm at my wits end with this because there is no | mouse on the market today with the same form and button layout. | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _before they start intermittently disconnecting, eventually | failing completely_ | | My phone had this problem. I went through several cheap USB | cables over the course of a year, before finally realizing | it's not the cables that were the issue (other than being | cheap and easy to deform): the issue was caused by lint | accumulated in the USB port. After scraping it out with a | needle the issue went away. | | The lint and dirt will accumulate over time, and get | compacted in the port by the charging cable, making it very | hard to spot, as it looks just like the back wall of the port | would. Cheap USB cables will easily deform after being | plugged a couple times, making them much easier to pull out - | but this alone will _not_ make the connection intermittent, | even though it _feels_ that way if you 're not aware of the | lint problem. | devwastaken wrote: | On top of bad usb-C, the chips used for Ethernet and HDMI are | also overwhelmingly poor. Every adapter overheats, so hot you | cannot touch it, even with a full metal case. We need a standards | body to ban junk products designed to be unsafe and/or destroy | your devices. | Robotbeat wrote: | Are there any competing connectors under development now? I | personally wonder of the mechanical robustness of a device-side | port that isn't a pure female port. | onewheeltom wrote: | The best thing about USB-C is the connector. Everything else is a | mess. I have a powered speaker with a USB-C port for "charging" | that does not work with a USB-C to USB-C cable. Only USB-A to | USB-C cables will charge the speaker. | Foobar8568 wrote: | Ducky keyboards are the same... | wlesieutre wrote: | I have a USB recharged LED lantern with the same problem | zlsa wrote: | This is a super common f*ckup in a truly ridiculous number of | devices. It's so common that somebody published a PCB design to | retrofit noncompliant devices to make them work: | https://github.com/ide/usb-c-to-c-power-mod | clumsysmurf wrote: | I hate USB-C connectors. All my phones have had the same issue: | USB-C connector busts and you can't insert the cable any more. | I use high quality Anker cables, and I keep having to buy new | Google Pixels over this. Replacing the USB-C port is around | $160. | jacquesm wrote: | Username checks out ;) But seriously, yes, they are | ridiculously fragile and usually only SMD soldered on, no | hole through part to give it some mechanical strength. Very | frustrating, I am _super_ careful inserting USB-C connectors | and have broken a couple already, fortunately not on anything | expensive. | clumsysmurf wrote: | Do you recommend any kind of port-saver magnetic cable ... | something like https://www.amazon.com/Magnetic-Charging- | Charger-Transfer-20... but with high speed data? | jacquesm wrote: | I haven't used anything like that, for me the problem | isn't tripping over cables but basically the force | required to attach the cable in the first place. I guess | a magnetic pigtail would reduce the number of times I | need to insert the cable but a regular USB-C extension | cable would do just as well for that purpose (and that's | what I use right now). | | That's still not perfect because the 2 cm of plug | sticking out of the side of the device is long enough to | put substantial leverage on the soldered part inside the | device but that seems to be a given. I do try to find the | shortest possible plug to minimize that force, but can't | find them much shorter than that. | sephamorr wrote: | This probably isn't your issue, but I've had issues in the | past, usually with a cell phone that sits in my pocket, that | show up as cables no longer maintaining detent and falling | out. The issue was actually accumulated dirt in the bottom of | the female connector. Scraping it out with a toothpick fixed | it for me. Just a FYI. | genewitch wrote: | i feel as though the port in the phone is male, and the | cord side is female, since the part that actually "mates" | goes into the cord, not the other way around. | | when i started typing this i had a coaxial cable in mind as | an example of "looks like female but isn't", although UHF/F | come close. the "male threaded" part is not the male | connector. | jacquesm wrote: | There are little rubber covers that you can use to close | the connector hole when it isn't in use. | pigsty wrote: | If you keep buying the same cables and they keep breaking | things, they're probably not high quality. | | In my experience, Anker products are nothing short of | garbage. Keyboards and adapters all break