Talk:XLR connector

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stagecraft, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.StagecraftWikipedia:WikiProject StagecraftTemplate:WikiProject StagecraftStagecraft articles

Professional sound production High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed change

Proposed change, right after the photo:

EIA Standard RS-297-A describes the use of the XLR3 for audio signal level applications. Before the standard was adopted, some audio equipment manufacturers reversed the use of pin 2 (properly the normal or "hot" input) and pin 3 (inverting input). This was generally not significant when using entirely balanced signal paths, since balanced outputs will have the same polarity as their inputs and no one will know the difference. But this could be a huge problem when going from balanced to unbalanced signals, as when using an unbalanced, XLR-equipped, pin-3-hot signal processing device (like older Klark Teknik compressors and gates) with a mixing desk that had unbalanced insert points and insert cables that wired the insert connnector's shield to pin 3. The result would be no signal whatsoever, unless one rewired the insert cable or made two special adapters to swap pins 2 and 3 for each inserted channel. Such problems were only exacerbated when using cables that were wired tip-send with a ring-send desk (see tip ring sleeve). It was much better to have a processor that also had 1/4" connectors. [Can you tell I had personal experience with this???]

The pin 2 vs. pin 3 debate was such an important and almost comical issue that, during at least one Audio Engineering Society convention in the late 1980s, one manufacturer (or the AES itself?) handed out spinny wheels, with a needle mounted to a piece of cardboard that was printed with a pie shape with pieces alternately labeled "pin 2 hot" and "pin 3 hot"--showing that whether a manufacturer chose pin 2 or pin 3 was seemingly completely random. [I can take a digital photo of this wheel if anyone is interested.]

But pin 2 is now the standard. Pin 1 is always earth, and many connectors connect it internally to the connector body.

I'm probably being dense here, but I don't understand the 3rd sentence: "This was generally not significant when using entirely balanced signal paths, since balanced outputs will have the same polarity as their inputs and no one will know the difference."

1.) Why will balanced outputs always have the same polarity as their inputs? Also, 2.) if someone accidentally reversed the + and - (i.e. "hot" and "cold") signals when, say, wiring a connector, would this not cause that signal to be 180 deg. out of phase with all other signals? I'd think that would be noticed when mixing the reversed signal with anything else not so reversed. What am I missing here (e.g. what's about to really embarrass me)? Ob1-kenogle (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposed change, near the beginning:

The name XLR probably comes from the ITT Cannon part number. However, no one knows for sure why it was chosen, and debates about the origins of the name can be found in the archives of some of the major online audio communities. One helpful mnemonic to remember the now-standard wiring for an audio XLR connector (see below) is this:

pin 1 = X = earth/ground/shield
pin 2 = L = live/"hot"/"normal" input
pin 3 = R = return/"cold"/"inverting" input

In any case, XLR has become the standard name for these connectors, which are now made by many manufacturers apart from Cannon. Historically it is no more correct than the name "Cannon plug", which also continues to be used.

In earlier days there were lots of 'standards' so many in fact that 'standard' was an oxymoron. Whatever way you wire things the bottom line is for the signal of all the microphone outputs to react in phase with one another. If not there will be phase cancellation either general or frequency dependent. If the signals are mixed the recording is either degraded or ruined. Phasing can vary with the manufacturer or individual microphones, especially cheap ones. Good microphones are carefully checked for phase at the factory. The most notorious cable 'standard' was the Kudelski (Nagra) standard. You had to use special cables marked in red only for that recorder(Sound Recording for Motion Picture, Charles B. Frater Pg 44-45). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvsterling (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

