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 000272.html 4 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" John Woodgate jmw at jmwa.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 10 09:02:07 MST 2014 Previous message: [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" Next message: [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] In message <5460DCD1.4060007 at josephson.com>, dated Mon, 10 Nov 2014, David Josephson <dlj at josephson.com> writes: > >Based on what I heard in the last meeting, and subsequent discussion on >this list, I doubt that there is any support for combining the efforts >for AES-X215 and AES-X219. I didn't suggest that there was, and I would oppose such a suggestion. They are separate projects with different scopes/terms of reference and different lead houses - SMPTE and AESSC. My point is that in the intensive email exchanges, the two projects were sometimes confused, causing further confusion and disagreement. So I thought it best to emphasize the differences between the two projects and seek agreement on the clear separation. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK Previous message: [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" Next message: [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list Expand 000271.html 5 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" David Josephson dlj at josephson.com Mon Nov 10 08:42:09 MST 2014 Previous message: [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" Next message: [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] On 11/10/14 6:57 AM, John Woodgate wrote: > In message <777410D0-DB5F-430E-9D4D-3C698AB425F2 at aes.org>, dated Mon, 10 > Nov 2014, markyonge <mark.yonge at aes.org> writes: > >> That project already exists as AES-X219. Current scope reads: "to >> specify a method of measurement for frequency and impulse response of >> sound systems in auditoria." Contributions welcome. > > OK, I agree with what you say in the bulk of your message. There is a > lack of clarity as to where the roll-off is generated. > > I noted X-219, but that was started, I think, before all that recent > clamour, and it seemed necessary to ask SC-04-08 whether it still agrees > to the two *separate* tasks: x-215 - helping SMPTE **on their terms** > and x-216 - making a new, technically-correct and up-to-date document > **on AESSC terms**. How SMPTE reacts to x-216 is up to SMPTE. Based on what I heard in the last meeting, and subsequent discussion on this list, I doubt that there is any support for combining the efforts for AES-X215 and AES-X219. On the surface the intent seems similar, but X215 is specifically about guidance for people maintaining installed cinema systems, and X219 is much broader. AES-X216 is yet another project, and I think SMPTE would be justified in thinking that our lack of comment implies that no one finds serious fault with their approach. AES-X219 could be a huge undertaking if done properly. As with most standards efforts, the challenge is to interest expert participants enough to inspire them to do the work. Nothing has been uploaded to the documents page on this project since it was proposed in early 2013. There has been enough discussion around X215 to indicate that people have strong opinions, but they may be unwilling to join the fray as the project is presently stated. David Josephson Chair, SC-04 Previous message: [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" Next message: [SC-04-08] Comments on "SMPTE-Modern-Calibration" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list Expand 000273.html 4 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Bruce C. Olson bco at aes.org Mon Nov 10 14:18:09 MST 2014 Previous message: [SC-04-08] Guides to standards development Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] On Monday, November 10, 2014 9:42 AM David Josephson wrote: On 11/10/14 6:57 AM, John Woodgate wrote: > In message <777410D0-DB5F-430E-9D4D-3C698AB425F2 at aes.org>, dated Mon, > 10 Nov 2014, markyonge <mark.yonge at aes.org> writes: > >> That project already exists as AES-X219. Current scope reads: "to >> specify a method of measurement for frequency and impulse response of >> sound systems in auditoria." Contributions welcome. > > OK, I agree with what you say in the bulk of your message. There is a > lack of clarity as to where the roll-off is generated. > > I noted X-219, but that was started, I think, before all that recent > clamour, and it seemed necessary to ask SC-04-08 whether it still > agrees to the two *separate* tasks: x-215 - helping SMPTE **on their > terms** and x-216 - making a new, technically-correct and up-to-date > document **on AESSC terms**. How SMPTE reacts to x-216 is up to SMPTE. AES-X219 could be a huge undertaking if done properly. As with most standards efforts, the challenge is to interest expert participants enough to inspire them to do the work. Nothing