SC-04-08 Richard Cabot posted an update in the group SC-04-08 3 weeks ago No folders found. Please create and select folder. Documents Folder Title Following special characters are not supported: \ / ? % * : | " < > Privacy Public All Members My Connections Only Me Cancel Create 000352.html 4 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link <TITLE> [SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </TITLE> pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } <H1>[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x</H1> <B>David Josephson</B> <A HREF="mailto:sc-04-08%40standards.aes.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BSC-04-08%5D%20Floyd%20Toole%20comments%20on%20SMPTE%20RP%202096-1%3A201x&In-Reply-To=%3C59c10b7e-3638-21ea-1a83-fd6679e38ff6%40josephson.com%3E" TITLE="[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x">dlj at josephson.com </A><BR> <I>Mon Jan 9 16:55:02 EST 2017</I> <P><UL> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000351.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000354.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#352">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#352">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#352">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#352">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <HR> <!--beginarticle--> <PRE>Dear Floyd, Messages to the AESSC reflectors do not accept attachments. Would you please login <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/standards/documents/?ID=91">https://secure.aes.org/standards/documents/?ID=91</A> and upload your comments to the SC-04-08 documents directory with filename x215-toole-170109.doc (substitute whatever date if not 17-01-09 and whatever file format if not .doc) Thanks David Josephson Chair, SC-04 On 1/9/2017 11:40 AM, Floyd Toole via SC-04-08 wrote: ><i> Attached please find my comments on the SMPTE submission. I will be sending them directly to the SMPTE standards committee as well. </I>><i> There is a lot to think about at this time. </I>><i> Cheers, </I>><i> Floyd Toole </I>><i> _______________________________________________ </I>><i> SC-04-08 mailing list </I>><i> <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">SC-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A> </I>><i> <<A HREF="http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91">http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91</A>> </I>><i> </I></PRE> <!--endarticle--> <HR> <P><UL> <!--threads--> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000351.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000354.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#352">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#352">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#352">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#352">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <hr> <a href="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list</a><br> Expand 000353.html 5 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link <TITLE> [SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </TITLE> pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } <H1>[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x</H1> <B>Floyd Toole</B> <A HREF="mailto:sc-04-08%40standards.aes.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BSC-04-08%5D%20Floyd%20Toole%20comments%20on%20SMPTE%20RP%202096-1%3A201x&In-Reply-To=%3C1049890419.1511029.1484001088634%40mail.yahoo.com%3E" TITLE="[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x">soundnwine at sbcglobal.net </A><BR> <I>Mon Jan 9 17:31:28 EST 2017</I> <P><UL> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000352.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#353">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#353">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#353">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#353">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <HR> <!--beginarticle--> <PRE>David Sorry about that - I have not worked with this group before and did not know the protocol. John Woodgate of course does . . . but merely complained and did not constructively offer assistance :-( Added to my frustration is that the AES site refuses my attempts to log in, even after changing passwords and sign-in ID. So I now await response from someone at AES allowing me to renew my life fellow membership, allow me access to the journal, and get on with some standards work. I don't need this! The SMPTE folks have already received and responded to the attachment. If you have any other thoughts about how we can get on with this, let me know: <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">soundnwine at sbcglobal.net</A> is my email. The document awaits, if anyone is interested . . . Cheers, Floyd On Monday, January 9, 2017 1:55 PM, David Josephson via SC-04-08 <<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">sc-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A>> wrote: Dear Floyd, Messages to the AESSC reflectors do not accept attachments. Would you please login <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/standards/documents/?ID=91">https://secure.aes.org/standards/documents/?ID=91</A> and upload your comments to the SC-04-08 documents directory with filename x215-toole-170109.doc (substitute whatever date if not 17-01-09 and whatever file format if not .doc) Thanks David Josephson Chair, SC-04 On 1/9/2017 11:40 AM, Floyd Toole via SC-04-08 wrote: ><i> Attached please find my comments on the SMPTE submission. I will be sending them directly to the SMPTE standards committee as well. </I>><i> There is a lot to think about at this time. </I>><i> Cheers, </I>><i> Floyd Toole </I>><i> _______________________________________________ </I>><i> SC-04-08 mailing list </I>><i> <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">SC-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A> </I>><i> <<A HREF="http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91">http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91</A>> </I>><i> </I>_______________________________________________ SC-04-08 mailing list <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">SC-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A> <<A HREF="http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91">http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91</A>> </PRE> <!