within weeks. I | feel like all the "anker is the best!" stuff I see online is | stealth marketing because I've had better results buying | absolutely anything else. | deathanatos wrote: | The connector on every phone I have ceases to work eventually | not because the connector is broken, but because the socket | has (sufficiently) filled with pocket lint such that the plug | isn't able to reliably connect anymore. One just needs to | remove the lint from the port. (And note that you won't see | the lint by gazing into the port, either; it has usually been | compacted into the bottom of the socket by the plug squishing | it down.) | | I've fixed ~4 phones by doing that. | | This was a problem with USB micro, too. | axiolite wrote: | Magnetic cables are a good solution to this and other | problems. The magnetic tip stays inserted at all times, | preventing lint infiltration. | Certhas wrote: | Any suggestions for how to clear the socket out? | hallway_monitor wrote: | I know the sibling suggested a toothpick, but everything | besides a needle has been too large and too week in my | experience. There's nothing important at the bottom of | the port so just jam it in there and scrape around until | you can get a bunch of lint out. You will be surprised | what you find. | Dma54rhs wrote: | Plastic sharp object to pick. Maybe toothpick and loads | of lighting. | delecti wrote: | I'll second the "relevant username" sentiment, but without | the winky face. I've had phones break in a variety of ways, | but the USB-C ports have always kept working. | eternityforest wrote: | I have never once seen a USB-C connector fail device side. | It's so far the most reliable connector I've ever used long | enough to have an opinion, perhaps with the exception of US | 120v plugs which suck for their own reasons. | gambiting wrote: | I was going to say the same thing. I don't understand how | that's possible - it's incredibly frustrating. | elzbardico wrote: | Really, compared to lightning USB-C connector is pure trash. | But compared to USB-A I concede it is an improvement. | genewitch wrote: | i always worry about the lightning connector shorting out | when it's not plugged in to something. | gumby wrote: | The way USB C is designed you have to go out of your way to | make that happen. I believe you (!) but I'm not sure how I | could build a device to behave that way. Could it be due to a | weirdly noncompliant power adaptor? | wiredfool wrote: | I've got a pair of cheap Bluetooth headphones that do that | too -- they only work with a usb a to c cable, not with a | proper usb c power supply and cable. | fragmede wrote: | That device, the speaker in this case, is missing the pull- | down (Rd) resistors on CC1 and CC2 to say that it's happy to | get 5v@500ma when connected using a USB-C to USB-C cable. | Those resistors aren't needed/used for signaling when using a | USB-C to USB-A cable, which is why that works. | | https://community.silabs.com/s/article/what-s-the-role-of- | cc... | RobotToaster wrote: | So they saved a fraction of a cent per unit on two | resistors? | fragmede wrote: | To GP's point, that's the problem with Postel's Law. It's | possible that was intentionally skipped to save | fractional cents, but I think it's also possible they | made the device and just never tested with a usb-c to | usb-c cable. "It works on my machine (which is too old to | have usb-c ports because we don't buy macbooks for | hardware designers)!" | numpad0 wrote: | No, it's the peripheral device. There were initial confusions | among bootleg/hacky manufacturers such as: | | - whether CC pins are to be handled by the cable or by the | device, | | - whether added pins are for insertion detection or for | protocol use by the host, | | - which pins are to be pulled down or left NC for charging, | | - whether USB-C is meant to be a "mobile" connector, or a | replacement for the USB-A connector, or how soon the | replacement is to occur. | | As the result, there were some devices that has a USB-C input | but only works with an A to C cable. | TulliusCicero wrote: | I have a retro games portable that behaves the same way. | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | Always, or did it just break the ability to flip it upside- | down? | zlsa wrote: | If the 5.1k pull-down resistors are missing on the device | side, it will not charge from a USB-C wall brick, laptop, | etc. in either orientation, but it will work fine when | charging from a USB-A outlet with a USB-A to USB-C cable. | This is because USB-C outlets are not permitted to provide | any power until they detect the presence of a "legacy" device | that just wants 5v (as signaled by the pull-down resistors on | the