Talk:D-subminiature/Archive 1

DB-whatever versus the original nomenclature
Based on the useful research and info supplied by others (below) it appears that neither DE9 nor DB9 "wins". Many suppliers use DE9, many other entities use DB9. So this article just needs to make it clear at the front that DE9 is technically correct but that DB9 is often used. WP only has to report the situation, not make a value judgement about the way it should be. Aaron Lawrence 08:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Does being pedantic about the name of the connector come ahead of readiblity? I'm not sure, but reading DE-9 when I expect DB-9 is a little annoying. Chalk it up to the poor marketing of the DE-9 moniker.
 * Yes, yes, it does. As the Discordian quotes file says " 100,000 lemmings can't be wrong!".  Let's try to explain these popular misconceptions and light some candles. I'm annoyed when I read "DB 9" when I'm expecting "DE 9".--Wtshymanski 18:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Once you learn that DB9 is wrong, and why, then it looks stupid for ever after. If you think that the second letter doesn't matter, then leave it out and call it a D9, but don't put in a spurious letter. --Heron 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I feel the same way about calling NEMA 5-15s "Edison" plugs, now; and somewhat about calling NEMA 0183 (the GPS receiver data interface) just NEMA. It's like some sort of intellectual infection. The geek curse! ;) —überRegenbogen (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If "DB9" is incorrect, may I suggest you notify the EIA 232 standards committee, as they use the term themselves. While it may be noble to preserve the intent of a 30 year old ITT part numbering scheme, I feel following the standards committee would be the correct behavior -- and the standards committee is following common usage. &mdash;Hobart 21:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is possible, of course, that the EIA standards committee got it wrong and no one has pointed it out to them yet. It wouldn't be the first time that a standard contained a mistake. (Speaking as someone who has sat on a number of standards committees in the past.)


 * Atlant 00:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been an "EIA 232" standards committee in years. See RS-232 and Telecommunications Industry Association. --Wtshymanski 03:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just did a quick survey, courtesy of the Farnell website, to see what nomenclature modern manufacturers use.
 * CEEP: own
 * Cinch: DE9
 * Elco: own
 * FCI: DE9
 * Harting: own
 * ITT Cannon: DE9
 * ITW McMurdo: DE9
 * Lorlin: own
 * LTW: DB9
 * Multicomp: own
 * Phoenix Contact: own
 * Tyco/AMP: own

("own" means that they use their own part numbering system). I'm not claiming this as proof that DE9 wins over DB9, but it shows that, amongst manufacturers at least, DE9 is still taken seriously. As for common usage, I agree that DB9 is much more common. I don't mind if you want to call them DB9s, but I think Wikipedia should point out that DE9 is still used, and for a good reason. --Heron 22:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, note that Farnell itself uses 'DB9'. Go to the site and search for DE9 and DB9: today, DB9 finds 21 cable assembles and 24 other relevent items: DE9 finds 2 D connectors and 300 other unrelated items.
 * Moving from fairness to cruelty, this seems to indicate that 'DE9' is mostly relevent to the same kind of people who don't approve of split infinitives, and for the same kind of reason. 218.214.148.10 05:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (david)


 * Ad-hominem irrelevance aside, whilst "DB9" is fairly common, and at least isn't likely to be confused with another connector—as a 9-pin config in a B shell is not likely to ever exist (striped down DB25s don't count)—"DE9" is still a valid and official designator. And since this is an encyclopædia (yes i spell it that way; get over it), rather than a fashion revue, it certainly bears mention in the article (which does also mention the use of "DB9", and to which the DB9 disambiguation page includes a link). —überRegenbogen (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I checked out the Site for the RS-232 standards they as so have it listed as DB-9/DB9 http://www.camiresearch.com/Data_Com_Basics/RS232_standard.html#anchor242192 and CompTIA the lead in entery level certifications for US and Canada at the least in both A+ and Network+ refer to it as a DB-9/DB9 depending on how you want to write it. I don't have proof of ComTIA but just check out one of there study guides at the public libary. Deed85 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that popular misnaming of D-sub connectors may bear from “DB” being acronym for “Data Bus” (i. e. “Data Bus connector, 25 pins”). Thus, people don't have a reason to think of letter “B” as a shell size designation. 213.234.235.82 (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the DE-9 vs DB-9 "discussion" - why would anyone argue that use of the DB9 term has become valid? It's just wrong - get over it - and stop promoting ignorance!