--endarticle--> <HR> <P><UL> <!--threads--> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000352.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#353">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#353">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#353">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#353">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <hr> <a href="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list</a><br> Expand 000354.html 5 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link <TITLE> [SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </TITLE> pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } <H1>[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x</H1> <B>Floyd Toole</B> <A HREF="mailto:sc-04-08%40standards.aes.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BSC-04-08%5D%20Floyd%20Toole%20comments%20on%20SMPTE%20RP%202096-1%3A201x&In-Reply-To=%3C1049890419.1511029.1484001088634%40mail.yahoo.com%3E" TITLE="[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x">soundnwine at sbcglobal.net </A><BR> <I>Mon Jan 9 17:31:28 EST 2017</I> <P><UL> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000352.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000355.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#354">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#354">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#354">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#354">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <HR> <!--beginarticle--> <PRE>David Sorry about that - I have not worked with this group before and did not know the protocol. John Woodgate of course does . . . but merely complained and did not constructively offer assistance :-( Added to my frustration is that the AES site refuses my attempts to log in, even after changing passwords and sign-in ID. So I now await response from someone at AES allowing me to renew my life fellow membership, allow me access to the journal, and get on with some standards work. I don't need this! The SMPTE folks have already received and responded to the attachment. If you have any other thoughts about how we can get on with this, let me know: <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">soundnwine at sbcglobal.net</A> is my email. The document awaits, if anyone is interested . . . Cheers, Floyd On Monday, January 9, 2017 1:55 PM, David Josephson via SC-04-08 <<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">sc-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A>> wrote: Dear Floyd, Messages to the AESSC reflectors do not accept attachments. Would you please login <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/standards/documents/?ID=91">https://secure.aes.org/standards/documents/?ID=91</A> and upload your comments to the SC-04-08 documents directory with filename x215-toole-170109.doc (substitute whatever date if not 17-01-09 and whatever file format if not .doc) Thanks David Josephson Chair, SC-04 On 1/9/2017 11:40 AM, Floyd Toole via SC-04-08 wrote: ><i> Attached please find my comments on the SMPTE submission. I will be sending them directly to the SMPTE standards committee as well. </I>><i> There is a lot to think about at this time. </I>><i> Cheers, </I>><i> Floyd Toole </I>><i> _______________________________________________ </I>><i> SC-04-08 mailing list </I>><i> <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">SC-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A> </I>><i> <<A HREF="http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91">http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91</A>> </I>><i> </I>_______________________________________________ SC-04-08 mailing list <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">SC-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A> <<A HREF="http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91">http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91</A>> </PRE> <!--endarticle--> <HR> <P><UL> <!--threads--> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000352.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000355.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#354">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#354">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#354">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#354">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <hr> <a href="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list</a><br> Expand 000355.html 6 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link <TITLE> [SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </TITLE> pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } <H1>[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x</H1> <B>John Woodgate</B> <A HREF="mailto:sc-04-08%40standards.aes.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BSC-04-08%5D%20Floyd%20Toole%20comments%20on%20SMPTE%20RP%202096-1%3A201x&In-Reply-To=%3C01cf01d26ac8%24d9aa3620%248cfea260%24%40btinternet.com%3E" TITLE="[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x">jmw1937 at btinternet.com </A><BR> <I>Mon Jan 9 17:36:42 EST 2017</I> <P><UL> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000354.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000356.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#355">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#355">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#355">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#355">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <HR> <!