device). | Animats wrote: | The USB crowd has managed to replicate the decades old problem | with DB-25 RS-232 cables. | | I once worked in a data center where there was a rule that all | cables over 1 foot long must have all wires and be 1:1. Any | "adapters" were very short, labelled cables. USB-C is now there. | karmakaze wrote: | This was far more interesting than expected. Title more | appropriately "illegal and/or useful". | | This talks about power. I'd also like to read one about all the | possible data and video usages and gotchas. | blacksmith_tb wrote: | And likely not "illegal" (housefires notwithstanding...) but | just in violation of spec (which is great when it scratches | your itch, but obnoxious when some combo of device and cable | won't do what you expect). | yjftsjthsd-h wrote: | Eh, that's within the way the word is used; giving your CPU | an illegal instruction won't call the cops, but it will crash | your software. | ChuckMcM wrote: | This is a great discussion of all the ambiguity that has been | added to the USB spec along the way and how that ambiguity can | bite you. I'm fairly convinced at this late stage that the IETF | motto of "precise in what you send, flexible in what you receive" | is basically evil. When standards work around the non-compliance | of clients in creative ways (like HTTP browsers did, A LOT) they | become "well it isn't in the standard but if you don't do this | you'll break a lot of things out in the field" problems. That | resistance to breaking existing clients is understandable, but | ultimately it is a trap (in my opinion) that results in both | security issues and safety issues. | | It would be interesting to have a USB 4.x spec that was both | explicit in all the behaviors AND had explicit tests for and | responses to non-compliant stuff. I don't think the IEEE or | anyone else for that matter has the stones to try the experiment | though. | brigade wrote: | Of these, I think the only one that can work solely because of | an overly "flexible in what you receive" is the USB condoms, | which shouldn't be encouraged in the first place. Specifically, | that people wanted to charge at more than 100mA without doing | real negotiation, so they ignored official USB specs came up | with a variety of static or simpler negotiations that could be | mimicked. | | The un-negotiated 20V power input is a WTF and I've never seen | that before, but the typical behavior from a port not expecting | that is getting fried so it's not like anyone else is being | overly liberal. | | The extension cable works because basically all physical | connections from the last 30 years or so are designed to still | try to work at a degraded level with subpar signal integrity, | because the world is analogue and you can't have a 100% perfect | signal. The sometimes missing pins can't be required without | breaking compatibility with pre-C ports that don't have them. | Likewise, the male-A to female-C adapter can't really be | distinguished from a male-A to male-C cable, so you can't | prevent it from working without also blocking those cables. | | IMO the real issue is the USB-IF stubbornly refusing to allow | any legit versions of an extension cable (or I guess male-A to | female-C) with active circuitry to make them reliable/safe. A | hub allows male-A to male-A connections and length extension | after all... | jzwinck wrote: | If IEEE does that, some manufacturers will just ignore it. Sure | they may have to write weasel words like "USB compatible but | not USB authorized" on their products, but they'll dominate the | market by allowing people to use the largest variety of | devices. | zdragnar wrote: | The simplest practical way around that (imho) is to license | the name for the 4.x standard and be proactive in taking | action against anyone who uses the name or logo if their | cables or ports aren't compliant. | | Of course, depending on the jurisdiction _who_ can actually | bring claims, and how damages can be calculated, vary | greatly. | | I, for one, wouldn't buy "USB compatible but not USB | authorized" cables if it meant being secure in knowing that | the damned cable will actually work. Less tech savvy people | might not, but there's also people who can be tricked into | buying blinker fluid for their cars. There's gotta be a happy | medium somewhere. | solardev wrote: | Is that basically what Thunderbolt does? | marcosdumay wrote: | > is to license the name for the 4.x standard | | Oh, while you are at it, they will also need names that | don't keep changing and don't have synonyms. | | The 4.x names are ok for reference in a standard, but they | are useless for consumer communication. | gumby wrote: | The negative impact of