I believe the above mention of X being for earth, L being for Live and R being for return is what tends to confuse many young people in the industry and those visiting this site.--Tm1000 01:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mini XLR

what is the official name for these connectors? sometimes called "mini-XLR": They are called micro xlr mainly used of lamps for large decks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.32.187 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ereca.fr/telec/422acces2.jpg - Omegatron 15:37, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Switchcraft invented them and called them TINI Q-G. No one else does, but the partnumbers such as TA3F are well known. Meggar 05:45, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Everyone seems to call them Mini-XLRs. The name 'TA3F' is used equally frequently; It is the usual way of referring to the ones used with wireless microphones where they are very common. I think they are becoming more & more important as electronic gear is becoming more & more miniaturized. There needs to be a section added to the article. Switchcraft calls them Mini-XLR & Tini-QG® too. They don't seem to be available in as wide a variety of styles as the standard XLRs yet. Here is a link to the Mini XLR section of the Switchcraft Web Site. http://www.switchcraft.com/Category.aspx?Parent=891 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvsterling (talk • contribs) 03:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Rean call them Tiny XLR. I doubt any of these size-based names will matter much, trying to copyright or trademark them would be like trying to patent water, so any word that makes it clear that they are smaller than standard will work, because it's not likely anyone will need to invent one any smaller than these. Who'd be capable of soldering it if someone did? It's good enough for me that all the small-XLR contenders existing are aimed at fitting each other's connectors. 31.51.85.171 (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a little bit about the Minis to the article. As always, please feel free to expand it and fill out more detail, or even make the Mini XLR a seperate article if you wish. I have only seen very few of these so far, on a boundary layer microphone and maybe one other item which I forget. They don't seem to be very robust, but as I have not had one break yet, I will refrain from making unproven remarks in the article! Tiger99 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone indicate some early consensus on wiring? The small XLR's are not yet standardised, apparently, and the numbering of pins 2 and 3 reverses the the large XLR standards. When referring to standard XLR, should we preserve the orientation of pins, or the numbering of pins, when wiring the small connectors as we would the large ones? To put that another way, can someone with a long experience of these things suggest which notion is likely to be adopted long term by the audio industry? I'm not after a citation, if there is no standard, there cannot be anything to cite! But a decent prediction would be nice. :) Feel free to argue if you disagree with it, I'll check back here at times to see what consensus seems to grow, if any. 31.51.85.171 (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this - http://www.aes.org/standards/blog/2013/2/aes66-2012-miniature-xlr-130211 ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it costs THIRTY DOLLARS for a non-member to even get a look at it, this is not a standard. It probably can't be cited for Wikipedia ever, because it's effectively a private publication. Like many such organisations, they claim a standard, but do not put it freely into the public domain, so they have only the vain hope that people will follow them into their own darkness. I'm more inclined to respect the advice (freely given when I asked for it) of Rod Elliott, of Elliott Sound Products in Australia, when he said that honouring the numbers rather than the orientation is less likely to go wrong. I agree with him because that would be easier to remember and notate, thus more likely to be done, hence conflicting with this is more likely to cause problems. Now, it's entirely possible that the AES came to the same conclusion, but that does NOT make it their standard, and it certainly isn't worth thirty bucks just to find out what they think. If they really cared, they'd do what Sequential Circuits did with MIDI, and publish it openly, and allow royalty free use of any of the published content. MIDI endures, and IS a standard despite many 'obituaries' written in the decades since it revolutionised electronic music systems. Closed publications behind paywalls will never be true standards, they're basically proprietary. They may agree with what becomes a standard, but they will not themselves be authoritative or citable. At best they may make a vague contribution to a consensus (as did the use of the RCA connector in audio systems), but nothing more. Rod Elliott no doubt knows of the AES, but he confirmed my statement that standards do not yet exist, so I doubt he accepts the AES as an authority either. 31.51.85.171 (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a member and here's the deal: ~Kvng (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pin 1: Shield
Pin 2: Positive left, positive phantom power
Pin 3: Negative left, negative phantom power
Pin 4 (if present): Positive right, positive phantom power
Pin 5 (if present): Negative right, negative phantom power