--beginarticle--> <PRE>Sorry, Floyd, I did not realise that you had not dealt with the AESSC server's idiosyncrasies before today. With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO - Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. -----Original Message----- From: SC-04-08 [mailto:<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">sc-04-08-bounces at standards.aes.org</A>] On Behalf Of Floyd Toole via SC-04-08 Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 10:31 PM To: David Josephson <<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">dlj at josephson.com</A>>; Working group on Measurement and equalization of sound systems in rooms <<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">sc-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A>>; Working group on Measurement and equalization of sound systems in rooms <<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">sc-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A>> Cc: <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">standards at yonge.org.uk</A>; Richard Cabot <<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">rich at xfrm.com</A>> Subject: Re: [SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x David Sorry about that - I have not worked with this group before and did not know the protocol. John Woodgate of course does . . . but merely complained and did not constructively offer assistance :-( Added to my frustration is that the AES site refuses my attempts to log in, even after changing passwords and sign-in ID. So I now await response from someone at AES allowing me to renew my life fellow membership, allow me access to the journal, and get on with some standards work. I don't need this! The SMPTE folks have already received and responded to the attachment. If you have any other thoughts about how we can get on with this, let me know: <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">soundnwine at sbcglobal.net</A> is my email. The document awaits, if anyone is interested . . . Cheers, Floyd On Monday, January 9, 2017 1:55 PM, David Josephson via SC-04-08 <<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">sc-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A>> wrote: Dear Floyd, Messages to the AESSC reflectors do not accept attachments. Would you please login <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/standards/documents/?ID=91">https://secure.aes.org/standards/documents/?ID=91</A> and upload your comments to the SC-04-08 documents directory with filename x215-toole-170109.doc (substitute whatever date if not 17-01-09 and whatever file format if not .doc) Thanks David Josephson Chair, SC-04 On 1/9/2017 11:40 AM, Floyd Toole via SC-04-08 wrote: ><i> Attached please find my comments on the SMPTE submission. I will be </I>sending them directly to the SMPTE standards committee as well. ><i> There is a lot to think about at this time. </I>><i> Cheers, </I>><i> Floyd Toole </I>><i> _______________________________________________ </I>><i> SC-04-08 mailing list </I>><i> <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">SC-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A> </I>><i> <<A HREF="http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91">http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91</A>> </I>><i> </I>_______________________________________________ SC-04-08 mailing list <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">SC-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A> <<A HREF="http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91">http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91</A>> _______________________________________________ SC-04-08 mailing list <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">SC-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A> <<A HREF="http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91">http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91</A>> </PRE> <!--endarticle--> <HR> <P><UL> <!--threads--> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000354.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000356.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#355">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#355">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#355">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#355">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <hr> <a href="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list</a><br> Expand 000346.html 10 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link <TITLE> [SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </TITLE> pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } <H1>[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE</H1> <B>Brian McCarty</B> <A HREF="mailto:sc-04-08%40standards.aes.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BSC-04-08%5D%20X215%20liaison%20request%20from%20SMPTE&In-Reply-To=%3C90CADC10-49E8-45A2-8D18-770D59146B3E%40coralseastudios.com%3E" TITLE="[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE">bmccarty at coralseastudios.com </A><BR> <I>Thu Jan 5 14:12:48 EST 2017</I> <P><UL> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000347.html">[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#346">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#346">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#346">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#346">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <HR> <!--beginarticle--> <PRE>Happy New Year to my fellow Standards committee members. I attach a PDF of the text of my comments shown below. I would also suggest that as the comments already made by AES members on this document are clearly substantive and not editorial, it might be better to arrange a joint meeting between SMPTE 25CSS and AES SC-04-08 in an attempt to get everyone on the same page with the acoustical issues and engineering issues involved. This could be set up as a GoToMeeting web-based event. Cheers Brian McCarty Discussion Points and Comments for SMPTE 25CSS Submission to AES Cinema Baseline Setup and Calibration Brian McCarty 5 January 2017 Like others, I’ve downloaded these liaison documents from the SMPTE entitled “Baseline Setup and Calibration”, in which the introduction to the document also calls itself “Modern Digital Cinema Calibration”. While better than the current calibration documents available, fundamental aspects of it are anything but “modern”. In fact, the most important component, the target curve and tolerances are distinctly “retro”. This is the first cinema sound document to emanate from SMPTE 25CSS since the publication, in October of 2014, of the SMPTE Committee document “B-Chain Frequency and Temporal Response Analysis of Theatres and Dubbing Stages”. (Referred to here as the “SMPTE Report”). This extensive report (and underlying engineering tests) is available openly from the SMPTE at: <A