AES72 isn’t one pinot, it’s a naming standard for all the (then) known pinouts, along with info on compatibility between them.

AES72 has multiple pinout possibilities. It’s a labeling scheme, not a standard as we would normally think of it. The only thing that gives us a wee bit of hope is that there is at least a little bit of push behind AES-72 (4E). That is what my company chose to use based on a discussion with the guy who wrote the AES72 draft. But it is really disappointing that there isn’t one that we can all point at and say, that one. Here is our product with AES72 (4E) as well as StudioHub+.

https://studiohub.com/xlrpanels/

I like your consideration of this. EMI seems to be totally disregarded by too many and the amount of flawed information from non-engineers in the field that gets invested into products is startling yet ultimately unsurprising.

AES-72 but there several pin-outs. And the Audio Engineering Society doesn’t make things public, in these day and age, it’s a shame.
That being said, you can find the pin-outs in the neutrik manuals

Frederiek Derycke unfortunately, it’s not so easy. Even if you have access to the AES “standard” AES-72 is more of a labelling standard than a pinout. It’s a strange thing really. It effectively says, if your RJ45 is wired this way, label it AES-72 TYPE 3O. If it is wired this way, label it AES-72 TYPE 4E and so on. If I recall correctly, there are about seven or eight different wiring formats that could still say they are AES-72. But whoa to the customer who mixes them. I get it, at least with the label, you have a clue what you’re dealing with.

But I sure would have preferred if they did say “for all new equipment, this is the way it should be wired.” As I said above, the guy who wrote the original paper says that he likes TYPE 4E the best. He says it’s easy to remember 4E = For Everyone. So maybe AES72 TYPE 4E will become what we kind’ve hoped AES72 was going to be: An explicit pin assignment for each pair. That’s the way my company is treating it. We are making AES72 TYPE 4E products. I hope other companies do the same.

Frederiek Derycke that’s great. But it still doesn’t solve the problem. Someone earlier said there is an AES standard now, yay! I’m pointing out that it’s not a standard that defines the pinout. It’s a labelling standard that says in order to be compliant, you must put a label on your jack so the customer knows which of these 8 he might be dealing with.

So having the list doesn’t clear up the core problem. Even if you figure out which one this particular box is wired to, you still don’t know if it will connect to another box unless you know what that was wired to also. And there’s nothing driving manufacturers to interchangeability like a true standard would do. Instead, it lets everyone keep doing what they’re doing and slapping a label on it and saying “we’re AES72 compatible” which is going to really suck if you’re the poor schmuck who has two such “AES72 compatible” products that don’t work together because their types are wrong.

But kudos to Neutrik for putting that out there. It’s better than behind a pay wall.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1EA5msF7Yt/

The whole concept of using individually shielded pairs of wire in the professional audio world was developed for a very good reason! These pieces of junk just shit all over that reason! What’s really funny it’s most of these people who call themselves professional sound engineers today are so electronically illiterate, they don’t have a clue why!!
Most of them can’t even solder and if they do, they do it incorrectly!

The concept of using a balanced signal over a set of parallel wires was also developed for a reason. And these don’t need the individual shielding nearly as much as unbalanced wires do.

Please shield us from your vitriol and ignorance.
In the analog days, Bell Telephone ran hundreds of miles of unshielded twisted pairs across the landscape without issues.
These devices use wire with an overall shield and precision twists. That’s a perfectly valid electronic design.