Thanks for saving me thirty bucks. Now just watch out for AES hellhounds on your trail... Looks like they agree that following large-XLR pin numbers is the way to go. It looks like common sense will prevail and eventually set a standard (after all, the demand for RCA plugs made them a standard, whatever RCA themselves may like to think). Do you know how the numbers 2 and 3 got swapped from original XLR format? That seems to me (and Rod Elliott) singularly stupid, and having no reason for it, and despite Neutrik fixing many old XLR problems, the genie may be out of the bottle on this one, so I doubt they can justify changing it back, and hopefully no-one will end up compromising technical specs sometime just to follow the numbers. I like using tiny XLR's for powered sensors, and fortunately the wireless mic convention looks ok to me, so I had no conflict in asserting 1=gnd, 2=sgn, 3=pwr for those. As to plugging into the wrong sockets, this is why on one chassis, there can be other types of socket. :) 31.51.85.171 (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pin 2 vs. pin 3 including history and consideration is covered in another AES standard ~Kvng (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I and other engineers find it silly, baseless, and I think paying the AES thirty bucks for the 'privilege' of knowing why is adding insult to injury. :) 31.51.85.171 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is off topic but you're really harping on this so perhaps a response would be helpful. There's no cost to participate in AES standards development. If you don't like the decisions being made, feel free to participate and improve them.

The $30 charges only partially covers to cost of running the standards program. The rest is covered by general AES membership and sponsorships. $30 is quite low in comparison to other standards you have to pay for. I appreciate that a lot of standards are free and that's nice but these organizations don't run on air so some money has to come from somewhere. It is usually some combination membership or meeting fees or corporate or state sponsorship or charging for documents. There are tradeoffs with all these sources. Each standards organization chooses the balance that they believe is best for them and the industry they represent. ~Kvng (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mono?

I assume XLR only carries a mono signal? kwami 11:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I guess it could carry an unbalanced stereo signal, too, like a TRS connector, but I've never seen this used in actual products. — Omegatron 16:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! kwami 23:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The XLR-3 is used extensively in professional sound gear to carry a balanced mono signal. Stereo microphones most often has a XLR-5 connector, carrying two balanced signals. Examples of mics with this setup (not exhaustive): Royer SF24, Schoeps MSTC64.

The XLR-3 is used extensively in the UK (and probably the rest of Europe) for stereo connections from devices such as DJ dual CD players etc. to mixing desks and power amplifiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XLR3 can carry a stereo signal if you use two cables - is that what those euro-DJ's use, or they get a stereo signal through a single XLR? That seems impossible, given the description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flickharrison (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, when an XLR is used to transmit AES/EBU digital audio, then it carries 2 channels on a single connector.132.185.160.98 (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would carrying mid/side encoded stereo on unbalanced lines in XLR3 cables have any advantages over unbalanced L+R stereo, regarding noise reduction or other details for which balanced lines would normally be chosen? I can already see one (the existence of a convenient mono signal when wanted), but are there any others inherent to the conversion back to L+R on arrival? I tried to answer my own question, and find a mixed answer... It looks like one channel may gain from common mode reduction, while the other gains a boost! On the other hand, both channels need a 6dB cut to restore original signal levels, so some noise reduction occurs, but the net result seems to be good common mode reduction on one resultant L+R channel only, none on the other, so I'll assume this is not a practical idea to try, and that unbalanced L+R throughout is better if forcing stereo through XLR3. 31.51.85.171 (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've used XLR (three-pole) connectors for a long long time to carry stereo unbalanced audio, partly because as a hobbyist I had access to loads of cannon plugs & twin-screened cable, but only used domestic/semipro equipment. upon turning pro, I carefully avoided mixing the two types of connectivity. BUT I have an AT single-point stereo mic with a three-pole XLR connector at its base. so some manufacturers clearly thought this was ok to do too.

duncanrmi (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Common mode noise cancellation

Off-topic discussion, please take it to Differential signaling, Balanced line or Balanced audio. Binksternet (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the advantage of two inverted signals that the receiver can use them noise cancellation?