HREF="https://www.smpte.org/standards/reports">https://www.smpte.org/standards/reports</A> <<A HREF="https://www.smpte.org/standards/reports">https://www.smpte.org/standards/reports</A>>. The introduction to what we’re now asked to review at the AES seems to backtrack on the learning and science of this SMPTE report. It starts by saying . ."the two primary criteria defining the audio environment are frequency response and level”. What happened to the ROOM? It then goes on to make another statement that was categorically disproved in the SMPTE report. “Experience gained among its members has resulted in procedures to ensure that sonic match, many of which have never been documented”. This is an absurd statement to make without any supporting evidence. Are there references to relevant psychoacoustic research, or is this unsubstantiated opinion? So after this SMPTE Report, that challenged long-standing SMPTE (and ISO) Standards including the controversial ST202 X-curve, I was expecting a new calibration technique along with a new calibration Standard. You can’t get better sound by changing the calibration method used to match the same flawed target curve! One theater chain technical manager, upon reading the SMPTE Report, took what many thought a drastic step and REMOVED all the equalization in the B-Chain of his cinemas (except at bass frequencies) and reported that the quality of sound as reported by the audience was much higher than with all the calibration gyrations. This done by using good quality speakers and not trying to “chase” a flawed target curve. You can’t equalize a room. But I guess in these proposals, we’re going to give it college try. Section D: The document makes the statement that . . “it is possible for a final frequency response curve to vary from the X-curve central line within the tolerance range and deliver the correct aurally perceived reproduction of the recorded sound”. Where is the evidence of this? There are anecdotal accounts of the sound quality being improved with the X-curve equalization turned off, or adjusted to a different target; is this what is meant? If so, it is a straightforward admission that the target is wrong or that we are measuring the wrong quantity. And if this IS the case, why are we still retaining a reference to ST202? We already KNOW ST202 is flawed. Section E: The confusion about what ST202 says and the review document is confusing. If ST202 (which says the main line IS the target curve) is now being modified by a document that doesn’t even rise to the level of a “Standard”. Why haven’t we just discarded ST202? The gymnastics being used in this document to justify keeping ST202 is a word salad of monumental proportions. This document can never be acceptable if it’s modifying the normative references to which it refers. Proper procedure would have been to fix the normative references first – the ones called into question by the SMPTE Report. PART ONE: Other AES Standards Committee members have already commented on the technical difficulties raised in this document. I concur with them. I add my additional comments to other sections, detailed below. 1.3.4: What is the reference for a “great change” in loudness or tonal balance? What IS a “great change”, anyway? 1.4: There doesn’t seem to be any reference for movie theaters in the “Stadium Seating” configuration. Why? I believe the vast majority of new cinemas (which this SMPTE Calibration Document is designed to service) are “Stadium Seating”. While earlier in the document the reader is cautioned about “seat effects” on the measurements, the recommended microphone positions seem to ensure “seat effects” WILL result in the measurements being suggested. 1.12: The document says equalization SHOULD be used if an “electroacoustic anomaly” (never defined) is “of a magnitude that causes the average response to be well outside of target-response tolerances”. This statement alone is the core of why this document should never see the light of day. When did equalization become the “fix” for “electroacoustic anomalies” when it is known that room curves are not accurate representations of loudspeaker – electroacoustic - performance. Since we KNOW the x-curve is a flawed target, why are we still chasing it with equalization. This section of the document then goes on to say that if these “electroacoustic anomalies” are “determined, by listening, to negatively impact perceived sound quality and are deficiencies that equalization can legitimately solve”. This doesn’t pass the laugh test. We’re admitting here that “calibration” is a hit-or-miss operation with the described technique and you shouldn’t be afraid to “tune by ear”. Insert guffaw here. And someone at SMPTE please explain - what are “deficiencies that equalization of a loudspeaker can legitimately solve”? Bueller? Bueller??? 1.15: We are then instructed to listen to program content mixed for the cinema and “music not mixed in a room that complies with ST202 and should not be used”. Too many negatives in this run-on sentence, perhaps someone can explain what it really means. And how we figure out what program content may or may not comply. The SMPTE Report had tests of several big-time mixing studios that didn’t comply with ST202. How’s a person to know which of their test listening film clips DO comply? Mixers have said that they may or may not partially or completely compensate for the peculiarities of the X-curve calibrated system. And they may or may not do it for all components of a mix, some of which can originate in non-X-curve facilities. All of this and the influence of hearing loss among mixers means that the program material used to confirm the “calibration” is itself far from “calibrated”. The well-documented “circle of confusion” that we’ve all heard. SUMMARY: This document is a needed tool for the movie theaters, and was needed decades ago. The sections on ensuring the systems are set up properly, with all channels playing in the proper location without rattles, squeaks, and hums are well-designed and useful. But the document falls apart trying to defend the indefensible and still works very hard to convince the tech in the field that he can equalize a room. The many good parts of this document need to be preserved and incorporated into a new document that begins with a revised performance objective. SMPTE needs to pau... Expand This file was truncated for preview. Please download to view the full file. 000347.html 12 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link <TITLE> [SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </TITLE> pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } <H1>[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE</H1> <B>John Woodgate</B> <A HREF="mailto:sc-04-08%40standards.aes.