[Thomas Lund]

I seem to be hitting the wrong reply key, see below 🙂

[Thomas Lund]

Hi Robin, I agree BS.2051-3 is too wide, e.g. allowing for too steep top layer elevations, but at least it’s something to compare arbitrary, virtual processors against. From an “immersive” quality/monitoring perspective, I think only an ideal setup is relevant, i.e. equidistant with limited reproduction room contribution.

I’m with you on open format as well, ideally backed by AES, Japanese, Chinese, EBU and other pro institutions.

[Thomas Lund]

Hi Bob K, the convention program isn’t public yet, but we could at least discuss BS.1116 in a mutual session. I agree AES is a good place for that, and EBU will be represented as well.

[Thomas Lund]

The most important is perceptual evaluation with time, not what theory predicts a human to hear. In this case, BS.1116 is also relevant for defining basic listening conditions, though it is time for an update. Considering “immersive”, there are good reasons for reducing influence of the reproduction room, beyond requirements of the current standard.

[Thomas Lund]

One thing to keep in mind is to follow standards, in this case ITU-R BS.2051, so recordings may still be fully enjoyed many years from now. For instance, it would have been a shame had Bruce Swedien not recorded Oscar Peterson or Count Basie in perfect stereo back in 1959, but in some format that didn’t play as intended today.