essentially yes as our balanced audio article says "Much of the noise induced in the cable is induced equally in both signal lines, so this noise can be easily rejected by using a differential amplifier or a balun at the input." Plugwash 19:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The advantage of two signals, one inverted with respect to the other, is that you get a higher SNR at the receiver by virtue of higher signal level - since the receiver sees live-return, and return == -live, so the result is 2x live. But common mode rejection doesn't require that the "return" carry an inverted copy of the "live" signal! Common practice in a lot of the less expensive pro gear is to not actively drive the "return" at all, but instead connect it to signal ground through a resistor that matches the "live" terminal's source impedance. Noise picked up by the cable is then picked up equally in both conductors, and is cancelled by live-return. The "return" line is not required to be actively driven for that to work. This is called "resistor balancing" or "impedance balancing". Jeh (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is sort of off topic for this article. You guys might want to have a look at and consider improving Differential signaling, Balanced line or Balanced audio. -—Kvng 13:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is off topic, but also just plain wrong. The signal level is only double, but you get an improved noise rejection factor of 100 or more, depending on the balance of the recipient equipment's inputs, i.e. its common-mode rejection ratio, which is vastly better than the effect of the increased signal amplitude. Gear with resistive pseudo-balancing is adding Johnson noise to the signal, and surely doesn't merit the title of "pro"? Tiger99 (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not "just plain wrong", it is widespread industry practice. The driven equipment's inputs are still balanced, i.e. of the same impedance as each other, so the same noise is induced in both conductors; ((S+N) - (0+N)) cancels the N just as would ((S+N) - (-S+N)). You do lose the advantage of doubled signal level, and so you lose 6 dB of SNR... but on the other hand, the impedance-balancing technique does avoid certain pitfalls. (The two op-amps that drive the "hot" and "return" pins can never be identical, so the live and return signals are not actually symmetric; plug a TS plug into a TRS output with actively driven "return" and you short an op-amp output to ground; not generally a good thing; otoh a transformer-driven balanced out has to have "return" connected to ground if it's to drive an unbalanced input; etc.) As for Johnson noise, that is many, many dB below the signal levels of interest, even at mic level. It is a concern when building a 24-bit ADC or DAC (Johnson noise makes it essentially impossible to achieve 24 bits' worth of SNR in the audio band without cryo), but not when a "mere" 110 dB or so of SNR is sufficient. Anyway, do you think there are no resistors in the path of, and adding Johnson noise to, an actively driven "return signal" pin? Do you think the op-amp on the "return" pin adds no noise of its own? Transformer-driven balanced outs do avoid that issue. But those are very uncommon, as suitable transformers are large and expensive. See references 6 and 7 in the Balanced line article. Ref 6 is available online and provides an excellent description. Yes, actively driving the return pin has some advantages, but except for very long lines (he says 100m) the advantages are insignificant compared to the cost. Jeh (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you are wrong. Because it is "industry practice" does NOT make it right. Johnson noise most certainly does matter very much at mic level! But the HUGE problem with resistive fake balance is that, depending on the input of whatever you are driving, there is likely to be a MASSIVE increase in externally induced noise and EMC problems generally. I speak from practical experience with PA equipment, as well as my professional expertise as a circuit designer in the instrumentation field. I had extremely bad problems with a Mackie mixer and powered foldback speakers at a high profile venue, caused by common mode noise and the Mackie auxiliary outputs being only bogus balanced. (The spec did not admit that, it was only when I found the internal circuit on-line that I found that only the main mix had genuine "balanced" outputs, and that with resistors of woefully inadequate tolerance to do it properly. I had to urgently put isolating transformers in the lines. In any case you don't do it with op-amps nowadays, you use something like a DRV134 at the output and INA134 at the input, and if someone does ground the return wire, nothing terribly bad happens, you just lose the very considerable advantage of good common mode rejection.

The DRV134 and INA134 use internal thin film resistor networks of very high ratio accuracy to get their balance and CMRR, and despite claims to the contrary, no discrete design with op-amps will come anywhere near the performance, for less than 50 times the cost. Tiger99 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

video??

the start of the article atm reads "XLR plugs and sockets are used mostly in professional audio and video electronics cabling applications. Home audio and video electronics normally use RCA connectors.". are xlr connectors used for video or just used along side video? (i've always thought it was the latter) --MilkMiruku 12:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC) your right with along side video —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.32.187 (talk) 19:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I've never heard of XLR connectors being used for video, and they're not recorded as such in the AVconn template at the bottom of the article. I've removed this reference. I've also removed mention of power from the introduction, since they're no longer used for mains power (I don't know how common phantom power is now). Isidore (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XLR cables are used to supply power to video cameras. It is in carrying power that they are used in video, not in carrying video signal. They also carry audio signal to video cameras, of course, and intercom signals to the camera operator. In these senses, especially power, XLRs are used "in professional audio and video electronics cabling applications". Binksternet (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better photo?