Postel's suggestion ("be conservative in | what you send, be liberal in what you accept", AKA the | "Robustness principle") is worse on end users than developers | in cases like USB. | | USB is silently super backwards compatible. This is really good | in a pinch: I need to get the data off this drive and even if | it takes six hours because I only have a USB 2 cable I'm better | off than if I couldn't do it at all. | | The problem is the opposite case for users: They have a fast | USB-4 drive (potentially 40 Gbps) and a USB 4 laptop but pick | up a USB-2 only cable. Hard for most people to diagnise, | especially as such a cable won't have an e-marker so the laptop | can't even query it. Or a slow charging cable for their device, | so they fancy laptop doesn't visibly charge, or only charges | overnight. | | Even for me these cases are hard to diagnose. And harder to | understand than, say, using an inferior cable with your monitor | so you et no signal at all. | eternityforest wrote: | Most people who want 40Gbps can diagnose the issues, the rest | will assume "Oh, it takes 6 hours, better plan for it, that's | how it is". But it will work every. single. time. at those | very slow 2.0 speeds. | | What they should do is give a popup saying "You have a slow | cable, it could be faster, go rummage till this message goes | away and mark the good one with a sharpie", and that wouldn't | need any changes to the spec | | They've chosen reliability over quality. Cheap reliability is | a great thing. We did fine before fast hard drives, we can | often live without them. But we'll want to scream if we can't | get it working at all. | solardev wrote: | > go rummage till this message goes away and mark the good | one with a sharpie | | I dunno if I even have the right kind, or how to even shop | for the right kind, because there are like 500 wrong kinds | that are all wrong for a different reason =/ | | Basically I just look for Thunderbolt 3/4 support and if it | doesn't have that, I give up, because who the heck has time | to understand 4000 kinds of incompatible USB? | eternityforest wrote: | Maybe they could have a link in the popup? | | I wonder if you could start an online cables boutique | that just sold tested and reviewed cables and cable | management with a 50% markup for people who just don't | want to deal with it. | 2muchcoffeeman wrote: | Then you have to wonder about how to make sure the link | doesn't 404. | | And your store idea invalidates having cheaper devices | and cables and a ubiquitous protocol. | | The only good thing about USBC is that if you moderately | keep up to date with all your devices, eventually, | recharging becomes relatively easy for all your devices. | I don't think I've ever had a problem charging a USBC | device. Generally everything charges everything. The high | power devices like laptops are probably the exception | since you need a brick that can deliver 65-80W[1]. | | 1. One reason why Apple Silicon is so appealing. The M2 | Air is plenty fast and basically consumes the power of an | iPad. You don't need a 30W supply to charge it. | TeMPOraL wrote: | > _What they should do is give a popup saying "You have a | slow cable, it could be faster, go rummage till this | message goes away and mark the good one with a sharpie", | and that wouldn't need any changes to the spec_ | | I think something like this exists in Windows. I'm not sure | under what conditions it triggers, but I remember | occasionally seeing a tooltip saying something like "this | device could work faster", directing me to plug it into a | different USB port. | xg15 wrote: | I remember this as well, but wasn't this way back if a | usb 2.0 device was on a 1.1 (!) port? | | Not sure if they continued this for USB 3.0 and USB-C. | brookst wrote: | +1 | | I recently threw out all of my USB-C cables that are longer | than a foot but can't charge at 100w, because I decided USB-C | is a primarily a charging protocol, and I'll use wireless, | short cables, or Ethernet for data transfer and HDMI for | display. | | The matrix of charging + data speeds in USB-C is a nightmare | and always resulted in having the wrong cable for the desired | devices and usage. | scarface74 wrote: | Until I need a USB C cable that can carry power and video for | my portable external display and almost no random cable that | you pick up supports it at all. | | So I have to be extra sure that I have the right cable before | I leave for a trip. | slaymaker1907 wrote: | I'm sure the Quest 2 link cable is theoretically capable of | that. However, given that the standard is such a mess, | there's a decent probability that the display, computer, or | cable won't trust another component and thus