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BSC-04-08%5D%20X215%20liaison%20request%20from%20SMPTE&In-Reply-To=%3C0a5401d26792%242aceae80%24806c0b80%24%40btinternet.com%3E" TITLE="[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE">jmw1937 at btinternet.com </A><BR> <I>Thu Jan 5 15:27:42 EST 2017</I> <P><UL> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000346.html">[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000348.html">[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#347">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#347">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#347">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#347">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <HR> <!--beginarticle--> <PRE>What have all the young men done? Long time posting. Not read the list rules, every one. When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn? (;-) With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. -----Original Message----- From: SC-04-08 [mailto:<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">sc-04-08-bounces at standards.aes.org</A>] On Behalf Of Brian McCarty via SC-04-08 Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 7:13 PM To: Working group on Measurement and equalization of sound systems in rooms <<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">sc-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A>> Cc: Mark Yonge <<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">standards at aes.org</A>>; <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">rich at xfrm.com</A> Subject: Re: [SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE Happy New Year to my fellow Standards committee members. I attach a PDF of the text of my comments shown below. I would also suggest that as the comments already made by AES members on this document are clearly substantive and not editorial, it might be better to arrange a joint meeting between SMPTE 25CSS and AES SC-04-08 in an attempt to get everyone on the same page with the acoustical issues and engineering issues involved. This could be set up as a GoToMeeting web-based event. Cheers Brian McCarty Discussion Points and Comments for SMPTE 25CSS Submission to AES Cinema Baseline Setup and Calibration Brian McCarty 5 January 2017 Like others, I’ve downloaded these liaison documents from the SMPTE entitled “Baseline Setup and Calibration”, in which the introduction to the document also calls itself “Modern Digital Cinema Calibration”. While better than the current calibration documents available, fundamental aspects of it are anything but “modern”. In fact, the most important component, the target curve and tolerances are distinctly “retro”. This is the first cinema sound document to emanate from SMPTE 25CSS since the publication, in October of 2014, of the SMPTE Committee document “B-Chain Frequency and Temporal Response Analysis of Theatres and Dubbing Stages”. (Referred to here as the “SMPTE Report”). This extensive report (and underlying engineering tests) is available openly from the SMPTE at: <A HREF="https://www.smpte.org/standards/reports">https://www.smpte.org/standards/reports</A> <<A HREF="https://www.smpte.org/standards/reports">https://www.smpte.org/standards/reports</A>>. The introduction to what we’re now asked to review at the AES seems to backtrack on the learning and science of this SMPTE report. It starts by saying . ."the two primary criteria defining the audio environment are frequency response and level”. What happened to the ROOM? It then goes on to make another statement that was categorically disproved in the SMPTE report. “Experience gained among its members has resulted in procedures to ensure that sonic match, many of which have never been documented”. This is an absurd statement to make without any supporting evidence. Are there references to relevant psychoacoustic research, or is this unsubstantiated opinion? So after this SMPTE Report, that challenged long-standing SMPTE (and ISO) Standards including the controversial ST202 X-curve, I was expecting a new calibration technique along with a new calibration Standard. You can’t get better sound by changing the calibration method used to match the same flawed target curve! One theater chain technical manager, upon reading the SMPTE Report, took what many thought a drastic step and REMOVED all the equalization in the B-Chain of his cinemas (except at bass frequencies) and reported that the quality of sound as reported by the audience was much higher than with all the calibration gyrations. This done by using good quality speakers and not trying to “chase” a flawed target curve. You can’t equalize a room. But I guess in these proposals, we’re going to give it college try. Section D: The document makes the statement that . . “it is possible for a final frequency response curve to vary from the X-curve central line within the tolerance range and deliver the correct aurally perceived reproduction of the recorded sound”. Where is the evidence of this? There are anecdotal accounts of the sound quality being improved with the X-curve equalization turned off, or adjusted to a different target; is this what is meant? If so, it is a straightforward admission that the target is wrong or that we are measuring the wrong quantity. And if this IS the case, why are we still retaining a reference to ST202? We already KNOW ST202 is flawed. Section E: The confusion about what ST202 says and the review document is confusing. If ST202 (which says the main line IS the target curve) is now being modified by a document that doesn’t even rise to the level of a “Standard”. Why haven’t we just discarded ST202? The gymnastics being used in this document to justify keeping ST202 is a word salad of monumental proportions. This document can never be acceptable if it’s modifying the normative references to which it refers. Proper procedure would have been to fix the normative references first – the ones called into question by the SMPTE Report. PART ONE: Other AES Standards Committee members have already commented on the technical difficulties raised in this document. I concur with them. I add my additional comments to other sections, detailed below. 