Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "n3d".
Did you mean:
3d
2008 Sep 25
2
Ambisonia proposal (was Re: vorbis-tools 1.3.0 BETA - Help testing.)
2008/9/25 e deleflie <edeleflie at gmail.com>:
> Hi Vorbis-dev,
>
Hi,
> I've been on this list for a couple of weeks, but its been quiet, so I
> dont know who is who.
>
> My name is Etienne Deleflie, I am the creator of www.ambisonia.com,
> and I am (together with the Ambisonic community) looking for a
> 'delivery format' for Ambisonic data.
>
>
2008 Sep 26
1
Ambisonia proposal
...mappings for OggPCM (uncompressed PCM data in an Ogg container), which may be related:
Our proposal involves only Vorbis. Uncompressed PCM Ambisonics is already well catered for.
> It is indeed related. We are proposing a different ambisonic channel scheme (not speaker mapping though) called N3D (different to the usual FuMa scheme). The N3D scheme has a number of 'future proof' advantages, including no extra header info required and support for Higher Orders (up to 6th and beyond). It is also believed that the N3D scheme is more compatible with Vorbis compression.
We are asking on...
2015 Nov 26
0
Proposal for Ambisonics format in vorbis comment.
...instead the order of ambisonic or quality of the audio itself can be increased.
Note that this proposal is *infinitely* extensible to an arbitrary "ambisonic order", *and* it can specify the normalization. I haven't decided on the default normalization scheme, I'd like it to be N3D (why? well, just because? none is objectively superior but we have to agree on *something* for a standard) but it doesn't really matter as it can be specified.
Basically, it uses the ACN channel ordering described here: http://ambisonics.ch/standards/channels/ (it is mathematically defined by...
2015 Nov 30
2
Proposal for Ambisonics format in vorbis comment.
...t has the same property, so
your proposal is not *that* different.
> Note that this proposal is *infinitely* extensible to an arbitrary
> "ambisonic order", *and* it can specify the normalization. I haven't decided
> on the default normalization scheme, I'd like it to be N3D (why? well, just
> because? none is objectively superior but we have to agree on *something*
> for a standard) but it doesn't really matter as it can be specified.
The ".amb" format is limited to third-order and
uses MaxN normalization (with the exception
of a -3dB correction f...