similar to: Re : Ambisonics in Ogg Vorbis

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 assume, somewhere, someone has a compendium of recommended hardware for ambisonics? Something to sanity check/inform equipment selections of someone building My First Ambisonics Rig? Not at all Monty. This is an important question and I am ashamed to say I can't point you to a good answer. In the meantime, have a look at Permananent Ambisonic Systems from

>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

I've been doing a fair amount of work with Vorbis support for Ambisonics, which seems to be going along nicely. It seems that there is signifant interest in coding 5.1 material with Vorbis esp as tarkin becomes more complete, so I've decided to take a break from pure ambisonic work to look into this. I've decided that the best (from a pure elegance and patent avoidance) way to handle

I've been doing a fair amount of work with Vorbis support for Ambisonics, which seems to be going along nicely. It seems that there is signifant interest in coding 5.1 material with Vorbis esp as tarkin becomes more complete, so I've decided to take a break from pure ambisonic work to look into this. I've decided that the best (from a pure elegance and patent avoidance) way to handle

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?

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 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

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

Since the opusenc and opusinfo changes were independent I split them up and landed the opusinfo changes (with updated mapping family numbers). - Mark On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:22 AM, Mark Harris <mark.hsj at gmail.com> wrote: > 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

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

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe at xiph.org> wrote: > Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >> >> Would it make sense to allow an arbitrary number of channels and just >> "truncate" the list of channels. For example, two-channel ambisonics >> would be W plus X and three-channel would be W, X and Y. The idea is >> that you would get

"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

Hello, We (Google) have been experimenting with configuration and adjustments to CELT-only Opus that give good results for compressing ambisonic audio signals [1]. Based on our results so far, we would like to use Opus to encode spatial audio. We hope to make it easy/possible to use libopus with other common tools and software modules (ffmpeg/libav in particular). Based on my reading of the

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

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

Hello Tim and others, Thanks for your help explaining this process on IRC. I wrote out a first draft in the RFC xml format. I have attached the xml (labeled as xml.txt so it will appear inline) and the rendered txt files. Please let me know where I can make improvements. I will upload this draft to the IETF datatracker and send it out to codec@ after addressing your comments. -------------- next

Hi Andrew, I suspect that the configure option should be enable-ambisonics (instead of enable_ambisonics), but for each of opus, libopusenc, opusfile and opus-tools git repos (on master branch), when I try "./configure --enable-ambisonics", I get this error message: configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --enable-ambisonics Thanks for your help. Marc Le 19-12-18 à 11 h 52, Andrew

All, Progress has been made on the proposed draft spec for integrating ambisonics into vorbis. We are not yet finished (should be soon), but you can see the progress here: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=df4dtw69_3626qqq6st The issue we have hit now concerns how/who would implement the encoding and decoding in Vorbis Tools. Because ambisonics uses spherical harmonic components, an ambisonic file