1.3.4: What is the reference for a “great change” in loudness or tonal balance? What IS a “great change”, anyway? 1.4: There doesn’t seem to be any reference for movie theaters in the “Stadium Seating” configuration. Why? I believe the vast majority of new cinemas (which this SMPTE Calibration Document is designed to service) are “Stadium Seating”. While earlier in the document the reader is cautioned about “seat effects” on the measurements, the recommended microphone positions seem to ensure “seat effects” WILL result in the measurements being suggested. 1.12: The document says equalization SHOULD be used if an “electroacoustic anomaly” (never defined) is “of a magnitude that causes the average response to be well outside of target-response tolerances”. This statement alone is the core of why this document should never see the light of day. When did equalization become the “fix” for “electroacoustic anomalies” when it is known that room curves are not accurate representations of loudspeaker – electroacoustic - performance. Since we KNOW the x-curve is a flawed target, why are we still chasing it with equalization. This section of the document then goes on to say that if these “electroacoustic anomalies” are “determined, by listening, to negatively impact perceived sound quality and are deficiencies that equalization can legitimately solve”. This doesn’t pass the laugh test. We’re admitting here that “calibration” is a hit-or-miss operation with the described technique and you shouldn’t be afraid to “tune by ear”. Insert guffaw here. And someone at SMPTE please explain - what are “deficiencies that equalization of a loudspeaker can legitimately solve”? Bueller? Bueller??? 1.15: We are then instructed to listen to program content mixed for the cinema and “music not mixed in a room that complies with ST202 and should not be used”. Too many negatives in this run-on sentence, perhaps someone can explain what it really means. And how we figure out what program content may or may not comply. The SMPTE Report had tests of several big-time mixing studios that didn’t comply with ST202. How’s a person to know which of their test listening film clips DO comply? Mixers have sai... Expand This file was truncated for preview. Please download to view the full file. 000348.html 3 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link <TITLE> [SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </TITLE> pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } <H1>[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE</H1> <B>David Josephson</B> <A HREF="mailto:sc-04-08%40standards.aes.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BSC-04-08%5D%20X215%20liaison%20request%20from%20SMPTE&In-Reply-To=%3C385E303B-6B5A-4EC4-914B-B8E97166F750%40josephson.com%3E" TITLE="[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE">dlj at josephson.com </A><BR> <I>Thu Jan 5 16:24:39 EST 2017</I> <P><UL> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000347.html">[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000349.html">[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#348">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#348">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#348">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#348">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <HR> <!--beginarticle--> <PRE> The SC-04-08 working group is not presently active, as there is no chair and no active projects assigned to it. AESSC chair Bruce Olson and I are actively engaged in finding a new chair; several good candidates have already declined to serve. AES-X215 and X216 were proposed to be closed with the submission of our earlier reports to SMPTE. Since they aren’t in fact closed, discussion as SMPTE requests is certainly within their existing scope. SC-04 elected to keep the SC-04-08 reflector up to facilitate discussion, so given that there’s no standard we’re working on, and no chair to moderate it, we will forward to SMPTE the text of any comments posted here in regard to SMPTE RP 2096-1 and 2096-2, without any attempt at documenting a consensus (which is unlikely in any case.) They will not be a formal response from AESSC but a compilation of comments received from SC-04-08 members. Thanks to Thomas, Charlie and Brian for the comments received so far. David Josephson Chair, SC-04 </PRE> <!--endarticle--> <HR> <P><UL> <!--threads--> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000347.html">[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000349.html">[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#348">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#348">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#348">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#348">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <hr> <a href="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list</a><br> Expand 000349.html 16 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link <TITLE> [SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </TITLE> pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } <H1>[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE</H1> <B>philip newell</B> <A HREF="mailto:sc-04-08%40standards.aes.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BSC-04-08%5D%20X215%20liaison%20request%20from%20SMPTE&In-Reply-To=%3CCAEEhAC%3DKdz8m0%3DwNX90%2B%2B%3DkOucstJpsVxODrGGKaYnrFY1Sbrg%40mail.gmail.com%3E" TITLE="[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE">philiprnewell at gmail.com </A><BR> <I>Fri Jan 6 05:54:02 EST 2017</I> <P><UL> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000348.html">[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000350.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#349">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#349">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#349">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#349">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <HR> <!