DE15 versus HD15
The article claims the standard moniker for a video cable (three rows of 5) is DE15. This may be true, but the rest of the world calls it HD15. A web search for "DE15" will not find you a comedy video cable! 44.15.15.109


 * Did you get to this line in the article?


 * DE15 connectors are frequently and innaccurately termed DB15, DB15HD, and HD15.


 * Atlant 19:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a reason for keeping the original nomenclature, and that is that there are lots of other D-shell connectors besides those listed here. I personally use a high-density, 44-pin connector that fits in a standard 25-pin shell.  Using the original nomenclature this would be a DB44, which is pretty straightforward.  Somewhat common high-density connectors include 15, 26, 44, 62, and 72 pin versions (DE15, DA26, DB44, DC62, and DD72).  If we divorce the shell size from the pin count then it makes it much easier to specify these parts (note that a DE15 and DA15 both have 15 pins, but in a very different arrangement and they won't mate no matter how hard you push).  There was thought and method in the original nomenclature, and until someone comes up with a better plan it's up to the end users to keep their suppliers in line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.157.154 (talk • contribs).

It has been suggested that DE-9 be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)
Yes, agree. Pol098 01:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge -- Atlant 12:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge The topics are closely related. The naming convention makes more sense in the context of all the shell sizes and pin counts. -- Austin Murphy 13:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge -- There's nothing special about this particular flavor of D-connector. I'm not even sure it's worth saving the list of devices which used it.  -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merger done -- Electron9 00:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:DE-9 connector (merged)
I'd like to point out that the Amiga joystick/mouse connection came from being a de facto standard for controllers back in the day (well for joysticks anyway, mouses were always a little different). This de facto standard was known as the "atari-style" joystick, and was used in the VIC-20, C64, Amiga, Atari and other computers and several game consoles (e.g. the Colecovision with modifications for the number pad). I'm not at all sure where the original name comes from; my earliest knowledge is of the VIC-20. 88.112.2.159 18:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The Atari 2600 used the 9-pin D connector that was common to many subsequent 8-bit machines (albeit with a slightly modified pinout in some cases). That would acount for people calling it the "Atari joystick" port. - asb.

Talk:DE-9 connector D-subminiature (merged)
why is this article it's own article? it appears that it's the only one of the D-subminiature connectors that has it's own article, maybe it should be merged with D-subminiature. - Javawizard
 * I'd be tempted to agree. The D- article is well written, and would only need a small amount of updating to include the info found here. -- Metahacker 15:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree - merge away. (However, a section in D-sub could be useful from an application point of view)Aaron Lawrence 09:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - I expected this article to be much more detailed on applications of the connector etc, but the D-subminiature connectors article has more info than this one. If it does not get extended soon then a merge is agood idea, with a redirect from DE-9 and DB9 etc. GB 03:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference sought for 'Cannon's part-numbering system'
The text: "Cannon's part-numbering system uses a D as the prefix for the whole series, followed by a letter denoting the shell size (A=15 pin, B=25 pin, C=37 pin, D=50 pin, E=9 pin)" in the D-subminiature article is missing a reference. And it seem to be central. It was written in the original article from Nov 2003, does anyone know a reference? Electron9 00:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't really get much sense from the shell size spec. The VGA connector is a size E connector, but it doesn't have 9 pins. uKER
 * This is a Wikipedia paradox. We must have reliable third-party references but the best (and probably only) reference to Canon's number system is Canon's catalog, which is not 3rd party. As soon as some editor cites a Canon catalog, some other editor will come along and slap a tag on the reference saying it's not acceptable. Not all of human knowledge fits in with the Wikipedia house rules. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless Wtshymanski was the author of the Canon catalog, the removal of such a reference would appear to be a misconstruction of the term "third party" (which I take to mean "not directly connected with the author of the Wikipedia article"). I could easily be mistaken, but my understanding is that references to originals should be allowed for all aspects except determining the importance of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhysicistQuery (talk • contribs) 03:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible typo in Typical Applications
The text currently reads "Many uninterruptible power supply units have a DE9F connector on them, in order to signal an attached computer that the mains (utility) electricity is off (or back on), or that the battery is low. Many of these actually do not use true serial communication as the consumer might be led to believe, but rather other signaling wires present on a serial port. " The last sentence doesn't read right to me. Should it be "but use other signalling wires present on a serial port" or "but rather offer other signaling wires present on a serial port", or something else? Confused! 16:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rewrote it - I didn't understand your confusion, but the original was needlessly wordy. --Wtshymanski 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Plug" versus "pin"
The article currently has some confusing usage of "plugs" and "pins". In one instance, it says that "plug" describes a connector that consists of male contacts, but in other instances, "plug" and "pin" are used interchangeably to refer to the male contacts themselves. The "official" Cannon document cited in the references uses the term "pins" to refer to the male contacts, and contains no instances of "plug" that I could find. SixSix (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Referring to "contacts" as "pins"
While I'm on the subject, the article also uses the terms "contacts" and "pins" interchangeably &mdash; there is even one instance where this is done in the same sentence: "For example, DB25 denotes a D-sub with a 25-pin shell size and 25 contacts."

