similar to: Ambisonia proposal (was Re: vorbis-tools 1.3.0 BETA - Help testing.)

> 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

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, 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

"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

Hi Flac Developers, My name is Etienne Deleflie, I'm the founder of http://www.ambisonia.com and, more recently, http://soundofspace.com. Myself and the community I serve are looking for a lossless file format that can encapsulate ambisonic encoding. To this end a specification has been drafted, and is nearing stability, that describes practical features designed to get the most out of

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

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

Hi Josh, The minimum things that Flac would need to implement to satisfy the 'file implementations' part of the spec is a bit of metadata and the extensions to channel counts. ok, I do realise that the extending the maximum channel count may be difficult ... there's gotta be a way to do it though. Etienne On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Josh Coalson <xflac at yahoo.com>

--- On Thu, 9/17/09, e deleflie <edeleflie at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Flac Developers, > > My name is Etienne Deleflie, I'm the founder of > http://www.ambisonia.com and, more recently, http://soundofspace.com. > > Myself and the community I serve are looking for a lossless file > format that can encapsulate ambisonic encoding. To this end a > specification has

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

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

Hello Jean-Marc, Thanks for the quick reply and comments. On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Here's some more minor comments below. As long as you address the two > comments from my previous email (254 -> 2 and the draft name), the draft > is good for submitting as initial version on the IETF website (even

Rodger Combs wrote: > I've run into some issues using Opus with source files in channel layouts > other than the default 8. For instance, 2.1 isn't supported, so I have to > either downconvert to 2.0 or upconvert to 5.1 (which usually involves adding > empty channels, which prevents the playback device from upconverting to the > native layout). > To address this,

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

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

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

(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

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