has been uploaded to the documents page on this project since it was proposed in early 2013. [[BCO]] Actually Eddy Brixen uploaded NT acou 108 on 39 Mar 2013 to be used as a basis for AES-X219. We need a task leader and for folks to identify the following: 1) Clause to Retain with only editorial changes 2) Clauses to Remove 3) Clauses to Improve 4) Clauses to Add I urge the group to propose items 1 and 2, suggest changes for 3, and propose wording for 4. Bruce -- Bruce C. Olson Audio Engineering Society Standards Committee Chair phone: +1 (763) 493-5835 email: bco at aes.org web: http://www.aes.org/standards/ Previous message: [SC-04-08] Guides to standards development Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list Expand 000274.html 5 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications David Josephson dlj at josephson.com Mon Nov 10 14:27:37 MST 2014 Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] On 11/10/2014 1:18 PM, Bruce C. Olson wrote: > On Monday, November 10, 2014 9:42 AM David Josephson wrote: > > On 11/10/14 6:57 AM, John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <777410D0-DB5F-430E-9D4D-3C698AB425F2 at aes.org>, dated Mon, >> 10 Nov 2014, markyonge <mark.yonge at aes.org> writes: >> >>> That project already exists as AES-X219. Current scope reads: "to >>> specify a method of measurement for frequency and impulse response of >>> sound systems in auditoria." Contributions welcome. >> >> OK, I agree with what you say in the bulk of your message. There is a >> lack of clarity as to where the roll-off is generated. >> >> I noted X-219, but that was started, I think, before all that recent >> clamour, and it seemed necessary to ask SC-04-08 whether it still >> agrees to the two *separate* tasks: x-215 - helping SMPTE **on their >> terms** and x-216 - making a new, technically-correct and up-to-date >> document **on AESSC terms**. How SMPTE reacts to x-216 is up to SMPTE. > > AES-X219 could be a huge undertaking if done properly. As with most > standards efforts, the challenge is to interest expert participants enough > to inspire them to do the work. Nothing has been uploaded to the documents > page on this project since it was proposed in early 2013. > > [[BCO]] Actually Eddy Brixen uploaded NT acou 108 on 39 Mar 2013 to be used > as a basis for AES-X219. We need a task leader and for folks to identify the > following: > 1) Clause to Retain with only editorial changes > 2) Clauses to Remove > 3) Clauses to Improve > 4) Clauses to Add > > I urge the group to propose items 1 and 2, suggest changes for 3, and > propose wording for 4. According to the status of projects report at https://secure.aes.org/standards/sc_projects.cfm?ID=91 Eddy's upload of the NT ACOU 108 method is in connection with AES-X218. If they are the same project, either X218 or X219 should be retired. I believe that X218 is about review of the Nordtest standard, and X219 is about development of a new standard. The scopes are broad and overlap to some extent. David Josephson Chair, SC-04 Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list Expand 000275.html 6 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Bharitkar, Sunil sunil.bharitkar at dolby.com Mon Nov 10 14:32:41 MST 2014 Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] Thanks Bruce. As David rightfully points, X-219 will be a significant (time and resources wise) undertaking to quantify objective performance with several candidate variables in the measurement chain, as well as confirming the results with properly done subjective tests. It would be an impactful standard if and when completed. -------------------------- Sunil Bharitkar, Ph. D. Dir. of Technology, Audio Office of the CTO Dolby Laboratories, Inc. http://www.dolby.com (O)+1-415-558-0283 On 11/10/14, 1:18 PM, "Bruce C. Olson" <bco at aes.org> wrote: >On Monday, November 10, 2014 9:42 AM David Josephson wrote: > >On 11/10/14 6:57 AM, John Woodgate wrote: > >> In message <777410D0-DB5F-430E-9D4D-3C698AB425F2 at aes.org>, dated Mon, >> 10 Nov 2014, markyonge <mark.yonge at aes.org> writes: >> >>> That project already exists as AES-X219. Current scope reads: "to >>> specify a method of measurement for frequency and impulse response of >>> sound systems in auditoria." Contributions welcome. >> >> OK, I agree with what you say in the bulk of your message. There is a >> lack of clarity as to where the roll-off is generated. >> >> I noted X-219, but that was started, I think, before all that recent >> clamour, and it seemed necessary to ask SC-04-08 whether it still >> agrees to the two *separate* tasks: x-215 - helping SMPTE **on their >> terms** and x-216 - making a new, technically-correct and up-to-date >> document **on AESSC terms**. How SMPTE reacts to x-216 is up to SMPTE. > >AES-X219 could be a huge undertaking if done properly. As with most >standards efforts, the challenge is to interest expert participants enough >to