The current XLR image has poor contrast as wells overshapening artifacts. Could it please be replaced with a better image or diagram?

post a better one here and we'll discuss it. Metal bodied connectors are a HUGE pita to photgraph well because some part of them almost invariblly ends up reflecting the light source directly into the camera. Plugwash 16:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found a better one on Commons. Doesn't show panel-mount though. I might try my hand at it, but not in the next few days...

A diagram showing the pinouts would be good, too. I'm a little confused about the case connection. Is the standard trying to recommend a three-conductor+shielded cable? — Omegatron 01:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History?

Can anyone tell when XLR was invented?

[1] This link from ITT-Cannon is a PDF of XLR products. On page 4 they state that XLR was introduced in 1958. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.170.14 (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a page with some details about the development of XLR connectors at http://www.soundfirst.com/xlr.html Some of this information could probably be repurposed for this wiki page. --BenFranske (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Rayburn's page. He's probably among the top three guys in the world who would know. A very expert source. Binksternet (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page currently says "The XLR connector originated from the Cannon X series of connectors in 1915;" That's not correct. Cannon was founded in 1915. I haven't found any information as to when the X connector was created. Is there any evidence that they existed pre WWII? Nottooloud (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone using IP addresses from Chicago added 1915 last December with this unreferenced edit. I don't see any reason to keep that year in the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XLR-LNE

I have uploaded picture of a XLR-LNE plug, socket follows shortly --jmb 23:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I also have a EP-LNE and EP4 plug in my junk box if pictures wanted for any other articles. Sure I must have one of the old EP4 (socket) mains lead somewhere) --jmb 23:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. They're a little blurry at the front of the connector, which is the part we want to see. Can you take more? I've found that putting the camera in macro mode and then zooming in all the way works best. Maybe just the plug and socket by themselves without the paper behind? — Omegatron 23:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will have another try later, trouble is the flash being above the camera tends to not penetrate into the pins. I will get a floodlight out and see if I can some more light with that. --jmb 07:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one should be better. The trouble with using Macro is that it is difficult to get enough light into the front of the subject. It is easier to get further away and then use zoom. --jmb 08:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my camera can be in macro mode and zoom in all the way, which works best for me. Allows more of it to be in focus.

This version is much better. Thanks. — Omegatron 12:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

I found some more XLR connectors in a box of junk so Ihave taken some pictures. Leave someone else to fit on the main page if wanted. I have some XLR3 but you seem to have that covered OK. --jmb 15:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks! — Omegatron 17:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. -- Ned Scott 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a request! You guys takig the photos, great! it helps us all, but PLEASE add something in there for scale (part of tape measure, euro coin, or US quarter, etc there. I have no idea how big or small these things are, come ot WP to learn! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.172.84 (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(→XLR3 connectors - «+"XLR and 1/4' TRS combo jack."» not the best picture of a dark object.

I will see if I can borrow one (after Christmas probably) and take a brighter picture if not been done by then. --jmb 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can try to take a better one tomorrow. — Omegatron 02:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signal vs. Chassis Grounds and Cable Shield connections

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the "end user" world about what to look for in XLR cables (as opposed to the XLR connections on equipment, which an "end user" can't practically change.

I added a small reference to that in the main page ... is there another reference that should be put there? Or another Wiki page that could also be referenced? My quick search didn't find one.

