In This Section
Comments on REAFFIRMATION of
Comments to date on REAFFIRMATION of AES6-2008, AES Standard - Method for Measurement of Weighted Peak Flutter of Sound Recording and Reproducing Equipment,
published 2012-08-16 for comment.
Comment received from Jay McKnight, 2012-08-17
Here are my comments:
TITLE: This title was established in the day when the only way you could record was on a moving medium. Since that's a rarity now, I'd suggest that the title be changed either to "Method of Measurement of Weighted Peak Flutter of Analog Sound Recording and Reproducing Equipment", or else "Method of Measurement of Weighted Peak Flutter of Sound Recording and Reproducing Equipment Using a Moving Medium"
It seems that "we" didn't very carefully read the 2008 reaff of this document -- most of these errors were in it!
p 3, foreword: The boilerplate para "This forward is not part..." belongs at the TOP of the page, not under the "revision" heading.
Under my name, "Chair, working group SC-03-01" -- does that still exist? Bring up to date, whatever.
Page 6: I just noticed this -- it was there in 2008: in "Table 1", the Tolerances column ends at 0.5 Hz, but the Frequency column has no data at that frequency. Likewise for 50 Hz. My old file is buried deep -- can you check an old version, like around 1970? Or maybe you just want to leave it.
Page 7: The typeface and location of the "NOTE" make it look like a part of the caption for Fig 1, which it is certainly not. It really belongs under para 6.1.1.
Page 8: Likewise the "NOTE" under Fig 2 belongs above Fig 2, not below it.
Pages 8 and 9, Figs 2 and 3: A Greek "delta" has been erroneously replaced by a rectangular box, 2 places in Fig 2, and one Sigma by box; and delta 2 places in Fig 3.
Page 10, item "5", at the end, "warm up period of 15 m" 15 meters? I think not -- "15 min".
Pages 12 & 13 (once on each page): the German Standard title contains the German word "fuer", or "fur-with-an-umlaut-over-the-u". It is instead rendered just "fur" -- add umlaut.
-- Best regards, Jay McKnight
Response from Mark Yonge, Chair SC-00, 2012-08-17
Thank you for your comments on the reaffirmation of AES6-2008.
You raise a number of editorial or presentational issues which I propose to handle in a fresh printing after reaffirmation. I find no substantive changes - see details below.
To be clear, once this standard has been reaffirmed (its first reaffirmation since its 2008 revision), it is my intention to stabilize this document under our rules. It would be good and appropriate to stabilize the document in the cleanest state possible.
(And here's some more boilerplate!) Please reply by the end of the comment period if this reply is not acceptable to you.
I believe that such a change to the title could be done as an editorial matter. I would add an addendum to the foreword to explain this change to resolve any confusion.
The foreword reflects the situation at the time the document was last revised, and you were certainly chair of SC-03-01 then. I do not propose to change this text in a reaffirmation.
I think Table 1 is OK as it stands. The Tolerances column is arguably dividing the spectrum into ranges, while the Frequency column specifies spot frequencies. I don't believe that its important that the spot frequencies lie at the extremes of the specified range. In fact, looking at the discontinuity in the tolerance curve (fig 1) at 0,5 Hz, any measurement there would be difficult to tolerance usefully, while measurements above and below at 0,4 and 0,63 Hz would be more meaningful. I propose to leave this table exactly as it stands.
Simply moving the note on p.7 would create an awkward pagination problem. However this could be rectified by swapping table 1 and figure 1, then putting the note above figure 1 on page 6. I believe the normative content of the clause would be unchanged but the purpose of the note would be clearer.
This Greek "delta" problem appears to be a specific artifact in the document for comment; the latest printed standard is correct. I shall ensure that the reaffirmed printing is also correct.
Reply from Jay McKnight, 2012-08-17
Thanks -- that's fine.