similar to: Mapping = 1 Ambisonic Vorbis flag

>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

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

> Also, there has been some recent work on channel 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

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

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. > >

Hi, this message is a cross-post to the Sursound and ogg-dev mailig list. The developers on the ogg-dev list are defining the Ogg/PCM format and on Sursound list there discussion about Amisonics file formats recently. I have not been able to follow both disussion, just skimmed through. But maybe you can work together to bring Ambisonics into Ogg/PCM? :) http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/OggPCM

Richard Lee wrote: > But there is a caveat. Does Vorbis coupling preserve "phase" relations? Any references explaining this in simple detail? Sebastian : >"coupling" is a rather loose term in the sense that it doesn't exactly specify HOW it's done. It can be understood as the opposite of coding channels independently. Obviously there are many ways to do

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

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

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 Oct 4, 2009, at 16:48, James Cloos wrote: > I always thought that the best way to put ambisonic media in flac > was to > use an ogg container, with the 0-order w channel in one flac > stream, the > three first-order channels in a second flac stream, the five second- > order > channels in a third flac stream and the seven third-order channels > in a > forth flac

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

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

"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

>I have been giving some thought to how to include Ambisonics in Ogg Vorbis. As I understand it, mapping type = 1 was meant from the start to indicate an Ambisonic stream. The only other information required is the number of channels which thanks to Mr Leese's clever trick tells us exactly which Ambisonic channels are used up to 3rd order. __________________ >The channel coupling

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

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