fall back to | something much slower. It's also kind of hilarious that the | Quest 2 needs a separate USB-C cable from the included | USB-C charger to actually talk with a computer. | triska wrote: | Regarding the negative impact of Postel's suggestion, see | also _The Harmful Consequences of Postel 's Maxim_: | | https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-thomson- | postel-w... | | In Section 4, they define an alternative design principle | based on the lessons of protocol deployment: | | _Protocol designs and implementations should be maximally | strict._ | nullish_signal wrote: | I tried using a power-only USB cable for data once, then | tossed it back in the bin. Later, tried it again, back in the | bin. I think on the 5th try, months later, I finally threw it | away. | | Also, Dial-Up/Ethernet pairs seem to be too complex? Each | house I bring my Ethernet/wire Tester+Detector to, somewhere | I find a rat's nest of copper cable. Just today I found an | Ethernet cable that connects 4/8 to nearby the router, and | the other 2 Pairs of wire terminate in a Dial Up cable in | another room!? | scarface74 wrote: | I threw all of my random USB C cables and Lightning cables | away and standardized on these: | | https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093YVRHMB? | | - USB A and USB C on one end | | - USB C, micro USB and Lightning on the other end | | - 100W PD | | - 20GB data | | - video over USB C for my portable second display | (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B095GG31KX) | | I never have to worry about the "right" cord. I did keep my | MagSafe cord for my Mac. | lostlogin wrote: | Does that standardisation have 6 cables (including the | MagSafe)? | baq wrote: | Fast Ethernet (the 100Mbps kind) doesn't use those pairs | and works just fine with low frequency noise of a landline | phone. | | Any cable ran in the previous decade should be dedicated to | Ethernet, though... | asveikau wrote: | > "precise in what you send, flexible in what you receive" is | basically evil | | I think it's a matter of where you apply it. | | For a purely software construct such as a network protocol, | probably ok. | | For something like negotiating current and voltage where making | the wrong decision can melt a cable or fry a circuit board, as | stated in TFA, obviously it doesn't fly. | Taywee wrote: | Even a purely software construct, it's evil. If you flexibly | receive, then popularly wrong data becomes the new standard. | HPsquared wrote: | Evil, but strong. The two often go together. | asveikau wrote: | I feel like you are making an assumption that your flexible | implementation, or a single "wrong" implementation, becomes | dominant. | | If there are _many_ implementations with differing amounts | of perceived flexibility or wrongness in different areas, | the average is going to be OK. | | If misunderstanding a spec is so common that many | implementers are universally confused and "wrong" in the | same way, maybe it's the spec that was wrong, and the | misinterpretation should have been the spec. | | Ps. Phrasing this as "evil" contrasting with good reads to | me as paranoid and melodramatic. | layer8 wrote: | The problem is that those implementations that do end up | being dominant then factually constitute an ill-defined | unwritten standard. There are just too many examples of | this. So it's good advice to not start being lenient, | because you never know what ends up being dominant. As a | sibling comment points out, being lenient in fact | increases your chances of becoming dominant. | speed_spread wrote: | Unfortunately the flexible implementation has a better | chance at becoming dominant as it will work in more cases | hence user are more likely to adopt it. Users don't care | about standards compliance in the short term (if ever), | they just want a solution to their use case, which is | understandable. Same reason Microsoft worked so hard to | keep deviant apps running on newer versions of Windows, | there's a quality to "it just keeps working no matter | what I do". | Taywee wrote: | I agree with "evil" being melodromatic of a term. I was | just using it for consistency. | | Bad behavior being eventually codified into a standard | because implementations were lax and it's impossible to | go back on what everybody is now already doing is the | story behind much of the modern web as it exists. HTML | requiring closing tags for some elements, requiring a | lack of closing tags for others, and leaving the closing | tag still optional for yet others is a side effect of | common browser behaviors. | | You're right that many implementations with different | wrongness smooths out the average in many