Comments to date on DRAFT AES62-xxxx, AES standard for audio connectors - Modified XLR-3 Connector for Digital Audio
, published 2011-06-17 for comment.
The comment period has now closed. There were no unresolved comments.
Comment received from Mr H. Jahne, 2011-06-17
The AES3 standard is in use for over 30 years. It was a good idea to use the same cable and connector like for analogue signals. There is no need to change the AES3 connector.
AES42 microphones (and older compatible microphones) are in use for over 13 years. The operating experience shows there is no need to change the connector for digital audio signals.
In former times of AES42 a potential danger in daily use was expected. Not well designed equipment may be damaged - but nothing was happen.
No damaged equipment in known. Nothing is published. With the experience of 13 years DPP on AES42 connectors it can be summarized there is no need for a special digital audio connector for AES 42 signals.
There is no need for several different connectors based on XLR connector.
There is no acceptable relation of changing all digital AES3 connectors related with the theoretical danger of damaging not well designed audio equipment.
The XLR connector is currently used for other, more dangerous signals and this was no reason to change the connector.
Please stop AES 62.
In every case, please reject " all new digital equipment should ... migrate". This will generate a lot of redesigns without any benefit.
Helmut Jahne
Reply from R. Rayburn, 2011-08-31
" The AES3 standard is in use for over 30 years. It was a good idea to use the same cable and connector like for analogue signals."
There were both benefits and disadvantages to the use of the XL3 for AES3. It has been almost universally agreed that "ordinary" analog twisted pair cabling can be problematic for AES3, and as a result most major cabling venders now sell specially designed and marked "digital audio" rated cabling for use with AES3 signals.
The pros and cons of a new connector for AES3 have been debated at great length, and the majority consider the new connector to be advantageous.
Just as there is no requirement forcing anyone to use the new cabling for AES3 signals, there will be no requirement that anyone use connectors per AES62.
" In every case, please reject " all new digital equipment should ... migrate". This will generate a lot of redesigns without any benefit."
The full quote is "All new digital equipment should eventually migrate to these connectors, although existing products could continue to use existing connectors." Note the use of the word "should" regarding new designs. In the language of Standards, "should" designates a suggestion not a requirement (which is designated by "shall"). Note that it is not suggested that existing designs be modified.
AES Standards are voluntary. No person or company is required to follow any AES Standard. If you feel the proposed Standard is " without any benefit ", then don't use it.
Your comments are noted, but do not persuade me to block a Standard others feel is of benefit.
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.