inspire them to do the work. Nothing has been uploaded to the documents >page on this project since it was proposed in early 2013. > >[[BCO]] Actually Eddy Brixen uploaded NT acou 108 on 39 Mar 2013 to be >used >as a basis for AES-X219. We need a task leader and for folks to identify >the >following: > 1) Clause to Retain with only editorial changes > 2) Clauses to Remove > 3) Clauses to Improve > 4) Clauses to Add > >I urge the group to propose items 1 and 2, suggest changes for 3, and >propose wording for 4. > >Bruce > >-- >Bruce C. Olson >Audio Engineering Society >Standards Committee Chair > >phone: +1 (763) 493-5835 >email: bco at aes.org >web: http://www.aes.org/standards/ > >_______________________________________________ >SC-04-08 mailing list >SC-04-08 at standards.aes.org ><http://standards.aes.org/sc.cfm?ID=91> Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list Expand 000276.html 3 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications John Woodgate jmw at jmwa.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 10 15:01:19 MST 2014 Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] In message <D0866D0F.C390%Sunil.Bharitkar at dolby.com>, dated Mon, 10 Nov 2014, "Bharitkar, Sunil" <sunil.bharitkar at dolby.com> writes: >As David rightfully points, X-219 will be a significant (time and >resources wise) undertaking to quantify objective performance with >several candidate variables in the measurement chain, as well as >confirming the results with properly done subjective tests. Unlike for IEC standards, there is no time-scale for AES standard development, so it can take as long as it takes, provided it doesn't languish. > >It would be an impactful standard if and when completed. Precisely. It would be well worth doing. In fact a cynic would say hat if we can't do it, we don't understand the subject. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list Expand 000278.html 3 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications John Woodgate jmw at jmwa.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 10 15:09:51 MST 2014 Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] Advance information Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] In message <007801cffd2b$d4d602d0$7e820870$@aes.org>, dated Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Bruce C. Olson <bco at aes.org> writes: >[[BCO]] Actually Eddy Brixen uploaded NT acou 108 on 39 Mar 2013 to be >used as a basis for AES-X219. We need a task leader and for folks to >identify the following: > 1) Clause to Retain with only editorial changes > 2) Clauses to Remove > 3) Clauses to Improve > 4) Clauses to Add > >I urge the group to propose items 1 and 2, suggest changes for 3, and >propose wording for 4. Agreed. I can't look at it this week, but unless I forget, I probably can next week. But I don't claim expertise in this subject. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] Advance information Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list Expand 000277.html 4 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications John Woodgate jmw at jmwa.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 10 15:06:54 MST 2014 Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] In message <54612DC9.7000600 at josephson.com>, dated Mon, 10 Nov 2014, David Josephson <dlj at josephson.com> writes: >According to the status of projects report at >https://secure.aes.org/standards/sc_projects.cfm?ID=91 Eddy's upload of >the NT ACOU 108 method is in connection with AES-X218. If they are the >same project, either X218 or X219 should be retired. It might be premature to do that. >I believe that X218 is about review of the Nordtest standard, If that review is very favourable, an AES standard might 'fall out' of the review work. But the Nordtest standard is not exactly new, so it might be necessary to develop a standard derived only in a minority part form the Nordtest, so that would be X219. >and X219 is about development of a new standard. The scopes are broad >and overlap to some extent. That's not a problem if we can agree on the above. We don't need to make a decision on X219 until we have the outcome of X218. Horse first, then cart. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list Expand 000279.html 5 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications David Josephson dlj at josephson.com Mon Nov 10 15:54:59 MST 2014 Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] On 11/10/2014 2:01 PM, John Woodgate wrote: > In message <D0866D0F.C390%Sunil.Bharitkar at dolby.com>, dated Mon, 10 Nov > 2014, "Bharitkar, Sunil" <sunil.bharitkar at dolby.com> writes: > >> As David rightfully points, X-219 will be a significant (time and >> resources wise) undertaking to quantify objective performance with >> several candidate variables in the measurement chain, as well as >> confirming the results with properly done subjective tests. > > Unlike for IEC standards, there is no time-scale for AES standard > development, so it can take as long as it takes, provided it doesn't > languish. >> >> It would be an impactful standard if and when completed. > > Precisely. It would be well worth doing. In fact a cynic would say hat > if we can't do it, we don't understand the subject. Another cynic would say that if we think we can do it as presently cast, we don't understand the subject. Without a concerted effort to break this into manageable pieces, it will not progress. While there is no mandated time-scale, there's also no point maintaining a project that no one is working on. As I understand the intent, we want to define a method for measuring the impulse response of a system in a room. Yes, we can measure the response at a point in the room, what good is that? Do we want the average response of the room? Do we want to know the standard deviation -- and in what parameter -- of a randomly selected set of places in the room? I can think of some useful things to do to improve the common understanding in a generalized case, but this does not speak to the needs of the TC-SDCTV. Particularly if we want to address finer details like group delay scatter degrading intelligibility, we need to know what information is required. The AESSC process works when a group of people have a similar goal and want to reach consensus on *a* (not necessarily *the*) common method for reaching it. Perhaps those closer to the cinema sound design world can define what is desired. David Josephson Chair, SC-04 Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list Expand 000280.html 5 KB HTML - Click to view Options Copy Download Link [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications pre { white-space: pre-wrap; /* css-2.1, curent FF, Opera, Safari */ } [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications John Woodgate jmw at jmwa.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 11 00:28:08 MST 2014 Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] In message <54614243.2060109 at josephson.com>, dated Mon, 10 Nov 2014, David Josephson <dlj at josephson.com> writes: >Another cynic would say that if we think we can do it as presently >cast, we don't understand the subject. That's a matter for SMPTE. We either accept that they want an interim solution, however imperfect, or we withdraw our assistance. > >Without a concerted effort to break this into manageable pieces, it >will not progress. While there is no mandated time-scale, there's also >no point maintaining a project that no one is working on. Of course, but I thought we had manageable pieces - x218 and x219. > >As I understand the intent, we want to define a method for measuring >the impulse response of a system in a room. Yes, we can measure the >response at a point in the room, what good is that? It's a start. Without that we cannot progress. >Do we want the average response of the room? Almost certainly not. Such averages hide a multitude of sins. >Do we want to know the standard deviation -- and in what parameter -- >of a randomly selected set of places in the room? It would be valuable. >I can think of some useful things to do to improve the common >understanding in a generalized case, but this does not speak to the >needs of the TC-SDCTV. No, with respect you are mixing up the projects. Assisting SMPTE is one, limited project, under SMPTE terms of reference. x218 and x219 are purely AESSC projects, not tied to SMPTE. >Particularly if we want to address finer details like group delay >scatter degrading intelligibility, we need to know what information is >required. These are all very good questions but they are for x219. The plan was, and I suppose still is, is first to look at Eddie's Nordtest document to see if it provides a way forward and to what extent. If it doesn't, or only to a very limited extent, then we have to work on x219, avoiding the temptation to try to make it the 'ultimate solution for all time' by including very difficult things like the influence of group delay on speech intelligibility. I have some thoughts about that, but they are for a different message. > >The AESSC process works when a group of people have a similar goal and >want to reach consensus on *a* (not necessarily *the*) common method >for reaching it. Perhaps those closer to the cinema sound design world >can define what is desired. x218 and x219 are not tied to cinema; they are general. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Quid faciamus nisi sit? John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK Previous message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Next message: [SC-04-08] AES-X219 Clarifications Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] More information about the SC-04-08 mailing list Expand 0 Comments Public All Members My Connections Only Me PublicAll MembersMy ConnectionsOnly Me Public All Members My Connections Only Me