Here is a an external link to a longer note I wrote in another Wiki recently Bose Wiki Reference article on technical aspects of XLR cables

DanCornett 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

battery charger connector

The XLR is now the standard connector for battery chargers and mobility aid vehicles like wheel chairs and scooters. The female part is on the charger cable and the male part is build into the vehicle. Pin 1 is battery plus, pin 2 battery minus and pin 3 an inhibit signal which prevents the vehicle from driving while the charger is connected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.33.174.22 (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Pin 1

Deleted:

"Note that neither the standards nor manufacturers agree on the best way to handle the usage of pin 1 at both ends of a cable, particularly with respect to the cable shield, the connector's shell, signal ground, and a third cable wire connected to pin 1 — which may (or may not) be connected to the shield."

Err...third cable wire? Every balanced cable I have has a shield and one twisted pair. Pin 1 in the shield on cables, as specified by AES14-1992. AES48-2005 [2] specifies exactly what to do with it in equipment, and good engineers have known the designs in that standard for decades (for example, the telephone network uses the same principles, runs hundreds of miles, and does not hum). Granted, there is some equipment that gets it wrong, and sometimes the problem can be solved by things like disconnecting pin 1 on one end of the cable, but to say that there is no standard or consensus is misleading and not helpful. How to design audio equipment interconnects and how to solve commonly encountered problems with them is not a topic to be neglected, and if it's to be discussed, I reckon it deserves an article of its own. [3] provides a good overview of the problem. 70.9.137.32 21:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are audio cables with three conductors and a shield, at one time advocated by Neumann to permit the phantom power return current to run on its own conductor rather than the shield (particularly in fixed installations where there was sometimes no drain wire and only a foil shield). This can be a problem because most of the interference rejection of a balanced audio signal occurs by common mode rejection, which requires good balance between the two conductors and ground. It is easier to do that with a 2 or 4 conductor cable rather than 3. I have made some additions to the pin 1 discussion, hopefully it will be a little clearer. AES14, 48 and 54 actually make sense as a system when you understand the problem. Altaphon (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing or minimizing Ground Loops is the main reason why pin 1 is usually lifted at one end (almost universally in studio audio chains). Chassis ground connections are very often at different potentials. Usually the first thing to do when a ground loop is suspected is to lift the shield at one end. Rane has an excellent PDF on the subject. It is different in every setup. I think Wikipedia already has an article on Ground Loops. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_loop_%28electricity%29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvsterling (talk • contribs) 03:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is just plain wrong. Pin 1 should never, ever be lifted. With proper circuit balance you will not get ground loop noise. Without the ground connection you will probably get common mode noise sufficiently large that it is not rejected by the circuit balance and you will get hum, as well as probably RF breakthrough. The only genuine area of confusion in practice is whether to ground the connector shells. That is because if you don't ground them by connecting to pin 1, you loose screening locally and are susceptible to RF, and to a certain minimal extent, local LF E-field. But if you do ground them, and they touch, between adjacent cables, or against other metalwork, you introduce spurious ground loops, usually intermittent, which may cause problems. (This only happens when you join cables end to end, at the equipment end they are obviously physically restrained and can't touch each other, and the grounds will be tied internally.) The correct solution is to ground the shells and fit clear heatshrink over the connectors, which will also nicely retain any labels you have applied. But then there is the problem of the release button on the female connector. You can often remove that, if you can live with not having positive locking, or in some cases leave the heatshrink unshrunk over the button. I note that none of the many XLR cables I have bought have the shells grounded, whereas all of those I made myself did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiger99 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XLR-3-32 / XLR-3-31 Confusion

Hi I've seen a lot of references to XLR-3-32 and XLR-3-31, but haven't been able to find a definition of what they mean. I have assumed that one is female and the other is male and the 32 and 31 refer to the pinout. If anyone wants to clear this up, I would greatly appreciate it! 74.14.228.158 15:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are ITT Cannon part number detail for panel mount male and female three-contacts. Maybe we can add this link [4]. Other mfgs have equivalent part numbers of course. Meggar 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions

Can someone please report the fundamental dimensions [eg. plug diameter, pin spacings & thier diameters, etc etc] of XLR connectors in the article - thank you
--83.105.33.91 15:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the drawings with those numbers are part of the IEC standard and subject to copyright. More unfortunately, many of the permissible values are so broad that there are many cases of supposedly intermateable connectors either failing to mate and latch, or being so loose as to rattle. Altaphon (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Round or Rubber?

