[MLA] AES71 comments

[Bob Katz]

Dear Kevin: We are all aware of the conflicts involved. I occasionally 
read the AGOTTV5 reports but got lazy about it, my bad.

Since this is primarily intended for OTT boxes and portable has not been 
mentioned, I hope there is not a big conflict. Music will be turned down 
to -23 in the OTT boxes. Sooner or later we will have to address this, 
but until metadata is standardized it's putting the cart before the 
horse. I'm concentrating on helping us get music streaming services in 
line, and then eventually we'll have to reconcile things, but until 
metadata is standardized I doubt we can solve the conflict with a 
document other than recognizing that a conflict exists.


Bob



On 6/3/18 5:17 PM, Kevin Gross wrote:
> I don't know if any of you have been following or working in the AES's 
> AGOTTVS initiative. This group is working on loudness for over the top 
> (OTT) and online video distribution (OVD). They have produced a 
> standards document that will come out for public comment soon as 
> AES71. The recommendations are reasonable - produce, transmit and use 
> metadata where possible, use BS.1770 with -23 or -24 LUFS target.
>
> There is, however, a large portable aspect to these topics and the 
> line between OVD and music loudness is not very crisp (YouTube is 
> everyone's favorite music streaming service). In these cases the -23 
> LUFS is at odds with the -16 LUFS recommendation in the AES TD1004 
> recommendation. -16 LUFS does appear in the AES71 draft in what 
> appears to be a "not to exceed under any circumstances" specification.
>
> Aside from the potential problems connecting these recommendations, I 
> see problems with a -23 LUFS target for portable applications. We've 
> discussed limitations of portable devices and environments here and I 
> know we don't all agree but we have seen evidence that this is not 
> loud enough for certain hardware and situations and regulations.
>
> AGOTTVS did do some experiments on this and the findings were that 
> were that -23 didn't work for everyone in all scenarios and that more 
> testing was needed. I don't know how they got from this to a -23 
> recommendation, but they did.
>
> As an officer in AES standards, I have reviewed the draft and 
> submitted some comments to clean up some definitions and other 
> inconsistencies and underspecification. I'm not sure how to broach the 
> subject of an unrealistic target level recommendation. I was hoping 
> someone here could talk me through or talk me down from this.
>
> Kevin Gross - AVA Networks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MLA mailing list
> MLA at grimmaudio.nl
> http://grimmaudio.nl/mailman/listinfo/mla_grimmaudio.nl

-- 

If you want good sound on your album, come to Bob Katz 407-831-0233 
DIGITAL DOMAIN MASTERING STUDIO Author: *Mastering Audio *Digital Domain 
Website <http://www.digido.com/> No trees were killed in the sending of 
this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly 
inconvenienced.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grimmaudio.nl/pipermail/mla_grimmaudio.nl/attachments/20180604/aa62a621/attachment.html>