Comments on DRAFT
AES65-xxxx

Comments to date on DRAFT AES65-xxxx, AES standard for interconnections - Connector for surround microphones ,
published 2012-12-18 for comment.

The comment period has closed.

Comment received from Richard Hess, 2012-12-18

Thanks for doing this.

There appears to be a conflict between Table 1 and section 4.4.1, last paragraph in the channel assignment order. I believe Table 1 is correct per ITU standards.

Response from Ray Rayburn, 2013-01-29

Mr. Hess,

You wrote on 2012-12-18:

"There appears to be a conflict between Table 1 and section 4.4.1, last paragraph in the channel assignment order. I believe Table 1 is correct per ITU standards."

Thanks for catching this you are correct. Table 1 is correct and 4.4.1 will be revised to show LFE as the 4th channel in sequence.

Thanks,

Ray A. Rayburn
Chair SC-05-02

Comment received from Hedd Morfett-Jones, 2012-12-19

This one is a simple contradiction in the text, "aes65-xxxx-cfc-121218":

1) 4.4.1 gives channel order as L R C Ls Rs LFE, yet says it should match table 1 which gives L R C LFE Ls Rs … also,

2) 4.4.2 second sentence doesn't seem to flow: "… 'shield' terminals [possible missing word] all of the audio channels …", or is it just two words swapped? "… 'shield' terminals of all the audio channels …"

3) Finally (and this one is opinion), I guess there has been sufficient interest in using this standard for a programme mix at line level (or the existence of surround mic techniques that whould use a seperate LFE mic) to justify the inclusion of an LFE channel in a surround microphone connector standard… Is this 'spec creep' or have I just misunderstood the scope of the standard?

Response from Ray Rayburn, 2013-01-29

Mr. Morfett-Jones,

You wrote on 2012-12-19:

"1) 4.4.1 gives channel order as L R C Ls Rs LFE, yet says it should match table 1 which gives L R C LFE Ls Rs ?"

Thanks for catching this you are correct. Table 1 is correct and 4.4.1 will be revised to show LFE as the 4th channel in sequence.

"2) 4.4.2 second sentence doesn't seem to flow: "? 'shield' terminals [possible missing word] all of the audio channels ?", or is it just two words swapped? "? 'shield' terminals of all the audio channels ?""

You are correct, this is unclear. The 1st sentence will be clarified to read "Cable containing individually shielded pairs shall be wired in accordance with Table 1, with the shield for each pair connected to the shield contact for the same pair."

"3) Finally (and this one is opinion), I guess there has been sufficient interest in using this standard for a programme mix at line level (or the existence of surround mic techniques that whould use a seperate LFE mic) to justify the inclusion of an LFE channel in a surround microphone connector standard? Is this 'spec creep' or have I just misunderstood the scope of the standard?"

At least two microphone manufacturers have commercially released product with discrete LFE outputs. The Standard was developed to accommodate such products.

Thanks,

Ray A. Rayburn
Chair SC-05-02

Comment received from Eddy B. Brixen, 2013-01-29

Dear SC

Regarding AES65-xxx-cfc-121218, clause 4.2, Table 1: Comment on colour code (page 6 of 8)

Audio channel 5, Left surround should be blue, not violet.

Br,
Eddy B. Brixen

Response from Ray Rayburn, 2013-01-30

Eddy,

Thanks for pointing out the change in color. I am not certain how that happened.

I propose to change the color table as follows:

Channel 4 (LFE) may be Black or Grey (not just 'grey')
Channel 5 (Left surround) is Blue (not violet) I believe this will address your concern.

Please reply by the end of the comment period if this reply is not acceptable to you. You may also ask us to consider your comments again for the next revision of the document. You may also appeal our decision to the Standards Secretariat.

Thanks,
Ray A. Rayburn
Chair SC-05-02