Comments to date on DRAFT AES-17id-xxxx, Call for comment on DRAFT AES Information Document for audio-file transfer and exchange - Screen-less navigation for high-resolution audio on Blu-ray Disc™ , published 2011-01-12 for comment. [NOTE The comment period has now closed.]
Comment received from Garry Margolis, 2011-01-15
Clause 5.3 states in part:
"The authored disc should contain at least 1, and up to a maximum of 4, audio streams."
If the disc does not contain any audio stream, it does not, by definition, fall under this information document. I suggest the following modification:
"The authored disc shall contain at least 1 audio stream and should contain a maximum of 4 audio streams."
Response by AESSC secretariat, 2011-01-17
Dear Mr. Margolis,
Thank you for your comment. I believe this is fundamentally a procedural matter.
The word "shall", in an AES standards document, indicates a requirement and is a necessary part of a standard. The purpose of this information document, on the other hand, is to make recommendations rather than absolute requirements and so language that includes "shall" would be inappropriate. Accordingly, the wording uses "should". It would be inappropriate to change the wording of this draft as you propose.
It seems unlikely that a mastering engineer in the process of authoring an audio release would be confused by this wording. We must also recognise that the essential requirements for this medium are specified by the Blu-ray Disc Association and not the Audio Engineering Society.
Sincerely,
Mark Yonge,
AES Standards Manager
Comment received from Paul Treleaven, 2011-01-17
I had the impression that we intended to avoid creating any more instances where the numeric part of an id document coincides with that of a quite unrelated AES standard.
In addition I believe that the audio measurements standard AES17 is being revised to create a separate tutorial document, whose number would ideally be AES-17id. So would it be worth choosing a new number for this new document?
Paul Treleaven,
Paul Treleaven Design
Response by AESSC secretariat, 2011-01-17
Dear Mr. Treleaven,
Thank you for your comment. I believe this is a procedural matter.
I understand your observation that AES standards documents have been published in three independently-numbered sets for standards, information documents, and reports respectively; and that similar numbers is different document sets sometimes conflict. Alternative document numbering schemes have been proposed within the AESSC but have stalled at the prospect of even greater confusion with renumbering our back catalogue. The matter remains under review.
Under the existing numbering scheme some Standards can be paired with similarly numbered Information Documents (for example AES3 and AES-3id), while other document pairs have quite different IDs (for example AES50 and AES-R6). For at least the past 10 years, the practice has been to pick the next number in each of the three series and so an accompanying Information document for a revised AES17 would be unlikely to carry the ID, "AES-17id"
However, I should note that the ID number is not normative to the document itself and the possibility exists that the document could ultimately be published with a different ID number.
I believe your comment is not a matter for this Call for Comment as such, but should be considered by the AESSC Steering Committee. I shall forward your comment accordingly.
