similar to: e: Mapping = 1 Ambisonic Vorbis flag

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

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

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

Brian Willoughby <brianw at sounds.wa.com> wrote: > On Jan 7, 2011, at 16:27, Declan Kelly wrote: ... >> As the human hearing can't really tell direction with lower >> frequencies, >> it's not as essential. This same shortcut is why most movie "surround >> sound" systems have only one sub bass channel. > > In this case, you have been misled

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

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

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?

"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

(second try at sending this) --- This is getting very dangerous. We cannot take our flamewar to outside mailing lists without making a complete fool of ourselves. Arc, would you please refrain from doing so in future and rather come to an internal agreement beforehand? Arc, there are a few things you have missed: The discussion on OggPCM2 was friendly and constructive and there were no flame

Ian Malone <ibmalone@gmail.com> wrote: > It depends what your aim is. The mapping type > in the vorbis setup header is meant for > this[1],[2]. Of course a nonzero mapping type will > cause a lot of players to give up, but so will > including the XML stream. I believe this is how > is was intended multi-channel would be handled. Thanks for the response, and for 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

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

This is getting very dangerous. We cannot take our flamewar to outside mailing lists without making a complete fool of ourselves. Arc, would you please refrain from doing so in future and rather come to an internal agreement beforehand? Arc, there are a few things you have missed: The discussion on OggPCM2 was friendly and constructive and there were no flame wars and the spec got much further

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

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.

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_

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 10/21/07, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves <justivo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/21/07, Martin Leese <martin.leese@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: > > Either "OggPCM" or "OggPCM Draft2" needs > > to be deleted. It really doesn't matter which, > > but I would suggest that "OggPCM" takes the > > big sleep. Just give time for me (or Sempo)

Erik de Castro Lopo <mle+xiph@mega-nerd.com> wrote: > Martin Leese wrote: > > So what is "OggPCM"? I started this thread > > because I was puzzled why someone was > > changing a draft instead of the document > > itself. > > The original OggPCM was started by a person who really didn't > lnow what they were doing and wouldn't listen to