I think that "contact" should be used to refer to the, well, contacts, while "pin" be reserved to describe those contacts that fit inside sockets, and not be used to refer to contacts in the generic sense as in the example above. I know that the latter usage of "pin" is common (the term "pinout" is used for connectors whether they have pins or sockets &mdash; I guess "contact-out" is a tad awkward), but for sake of this article where both "pins" and "contacts" are discussed, I'd prefer it if "pin" didn't have a dual meaning. SixSix (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I Changed "25 pin shell size" and "25 contacts" to "25 position shell size" and "a 25 position contact configuration"—not only to avoid using pins in the extra context, but because many connectors are not fully populated. —überRegenbogen (talk) 05:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that the socket and pin housings themselves are color coded - Green for Mil Spec, Red and then white being the lowest. Could someone investigate this? We've had equipment fail due to cheap (white) D type sockets being fitted instead of those with green housing insert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.93.164.28 (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

TIA-574
What is "tia-574" and why does it redirect to this article?

Can someone include a note about "tia-574" in the article?

LionKimbro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

Apple's 19 pin external floppy connector
What's the official identification for that connector? It's between DA and DB size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.165.213 (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it (someone correct me if I'm remembering this wrong), there isn't one. It uses a non-standard connector shell size which doesn't have an official designation. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Standard in the recording studio industry?
The article states "The 25 pin D-sub connector has become the standard in the recording studio industry for multi-channel analog audio and AES Digital audio". In my experience, there are many standards for both and the DB25 is one of the least common, being relatively flimsy and having a lower contact area than many common alternatives. Mil26, EDAC and ELCO are much more common than DB25s for multi-way audio. Digital audio (over copper) is almost universally presented on BNCs or Phonos. Unless anyone seriously objects, I shall shortly change "has become the standard" to "is occasionally used". 62.49.27.35 (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong info presented on PC joysticks here
DA15S connectors are used for PC joystick connectors, where each DA15 connector supports two joysticks each with two analog axes and two buttons. In other words, one DA15S "game adapter" connector has 4 analog potentiometer inputs and 4 digital switch inputs. This interface is strictly input-only, though it does provide +5V DC power.

Not entirely true, and has been addressed in other articles about PC game port, game controllers and joysticks.

The truth is that when PC software triggers the NE558 monostable timer chip (or equivalent) and starts measuring how long it takes for the capacitor to charge through the joystick potentiometre resistance, the current through the resistance (or voltage over it) can be detected by some joysticks. Normally a game triggers the conversion periodically like every 16ms, but if a game knows there is a special joystick like Logitech Wingman Extreme Digital, it can send data to joystick by varying time between measurement pulses, for example short time like 10ms between pulses could be a logical 0 bit, and long time between pulses like 20ms could be a logical 1 bit.

Usually this is used to signal a microcontroller within the joystick to switch into digital mode, where the analog channels are only used for triggering data packet transmission through the two or four digital button pins. In digital mode, the joystick microcontroller performs the analog to digital conversion of the potentiometres, resistive POV hats, throttle levers, and this also enables more digital buttons than just four discrete buttons or 16 different combinatory states for 15 buttons on four button bits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.27.229 (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Usage/Typical applications
Shouldn't the "Usage" and "Typical applications" sections be combined? 188.192.88.59 (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

History and application are both inaccurate
The article implies that D-sub connectors are PC era items and used mainly on PCs. They in fact pre-date PCs, even pre-IBM PCs by many years. The connectors have been and still are used on a many other types of equipment. 86.161.60.162 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Shell size by number
I have noticed that many manufacturers give shell sizes a numeric, rather than letter, designation. (I commonly run into this when purchasing cable hoods that are offered separate from the connectors). I did not see this mentioned in the article. I believe the designations correspond as follows:

Size 1 = E (for DE9, DE15-HD, DE19-DD)

Size 2 = A (for DA15, DA20-HD, DA31-DD)