Ray Rayburn says XLR is XL Rubber. User:99.233.87.254, a self-professed former Cannon engineer, says the R is Round. Can someone prove the XLR showed up before it had a rubbery pin strata in the female? Can anyone prove that the XL connector was already round? Either of these cases would go a long way toward settling the matter. Binksternet 05:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See Ray Rayburn's page. The X and XL connectors are both round. Altaphon (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mnemonics

Does this section really enhance this article? It seems to be a bit close to trivia for my liking (Rexeltw (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

XLR Abbreviation

A google search using 'xternal live return' (XLR) gives many examples where this is taken to be the correct words for the abbreviation. I have also read 'xtra live return' (XLR), but I think this must be wrong, or possibly just not recognised. Personally, I don't think Canon XL with Rubber is correct: perhaps once it was, but no longer is, especially as companies such as Neutrik now use the label XLR. Richard Nowell (talk) 15:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your personal research and opinion. It is in conflict with the exhaustive research done by Ray Rayburn, a Fellow of the Audio Engineering Society. Binksternet (talk) 16:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Settled! As Mr. Rayburn points out, it has become a generic term, which I guess has various 'slang' labels. Perhaps 'xternal, live, return' is an abbreviation that points out what the function of each wire is- possibly for ease-of-use for non-engineers. I was not sure what was meant by the term canon-to-canon, but now I know. Thankyou. Richard Nowell (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tell

what is long form xlr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.143.5 (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no long form, except perhaps Cannon X connector with Latch and Resilient neoprene around the female contacts. Binksternet (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's right. Personally I have never seen Xternal Live Return mentioned before looking at this talk page, and it doesn't appear in any standard I know of on the topic. Altaphon (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel powering information

The phantom power section (which appears to be lifted straight from phantom power) says:

This is in marked contrast to another, slightly earlier method of powering known as parallel powering or T-powering (from the German term Tonaderspeisung), in which DC was overlaid directly onto the signal in differential mode. (emphasis mine)

I'm confused how parallel powering is different than phantom power (from a wiring point of view, I don't know what voltage it ran at, nor do I think it matters). Could anyone provide more information (and if so, phantom power should probably be updated first/as well). And since I'm new to adding to discussions, what's the proper way to cross-post (if it is proper) this request to phantom power? Velowiki (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross posting seems appropriate Talk:Phantom_power#Cross_post_from_XLR_connector. --Kvng (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert (who is?) but Phantom power says in part

T-power, also known as A-B powering [5] or 12T, described in DIN 45595, is an alternative to phantom powering that is fading into obsolescence. In this scheme, 12 volts is applied through 180 Ohm resistors between the microphone's "hot" terminal (XLR pin 2) and the microphone's "cold" terminal (XLR pin 3). This results in a 12 volt potential difference with significant current capability across pins 2 and 3, which would likely cause permanent damage if applied to a dynamic or ribbon microphone.

Parallel power ignores the shield. Phantom power the cable shield as the return. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

XLR 6 Differences

  We can see difference between two models of XLR6.Of course you can't replace one by the other.
  For instance,the model for loudspeaker on Turntable EMT 948(pins location is symetric) and the other more recent model with asymetric location of pins.
 I have picture but too difficult to insert.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.139.123 (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robustness

There is no mention in the whole article about one of XLR's most important and distinguishing (say, from USB, heh) properties: its extreme robustness, reliability and quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pin out incorrect?

As far as I can tell, the pin out diagram is incorrect. The numbering for male and female are reversed. Female XLR plugs are 1-2-3, left-right-bottom and male XLR are 2-1-3. 1 being ground, 2 being hot and 3 cold. This is according to RaneNote 110 (pretty well known sound reinforcement wiring technical document) as well as the diagram on Clark Wire & Cable's website. --CableModem^^ (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that Rane shows the back side of the connector, where the wires are connected (usually by solder). The diagram in the Wikipedia article shows the front side, the mating side. Both are correct. Binksternet (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just confirming that Binksternet is correct--both diagrams reflect what any user would see when observing them from the outside, and for both the cable-end-mounted and the panel-mounted variety. Of course, from the perspective of a repair tech (observing from the inside, where the wires are soldered to the connector) it's exactly what one would--or should--expect to see. This would be a potentially confusing and totally unneccessary bit of trivia, and shouldn't even be included here, if we humans didn't occasionally forget the obvious, or if users never attempted repairing their own gear, but I've done both (long, long ago, of course)...Ob1-kenogle (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Application: Balanced Headphones