--beginarticle--> <PRE>Dear Brian, I think that much of what you say is true, but it is my understanding that the SMPTE document in question was only ever intended to be a stepping stone on the way to new standards. It will also pave the way for some of the necessary changes. Whilst it is true that a different calibration procedure cannot compensate for poor loudspeakers with inadequate directivity, It is also true that problems such as these are often dealt with in totally inappropriate ways which can further colour the sound and increase the likelihood of distortion. One of the goals of the new RP is to discourage technicians from exacerbating the problems by, for example, placing some microphones outside of the reasonable coverage angles of the loudspeakers or excessively (by checking the responses in each location) and/or equalising by trying to nail the analyser display to the centre-line of the target curve. Also, I think it is recognised that the whole cinema-world will not change its poor loudspeakers for better ones over night, so running them *all* with no EQ is a non-starter when many loudspeakers have been designed for cinemas relying on the fact that equalisation would be available to pull them into range. Yes, there is some prehistoric equipment out there, but cinema owners seem to be reluctant to make investments without having guidelines and explanations to follow. Personally, I think that discouraging bad practices is a step forward. There are still very many cinemas out there being calibrated using microphones in out-of-coverage positions, pointing in the wrong directions and being mounted far too close to the seat backs. They are then being used to make equalisation judgements using 1/3-octave filters and real-time analysers with extreme equalisation being applied to try to force the visible response curve to tightly fit the centre line. The sonic results can be horrific yet the technicians go away thinking that they have done a great job, without ever listening to the results of their work. In fact, they actually may well have done a great job in terms of what their bosses had told them to do, so something needs to be readily available to the to tell them that the established practices are wrong, and the sooner the better. New Standards are not going to be very useful until these old calibration nonsenses have been killed off. I think that the proposed SMPTE document will go a long way towards helping to achieve this. It can help to change the outdated mentality, and it will get a very heavy ball (that is stuck in the mud) rolling in the right direction if we can get behind it. At least that is my opinion! Best wishes, Philip On 5 January 2017 at 20:12, Brian McCarty via SC-04-08 < <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">sc-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A>> wrote: ><i> Happy New Year to my fellow Standards committee members. </I>><i> </I>><i> I attach a PDF of the text of my comments shown below. </I>><i> </I>><i> I would also suggest that as the comments already made by AES members on </I>><i> this document are clearly substantive and not editorial, it might be better </I>><i> to arrange a joint meeting between SMPTE 25CSS and AES SC-04-08 in an </I>><i> attempt to get everyone on the same page with the acoustical issues and </I>><i> engineering issues involved. This could be set up as a GoToMeeting </I>><i> web-based event. </I>><i> </I>><i> Cheers </I>><i> </I>><i> Brian McCarty </I>><i> </I>><i> </I>><i> </I>><i> Discussion Points and Comments for SMPTE 25CSS Submission to AES </I>><i> </I>><i> Cinema Baseline Setup and Calibration </I>><i> </I>><i> </I>><i> </I>><i> </I>><i> Brian McCarty </I>><i> </I>><i> </I>><i> 5 January 2017 </I>><i> </I>><i> Like others, I’ve downloaded these liaison documents from the SMPTE </I>><i> entitled “Baseline Setup and Calibration”, in which the introduction to the </I>><i> document also calls itself “Modern Digital Cinema Calibration”. While </I>><i> better than the current calibration documents available, fundamental </I>><i> aspects of it are anything but “modern”. In fact, the most important </I>><i> component, the target curve and tolerances are distinctly “retro”. </I>><i> </I>><i> This is the first cinema sound document to emanate from SMPTE 25CSS since </I>><i> the publication, in October of 2014, of the SMPTE Committee document </I>><i> “B-Chain Frequency and Temporal Response Analysis of Theatres and Dubbing </I>><i> Stages”. (Referred to here as the “SMPTE Report”). This extensive report </I>><i> (and underlying engineering tests) is available openly from the SMPTE at: </I>><i> <A HREF="https://www.smpte.org/standards/reports">https://www.smpte.org/standards/reports</A> <<A HREF="https://www.smpte.org/">https://www.smpte.org/</A> </I>><i> standards/reports>. </I>><i> </I>><i> The introduction to what we’re now asked to review at the AES seems to </I>><i> backtrack on the learning and science of this SMPTE report. It starts by </I>><i> saying . ."the two primary criteria defining the audio environment are </I>><i> frequency response and level”. What happened to the ROOM? It then goes on </I>><i> to make another statement that was categorically disproved in the SMPTE </I>><i> report. “Experience gained among its members has resulted in procedures to </I>><i> ensure that sonic match, many of which have never been documented”. This </I>><i> is an absurd statement to make without any supporting evidence. Are there </I>><i> references to relevant psychoacoustic research, or is this unsubstantiated </I>><i> opinion? </I>><i> </I>><i> So after this SMPTE Report, that challenged long-standing SMPTE (and ISO) </I>><i> Standards including the controversial ST202 X-curve, I was expecting a new </I>><i> calibration technique along with a new calibration Standard. You can’t get </I>><i> better sound by changing the calibration method used to match the same </I>><i> flawed target curve! </I>><i> </I>><i> One theater chain technical manager, upon reading the SMPTE Report, took </I>><i> what many thought a drastic step and REMOVED all the equalization in the </I>><i> B-Chain of his cinemas (except at bass frequencies) and reported that the </I>><i> quality of sound as reported by the audience was much higher than with all </I>><i> the calibration gyrations. This done by using good quality speakers and </I>><i> not trying to “chase” a flawed