[Lostgallifreyan]

"fudgee logic" wrote in
:

OK, I think I've got it. An adapter (or "adaptor", "coupler", "gender
changer") should be described by the connectors it actually contains
rather than the connectors which it mates with.

Can I now ask about another related usage which also confuses me. As an
example, let's say I have an adapter which has an RCA-phono socket and a
3.5mm jack plug.

Some suppliers leave out the terms "socket" and "plug". So in this
example, what is the common usage:

(a) "RCA-phono to 3.5mm jack".
(b) "3.5mm jack to RCA-phono"


If context is not specified, all you have is convention. It's like a binary
digit. Instead of agonising over (usually lazy) convention, just specify
exactly what you want, explaining the connectors it has to fit to. If people
give you the look askance, that's their problem. They'll soon wise up when
they find their lack of precision bites them from behind some day. The queues
at Maplin were reguarly haunted by people who had bought the wrong plug
because they failed to specify it right. The smart ones brought their
equipment in. Shlepping a couple of largish boxes up the the shop looks daft
but it surely beats a return visit just for a few grams of wrong plug. Given
the subtle size difference in DC jacks centre pins, and poor tolerance in
some makes of plug, it's not just the techically unsavvy who benefit from
producing the business end to the saleman so there's little risk of error.

Convention only makes sense of you're negotiating with people who all
understand it AND agree with it. That's rare.