cases, except | when all those implementations are expected to behave the | same way on the same bad data. Then they all converge to | the same bad behavior, which then becomes the new | standard. Perhaps that's organic and natural, but I still | wish we had a world where HTML was strictly compatible | with XML, or with any other structured and predictable | format. | duped wrote: | The problem isn't the philosophy but applying the philosophy | out of context. I don't want my device to be "flexible" in what | it accepts when we're talking about dozens of watts fed by | amperes of current into my hand or pocket. | | Like there's a reason that Speak-On (1) was invented. It turns | out sharing a common connector for carrying power and signal | can be fucking dangerous. | | (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speakon_connector | jacquesm wrote: | I've seen more than one XLR based cable go up in a puff of | magic smoke, this is a nice industry response to a very real | problem. Better yet if the problem isn't detected during a | soundcheck. Whoever thought that using the same connector for | microphones as for speakers was a good idea wasn't thinking | clearly that day. Unfortunately there is still a lot of old | gear floating around so you get this: | | https://www.bax-shop.nl/speakerkabels/klotz- | scasf030-neutrik... | duped wrote: | I've seen older stage monitors use powered TRS cables. I | still see it in amp heads and cabs. Powered signals on | exposed conductors. Better not touch it. | jacquesm wrote: | Oh, that must work great when you insert them and short | the connectors against ground... | duped wrote: | It's actually not that bad since the only thing on the | other end is a transducer that's already rated for a lot | of current. It's just rather dangerous to have powered | audio signals on exposed copper so you generally don't | hot swap the things. It's not so bad for amps since the | cables are very short and inaccessible, but for stage | monitors you can accidentally unplug it on stage. | jacquesm wrote: | I've been zapped by microphone stands more than once and | seen one musician take a serious hit just after plugging | in his guitar. Stage gear is handled quite rough by non- | experts and there is a ton of wear on plugs and cables. | Especially outdoor concerts can be pretty nasty from an | electrical point of view. | wkat4242 wrote: | Haha I use speakon for charging + data of computer backpacks. | Because they can have more pins than xlr, can carry decent | load, have good strain relief and locking mechanism. | eternityforest wrote: | That's a little less horrible than XLR, because the common | use of speakon is already a designated "You're on your own" | protocol, since you have to verify yourself that the amp | isn't too much for the speaker and you're not feeding it | 80hz square waves. | joebergeron wrote: | Do standards organizations tend to release/sell/provide any sort | of "test harness" that vendors can use to validate their | implementations against? Some coworkers and I recently authored | an open API standard to be implemented by external vendors, and | the test harness we released alongside it was the single most | valuable tool we could possibly have provided to speed partner | integrations/catch problems early. | kennywinker wrote: | I had a recent brush with the chaos of USB-C. A device I built | was using what I assumed was a "standard" 6-pin usb port | (https://www.lcsc.com/product-detail/USB-Connectors_Korean-Hr...) | - but it wouldn't work with the cheap usb-c cables I had bought | for it. After a bunch of time with a continuity tester and | ultimately ripping one of the cables apart, it turns out the it | was a 6pin cable, but it had a different 6 pins connected. One of | them was "left handed" while the other was "right handed". | Maddening. | | To help with this in the future, I recently ordered a run of | these usb cable testers from jlcpcb with some friends - | https://github.com/alvarop/usb_c_cable_tester - totally worth it | to never have to guess about a cable again. | | (for the curious, a technical description of what was happening: | the cable had pins A1, A4, A5, B1, B4, and B5 all connected. The | port had pins A12, A9, A8, B12, B9, and B8 connected - If you | look at this in a pin diagram like the one on this page | https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/01/usb-3-1-and-type-c-t... | you can see that no matter which way around you put it in the | port you'll never get contact) | gumby wrote: | This is part of a hackaday series on USB C. Other posts: | https://hackaday.com/series_of_posts/all-about-usb-c/ ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-12-27 23:00 UTC)