similar to: Vorbis Ambisonic coupling

>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 2/28/07, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves <justivo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/28/07, Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org> wrote: > > Well, there are todo pages at wiki.xiph.org, but I meant more in the > > community folklore sense. My point is a roadmap doesn't help much unless > > there are people committed to making things happen. That's been the > > problem with a

On 2/28/07, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves <justivo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/28/07, Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org> wrote: > > Well, there are todo pages at wiki.xiph.org, but I meant more in the > > community folklore sense. My point is a roadmap doesn't help much unless > > there are people committed to making things happen. That's been the > > problem with a

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 05:30:10PM +0100, oliver oli wrote: > John Koleszar wrote: > >I hadn't even heard > >of ambisonics until your post, to be honest. > > because people don't know how to distribute ambisonics. no way to play > it in a DVD player. there are no easy to use software players that > decode ambisonic files and there are no widely used audio

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

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

It obviously would be nice to have such a mode available, for e.g. DVD audio compression. Apparently, the list doesn''t tell me too much about it. My questions are: 1. What is the current status of the 5.1 channel coupling in Vorbis? 2. If I''ll be interested in participation in its development, what is the recommended reading? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

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). any idea how to implement it?

Where can I find the Header file or whatever which specifies the "Mapping" flag. In feb - apr 2007, there was a lot of discussion about Ambisonics and Monty kindly stated that Mapping = 1 ; Denotes and Ambisonic file as opposed to = 0 which is 1 speaker/ 1 channel Has this been written explicitly into the standard? Which standard should I be looking at?

Hi, I have posted this three times to the flac-dev, vorbis-dev, and ogg-dev mailing lists. I wanted to see what code there was currently to support Ambisonics. So I downloaded the code from the xiph download page for libogg-1.1.3, libvorbis-1.1.2, vorbis-tools-1.1.1 and flac-1.1.4, but wasn't able to find anything. If it exists then I missed it, so could somebody please point me to it.

Hi Opus list. I subscribed because your discussion on the IETF draft ("Ambisonics in an Ogg Opus Container") was mentioned on the sursound list. I tried Opus for ambisonics more than a year ago. It does works with uncoupled channels (I had to patch the encoder). I don't know what else could be done to optimize support for ambisonics, as I'm not a codec expert. So I think that

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

A problem On the integrate Samba and AD 2k3 .. the page is my reference http://www.infosecwriters.com/text_resources/pdf/AD_and_Linux_TMunn.pdf i wnat to use users group for squid' wbinfo_group.pl use auth... now i can join the samba server to AD domain but i can't read user's group.. can any one tell me what is happend.. like this [root@wxyz-dns1 samba]# wbinfo -u

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 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

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

I saw from the interview on Slashdot that there is no support for channel coupling in Vorbis. I would like to help work on that. Has anything been started about that? I don't know yet whether if could work "in real life", but I have started to work on a way to do adaptative coupling between two channels (by finding the best transformation to predict one channel from the other). I

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

Hi all, My apologies for the confusion ... but I am re-naming this thread again because the proposal doesn't come from Ambisonia. As the founder of Ambisonia I have only been 'mediating' between some members of the ambisonic community ... so it would be wrong to associate the spec with Ambisonia. To clarify. This is what the spec proposes: - that Mapping = 1 means the contents are

Hello all, Would somebody please comment on it? Thank you in advance. Monty wrote: Monty> "It depends". Vorbis will be able to do coupling such that Monty> joint stereo is exactly equivalent to L/R (reduction is in the Monty> range of 128->100 or so], or apply addiitonal stereo/spatial Monty> specific psychoacoustics to further reduce bitrate to eliminate Monty>