similar to: True surround sound for Ogg -- a proposal (fwd)

This came out of the OggPCM discussion, but I think it needs to be addressed on a wider scale. Let's start here, 5 years ago.. http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis-dev/2000-July/009513.html (I included this email, below) I emailed David (author of that email) and asked him to join this list. I'm thinking, as I look at the problem, that surround sound needs to be defined _outside_

Hi everyone, Over the last two weeks or so, I've been thinking about how to add surround sound to Ogg -- and more than that, to do it in the best way possible. With this in mind, I started considering using Ambisonic surround sound. The advantages of this format are considerable: a) It was developed in the early to mid '70s, so the patents should be expired by now.

"Gabriel I." wrote: > Greetings, > > I apologize if I posted this in the wrong list, I wasn't sure where to post > it, but seeing as the tags are called "vorbis comments" I thought vorbis, > rather than ogg-dev, would be the right choice. (actually, I'm not even a > developer anyway) Hi Gabriel, I doubt whether the Xiph community would promote a

On Sat, 28 May 2016 16:21:33 -0700, Michael Graczyk <mgraczyk at google.com> wrote : > Hi Marc, Hi Micheal. > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Marc Lavallée <marc at hacklava.net> > wrote: > > I subscribed because your discussion on the IETF draft ("Ambisonics > > in an Ogg Opus Container") was mentioned on the sursound list. > > Thanks for

Marc, Thanks for the comments. On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Marc Lavallée <marc at hacklava.net> wrote: > So, channels will stay uncoupled for Ambisonics? That would be great, > because considering how good Opus already is, I don't think that more > optimization is required, and it would put content creators at ease; > they often believe that any compression or channel

Curt Sampson wrote: > On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, smoerk wrote: > > >>there are different channel profiles for 5.1: >>L R C LFE Ls Rs (DVD) >>L R Ls Rs C LFE >>L C R Ls Rs LFE (Film) > > > I don't see why you need more than one of the above formats. It's not > like you can't decide to put the LFE channel into "input 3" or "input

>Yesterday I have finished writing the ambisonic pan filter for oggenc. May I ask what this "pan filter" is? I made some tentative suggestions for coupling Ambisonic B-format in a post "Vorbis Ambisonic coupling" on 4feb07 I gather from the last monthly meeting, that some of you, including Monty, had problems with the phase behaviour of B-format. Would anyone like a

On 3/22/07, Brian Willoughby <brianw@sounds.wa.com> wrote: ... > But to return to your question, exactly what kind of "support" are > you looking for? I wasn't looking for any particular support, but just to see what support was there (if any). ... > I do not believe that there is any need for code specifically > supporting Ambisonics. FLAC supports conversion to

On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, smoerk wrote: > there are different channel profiles for 5.1: > L R C LFE Ls Rs (DVD) > L R Ls Rs C LFE > L C R Ls Rs LFE (Film) I don't see why you need more than one of the above formats. It's not like you can't decide to put the LFE channel into "input 3" or "input 5" or whatever set of inputs your sending it to, depending on

Josh Coalson wrote: > --- smoerk <smoerk@gmx.de> wrote: > >>i didn't find anything about tagging flac files as surround files. i >>think there should some possibility to tell the player how to play a >>multi-channel file (how to map the different channels to the speakers >>or if there some decode is needed, like for ambisonic files). > > > it

On 2005-11-16, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > Otherwise, what do you feel should be changed? One obvious thing that seems to be lacking is the granulepos mapping. As suggested in Ogg documentation, for audio a simple sampling frame number ought to suffice, but I think the convention should still be spelled out. Secondly, I'd like to see the channel map fleshed out in more detail. (Beware

I threw a rough draft of an alternative format incorporating the comments received so far in this discussion on the wiki: http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/OggPCM#Format Oliver, This seems to me like it would support the ambisonic requirements you mention, though it doesn't (and I imagine won't) describe the mic locations. Somebody who actually uses that info could probably define extra

The prospect of people actually putting B-format audio (via the panner or directly input) into Ogg/Vorbis brings an interesting challenge: What do we do with the audio after decoding it? The following sane options exist: A) Simply output the B-format audio B) Produce a downmix 1) Mono. 2) Stereo blumlein crossed pairs 3) Stereo UHJ 4) binaural C) Produce speaker feeds 1) Fully

On Tue, 31 May 2016 09:41:37 -0700 Michael Graczyk <mgraczyk at google.com> wrote: > UHJ is an interesting way to preserve compatibility with non-ambisonic > playback systems. However, I have not seen it generalized to higher > orders. I expect that its popularity will decrease as HOA becomes more > and more common. If UHJ becomes popular in the future, we could > specify

Martin, I do not believe that there is any need for code specifically supporting Ambisonics. FLAC supports conversion to and from other audio formats which hold multiple channels. Ambisonics B-format involves channels WXYZ, C-format is UHJ or BHJ, G-Format can be any number of channels, but typically 5.1 on DVD. You can work with Ambisonic recordings by either using individual mono

Michael Graczyk wrote: ... > UHJ is an interesting way to preserve compatibility with non-ambisonic > playback systems. ... > If UHJ becomes popular in the future, we could > specify rules for encapsulating UHJ in Ogg. I guess it depends on how you define popular. The UHJ Discography lists over 270 UHJ-encoded records. This EXcludes over 450 releases by Nimbus Records. The UHJ

A strategy for downmix support a) simple 4.0, 5.0, 6.0 7.0 Speaker Decode on the player via a separate library from the Vorbis core. This is the easy panning solution on the Wiki Ambisonic Decoder page and requires hardly any computing power. Most important cos its all about surround init? This library can be extended to have Shelf Filters & Distance Compensation for more sophisticated

In November 2005 the discussion on OggPCM2 died down before we got around to finalizing the channel map. I thought it would be a good time to resurrect the topic. The previous threads are at http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/ogg-dev/2005-November/000097.html and http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/ogg-dev/2005-November/000168.html . In draft 2 of the spec, there are two types of channel maps: a

Hi Drew, Sorry for the delay. FYI the patch that you attached is not your latest version. This thread that you replied to is an older thread; the latest version is on a different thread. The patch does not use the mapping family numbers used by libopus and libopusenc; could you update it to use family 2 and 3 rather than 254 and 253? The patch also appears to break encoding of surround files

On 20030610: Gregory Maxwell wrote: (in reply to Ralph Giles) >> I assume you're aware of the technical documentation on dolby's site? >> (http://www.dolby.com/pro/) In particular the surround mixing guide has >> a lot of detailed guidelines. I don't have any practical experience >> with it though, so I can't vouch for it. >Yes I am. I've done a