DMX vs. DMX512

[xander]

...but in any kind of documentation we should use the correct terminology, e.g. DMX512/1990 or DMX512-A (add the E1.11 2008 if you like), because it stipulates exactly what we're promising to deliver or expecting to receive.

I totally agree with you there. In manufacturers' and installation documents, it an absolute necessity that correct terminology is used, just as one would expect ETC Source4 36* as opposed to ERS or ellipsoidal. However, with the following examples:

I could get products designed by audio experts, who often prefer using analog op-amps or comparators as DMX receivers instead of the specified RS485 compliant digital devices. I might get products that have no signal common connection, or no opto-isolation. And I shouldn't be surprised if the installer uses whatever type of cable he has lying around the shop, and grounds all the shields because isn't that what you're supposed to do with shields?

None of these things are any more DMX compatible than they are DMX512-A compatible.

In my opinion, saying DMX is implying a standard. Which standard is vague as it has been revised. That's why when you are installing or researching equipment you need to be specific. But, in everyday use, DMX is a protocol that uses RS-485 transmitters and receivers on a 120 ohm, low capacitance, shielded twisted pair cable. Regardless of which revision.

Thoughts?
-Tim