MCA Labeling review (AS-11 X8 & X9 & many others)

[thomasheritage]

This NABA review / discussions are ongoing -- changes to the Specs as a result may be required. If changes are to be made are these changes desired in the other AS-11 Specs as well, or will AS-11 X8 & X9 take their own independent approach?

[thomasheritage]

@ClydeSm -- thoughts so far are below for reference.

There is an idea to remove the list of Labels (the Labels Collection) from X8/X9. This would have the benefit of providing more flexibility but the disadvantage of placing more burden on broadcasters etc who would need to specify the Labels to be used for each kind of delivery. Variations between broadcasters would then be possible and could lead to inter-operability difficulties and confusion.

[thomasheritage]

ℹ️ Update

The use of MCA Labeling across AS-11 should be reviewed in light of new IMF applications and the developing use of IMF in cinema and broadcasting. Specifically, consideration should be given to:

• Which MCA fields should have their presence / absence restricted?
• How should the contents of MCA fields be restricted? (e.g. Audio Content Kind, Audio Element Kind, Title and Title Version)
• How should the content of audio be signalled? Group of Soundfield Groups and / or Audio Content Kind?
• Which Labels should be used for Audio Channels, Soundfield Groups and, if used, Group of Soundfield Groups?

[thomasheritage]

Note: some decisions were taken in IMF in this area to maintain some level of compatibility with DCI. Should that be a consideration here?