Size 3 = B (for DB25, DA44-HD, DB52-DD)

Size 4 = C (for DC37, DC62-HD, DC79-DD)

Size 5 = D (for DD50, DD78-HD, DD100-DD)

I am by no means certain that this is the only numbering scheme in use, but all the manufacturers I have encountered employing numerical designations have been consistent with it. Starling2001 (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

panel mount hole sizes for dsubs
Can somone place a link, or information to the standard sizes of the panel cutout or "hole" used to mount dsub connectors? I have a ITT canon spec sheet for the connectors, but see no reference for standard hole sizes. I know Greenlee has some standard D-sub hole punches, but are these the same size as the recomended standards, and if so where is this info defined or referenced. Thank You

I posted the above question about 3 years ago. I assume from the lack of response, there is limmitted data on the hole sizes, and perhaps no one outside of the 1950's has this info anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.20.98.2 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

DE-9 Joysticks and paddles WERE typically interchangable
Unlike what the article says, DE-9 "Atari port" Joysticks and paddles WERE typically interchangable between systems, though the mice that could connect to the same ports in some systems were not. Any device that functionally didn't do more than an Atari 2600 Joysticks and/or a pair of Atari 2600 paddles could typically be used on all systems that had this port. True, some systems enhanced the functionality and the matching enhanced controllers were then not (fully) usable on other systems; for example the pass-through interface of the Amstrad/Schneider CPC joysticks that allowed daisy-chaining a second joystick was useless on non-Amstrad/Schneider machines. But the current statement in the article that these devices were not interchangable is simply false. Unless somebody objects, I will change it in a few days. -- 92.231.119.183 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Change done. Please discuss here before reverting anything. Thanks. -- 92.226.3.62 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Sega Genesis/Master System used DE9 ports compatible with Atari 2600 sticks but with only one button on 2600 type sticks they weren't usable on the Sega. The Sega 3 and 6 button gamepads would work on Atari and many other consoles and computers using 2600 sticks but only the D-pad and one button would work. The Texas Instruments 99-4 and 99-4/A computers used a single DE-9 port for two single button controllers, using diodes to keeps the signals separate on the shared pins. The Atari 5200 and Jaguar game consoles used DA-15 connections for their controllers. Bizzybody (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is probably more detail than is warranted in an article about the connector; discussion of the compatibility of peripherals for various systems is better left to the articles about those systems, it's got very little to do with the shape of the plug (once you've got the same plug). --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Name of Macintosh and Atari 19 pin version?
Is there an official designation for the 19 pin version used for external Mac floppy drives and Atari hard drives? It's *not* a DB-19 or DA-19 or DE-19 and saying or typing "19 pin D-Subminiature connector" is cumbersome. Bizzybody (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on D-subminiature. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221184657/http://www.landandmaritime.dla.mil/Programs/MilSpec/ListDocs.aspx?BasicDoc=MIL-DTL-24308 to http://www.landandmaritime.dla.mil/programs/milspec/ListDocs.aspx?BasicDoc=MIL-DTL-24308

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

13 thousand volts?
On 13 May 2010‎ Militoy (user no longer exists) added a sentence or two mentioning higher than usual voltages ("13,500") and currents. I don't have proof (yet) but highly doubt this means thirteen thousand five hundred volts, voltages only (?) seen deep inside the safety of a metal case etc. Possibly the person meant to say 13.5 V ? At the very least I'd like to add a [citation needed] NOTE I am an infrequent editor and hope to 1) determine if Militoy was a European user (comma vs decimal) and 2) add the [citation needed]. Walkingstick3 (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems very unlikely, doesn't it? I took it out completely.  You might get 350 volts on a d-submini sized connector, but in my admittedly limited experience, you need more creepage distance for something to be rated as high as 13,000 volts. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Pinout with only two pins identified?
How, uh, is the table showing pinouts at all useful with only two pins named, without a graphic? On the DA15 connector, what does "Pin Layout: 8,7" mean? 216.74.247.250 (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It simply means you have 8 pins on the top line, and 7 on the bottom. Dhrm77 (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Pin Diameters
Discussion of pin diameters would be appropriate. I measure the pins of a DE-15 about 0.8 mm and a DE-9 about 0.9 mm. Does the standard allow a range of diameters? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This would be a beneficial addition. The Double Density and Micro and Nano types will also have different specifications.  The pin spacing of the micro and nano are not mentioned though they do not have their own page so the information would be good to have here. Idyllic press (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)