High-end balanced headphone cables use a 4-pin XLR connection to the headphone amplifier. Example: Oppo HA1 http://www.oppodigital.co.uk/eCommerce/ProductImages/ExtraLarge/HA-1%20Headphone%20Amplifier%5E1%5E635322238158220765.Png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.2.180 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pin usage on Balanced headphones?

I came here to find what are the pin usage on balanced headphones, stereo, no microphone. I see 4 pins on products, where 5 would make more sense, unless they forgo the ground? Is that OK? I think the article would gain with mention(s) of balanced headphones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.227.130 (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of "Neutrik" promotional stuff in here

There's a lot of company promotion going on in this article. Is "Neutrik" really the "most popular brand of XLR connector"? And is that relevant to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by James M Barlow (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of "most popular" certainly needs a reference, so I added a CN tag. However, complaining that Neutrik is receiving "promotion" here is a little like complaining about "promotion" of the Ford Motor Company in an article on the history of U.S. car manufacturers. Neutrik took a design that had been basically unchanged for decades and fixed several of its problems (not just the little screws). As a result they got a lot of attention, and everyone I know in pro audio prefers their products. Facts that appear to be biased sometimes are just facts. Jeh (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on XLR connector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does XLR stand for?

Could someone please add some info on what exactly the acronym XLR stands for?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.139.203 (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on XLR connector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should mention the EIA RS-297 polarity standard

The section on Three-pin in audio use should mention that the ubiquitous EIA RS-297 standard states that a positive pressure on the microphone should produce a positive voltage on pin 2.

References:

[5]

[6]

Dave Yost (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on XLR connector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.soundfirst.com/xlr.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100302151718/http://www.rane.com/par-c.html to http://www.rane.com/par-c.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910000551/http://sterlingaudio.net/products/index.cfm?product=STEC7&modId=0 to http://www.sterlingaudio.net/products/index.cfm?product=STEC7&modId=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

XLR means...

I found this, but I don't know if it is a good reference. (probably not) Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, with three-pin mike connectors, extra line return makes more sense than external. But I don't know what is correct. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's nonsense. a helpful aide-memoire at best, & then only in a strict context of the three-pole versions of the connectors.

mr cannon christened his range of connectors "x" back in 1915, only he knows why, but this was way ahead of the curve if he just thought it sounded cool (like bell & their x-type jet planes). the 'L' was added along with the latching, see? & the 'R'.... might refer to the rubber, might mean 'resilient' or 'robust'.... either way, a quick skim of the article itself & of the thousands of internet references to these things will show that XLRs exist in many forms, with different numbers of contacts.

duncanrmi (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XLR as mechanical connector

XLR connectors seem to have become a common standard for mechanically connecting "attachments" to "reciprocating machines", if you catch my drift. This seems to be a notable non-electrical use of the connector.

Unfortunately, citing this might be difficult due to the nature of the usage. While there's plenty of product pages to be found – even including an adapter from XLR to pressurised-air quick release (leave one of those in your machine shop to confuse the newbies!) – there's really no articles that discuss this connector usage in a more academic way, besides a Twitter thread or two.

Would this be appropriate to include in the article? TerrorBite (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6-Pin in Stage Lighting

There definitely needs to be a better source than just the documentation (that leads nowhere) to a somewhat obscure standard that never saw much use, right? Either that, or the claim that it is used in stage lighting needs to either be removed or have some kind of caveat?

ETCLink was, at one point, used for a fairly short time, supported by only a single dimmer and only a handful of consoles by a single manufacturer. IMO, that does not warrant a mention and should be removed. (Saltedjules) 01:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]