search for: mapping_type

...it less confusing. 2) After discussing with Tim, the conclusion is that we should use mapping family 254 in the short term. We can switch to mapping family 2 when standardization is a bit more advanced. 3) Unless it causes problems in the existing code, it seems like family 254 should already set mapping_type=MAPPING_TYPE_AMBISONICS. From my understanding, it would not change the code behaviour, but would make it clearer what the new type is for (or did I miss something?). Cheers, Jean-Marc On 05/20/2016 07:36 PM, Michael Graczyk wrote: > > On May 20, 2016 18:32, "Jean-Marc Valin" &...

...is that we should use >> mapping family 254 in the short term. We can switch to mapping family 2 >> when standardization is a bit more advanced. > Sounds good, done. > >> 3) Unless it causes problems in the existing code, it seems like family >> 254 should already set mapping_type=MAPPING_TYPE_AMBISONICS. From my >> understanding, it would not change the code behaviour, but would make it >> clearer what the new type is for (or did I miss something?). > Done, I think. The patch still doesn't change behavior, but it now > sets the member OpusMSEncoder.map...

...with Tim, the conclusion is that we should use > mapping family 254 in the short term. We can switch to mapping family 2 > when standardization is a bit more advanced. Sounds good, done. > 3) Unless it causes problems in the existing code, it seems like family > 254 should already set mapping_type=MAPPING_TYPE_AMBISONICS. From my > understanding, it would not change the code behaviour, but would make it > clearer what the new type is for (or did I miss something?). Done, I think. The patch still doesn't change behavior, but it now sets the member OpusMSEncoder.mapping_type to MAPPI...

...have: + nb_streams = acn_channels + nondiegetic_channels; + nb_coupled_streams = nondiegetic_channels != 0; Done 4) About this change: - if (!validate_layout(&st->layout) || !validate_encoder_layout(&st->layout)) + if (!validate_layout(&st->layout) || + (mapping_type == MAPPING_TYPE_SURROUND && + !validate_encoder_layout(&st->layout))) Is there nothing to validate for ambisonics? We do this when determine the (n+1)^2 + 2j listed above, but we can validate that here as well. 5) For opus_multistream_surround_encoder_init(), the same comme...

Hello all, Attached is a proposed patch for Opus that allows support for encoding non-diegetic stereo audio as a coupled stream for use with channel mapping 254. It also rejects channel counts that are not (n+1)^2 + 2j, where n is 0 to 14 and j is either 0 or 1 (See IETF public draft doc attached for clarification). Please let me know any suggestions / concerns / comments. Thank you for your

...ot just have: + nb_streams = acn_channels + nondiegetic_channels; + nb_coupled_streams = nondiegetic_channels != 0; 4) About this change: - if (!validate_layout(&st->layout) || !validate_encoder_layout(&st->layout)) + if (!validate_layout(&st->layout) || + (mapping_type == MAPPING_TYPE_SURROUND && + !validate_encoder_layout(&st->layout))) Is there nothing to validate for ambisonics? 5) For opus_multistream_surround_encoder_init(), the same comments as for opus_multistream_surround_encoder_get_size() maybe some code can be shared (if possible...

...nb_coupled_streams = nondiegetic_channels != 0; > > Done > > > 4) About this change: > - if (!validate_layout(&st->layout) || > !validate_encoder_layout(&st->layout)) > + if (!validate_layout(&st->layout) || > + (mapping_type == MAPPING_TYPE_SURROUND && > + !validate_encoder_layout(&st->layout))) > > Is there nothing to validate for ambisonics? > > We do this when determine the (n+1)^2 + 2j listed above, but we can > validate that here as well. > > > 5) Fo...

Here is the modified patch. I added a flag to configure.ac which is set to 0 to disable ambisonics, and 1 to enable it. Right now the implementation simply creates a surround encoder with N uncoupled streams. Thanks, Michael Graczyk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...nnels != 0; > > > > Done > > > > > > 4) About this change: > > - if (!validate_layout(&st->layout) || > > !validate_encoder_layout(&st->layout)) > > + if (!validate_layout(&st->layout) || > > + (mapping_type == MAPPING_TYPE_SURROUND && > > + !validate_encoder_layout(&st->layout))) > > > > Is there nothing to validate for ambisonics? > > > > We do this when determine the (n+1)^2 + 2j listed above, but we can > > validate that here as well....