search for: ogg_channel_ambisonic_w

Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Secondly, I'd like to see the channel map fleshed out in more detail. Sampo, I did flesh out the wiki a **little** more. Is the intent clearer now? > (Beware of the pet peeve...) What is that pet peeve? > IMO the mapping should cover at least the > channel assignments possible in WAVE files, the most common Ambisonic > ones, and perhaps some added

...LFE equals 5.0) then something like WAVE's channel mask seems a better alternative. The format also doesn't stop us from defining two left channels for stereo, while it does seem to be trying to limit possibilities of error by defining the channel types separately for each map (e.g. no OGG_CHANNEL_AMBISONIC_W inside a stereo channel map). Unfortunately, in the process it could end up with combinatorial explosion in the channel type enumerations (i.e. we might end up redefining L, R, C, etc. for each multichannel map type, of which there are a lot). So, how about a slight change in emphasis? Currentl...

...n something like WAVE's channel mask seems a better alternative. > The format also doesn't stop us from defining two left channels for > stereo, while it does seem to be trying to limit possibilities of error > by defining the channel types separately for each map (e.g. no > OGG_CHANNEL_AMBISONIC_W inside a stereo channel map). Unfortunately, in > the process it could end up with combinatorial explosion in the channel > type enumerations (i.e. we might end up redefining L, R, C, etc. for > each multichannel map type, of which there are a lot). One idea I had for this is that ther...