target curve. You can’t equalize a room. </I>><i> But I guess in these proposals, we’re going to give it college try. </I>><i> </I>><i> Section D: </I>><i> </I>><i> The document makes the statement that . . “it is possible for a final </I>><i> frequency response curve to vary from the X-curve central line within the </I>><i> tolerance range and deliver the correct aurally perceived reproduction of </I>><i> the recorded sound”. Where is the evidence of this? There are anecdotal </I>><i> accounts of the sound quality being improved with the X-curve equalization </I>><i> turned off, or adjusted to a different target; is this what is meant? If </I>><i> so, it is a straightforward admission that the target is wrong or that we </I>><i> are measuring the wrong quantity. And if this IS the case, why are we </I>><i> still retaining a reference to ST202? We already KNOW ST202 is flawed. </I>><i> </I>><i> Section E: </I>><i> </I>><i> The confusion about what ST202 says and the review document is confusing. </I>><i> If ST202 (which says the main line IS the target curve) is now being </I>><i> modified by a document that doesn’t even rise to the level of a </I>><i> “Stand... Expand This file was truncated for preview. Please download to view the full file. 000350.html 3 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link <TITLE> [SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </TITLE> pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } <H1>[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x</H1> <B>Floyd Toole</B> <A HREF="mailto:sc-04-08%40standards.aes.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BSC-04-08%5D%20Floyd%20Toole%20comments%20on%20SMPTE%20RP%202096-1%3A201x&In-Reply-To=%3C835381825.1379169.1483990823035%40mail.yahoo.com%3E" TITLE="[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x">soundnwine at sbcglobal.net </A><BR> <I>Mon Jan 9 14:40:22 EST 2017</I> <P><UL> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000349.html">[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000351.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#350">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#350">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#350">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#350">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <HR> <!--beginarticle--> <PRE>Attached please find my comments on the SMPTE submission. I will be sending them directly to the SMPTE standards committee as well. There is a lot to think about at this time. Cheers, Floyd Toole </PRE> <!--endarticle--> <HR> <P><UL> <!--threads--> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000349.html">[SC-04-08] X215 liaison request from SMPTE </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000351.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#350">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#350">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#350">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#350">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <hr> <a href="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list</a><br> Expand 000351.html 4 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link <TITLE> [SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </TITLE> pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } <H1>[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x</H1> <B>John Woodgate</B> <A HREF="mailto:sc-04-08%40standards.aes.org?Subject=Re%3A%20%5BSC-04-08%5D%20Floyd%20Toole%20comments%20on%20SMPTE%20RP%202096-1%3A201x&In-Reply-To=%3C017901d26ac2%24e3941c60%24aabc5520%24%40btinternet.com%3E" TITLE="[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x">jmw1937 at btinternet.com </A><BR> <I>Mon Jan 9 16:54:01 EST 2017</I> <P><UL> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000350.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000352.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#351">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#351">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#351">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#351">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <HR> <!--beginarticle--> <PRE>Indeed. Like 'Attachments not allowed'. (;-) With best wishes DESIGN IT IN! OOO – Own Opinions Only www.jmwa.demon.co.uk J M Woodgate and Associates Rayleigh England Sylvae in aeternum manent. -----Original Message----- From: SC-04-08 [mailto:<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">sc-04-08-bounces at standards.aes.org</A>] On Behalf Of Floyd Toole via SC-04-08 Sent: Monday, January 9, 2017 7:40 PM To: Working Group On Measurement and Equalization of Sound Systems In Rooms <<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">sc-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A>> Cc: <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">standards at yonge.org.uk</A>; Richard Cabot <<A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">rich at xfrm.com</A>> Subject: [SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x Attached please find my comments on the SMPTE submission. I will be sending them directly to the SMPTE standards committee as well. There is a lot to think about at this time. Cheers, Floyd Toole _______________________________________________ SC-04-08 mailing list <A HREF="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">SC-04-08 at standards.aes.org</A> <<A HREF="http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91">http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91</A>> </PRE> <!--endarticle--> <HR> <P><UL> <!--threads--> <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="000350.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI>Next message: <A HREF="000352.html">[SC-04-08] Floyd Toole comments on SMPTE RP 2096-1:201x </A></li> <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> <a href="date.html#351">[ date ]</a> <a href="thread.html#351">[ thread ]</a> <a href="subject.html#351">[ subject ]</a> <a href="author.html#351">[ author ]</a> </LI> </UL> <hr> <a href="https://secure.aes.org/mailman/listinfo/sc-04-08">More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list</a><br> Expand 0 Comments Public All Members My Connections Only Me PublicAll MembersMy ConnectionsOnly Me Public All Members My Connections Only Me
