similar to: 2/0, 2/2 3/0, 3/2, 5.1, wxyz

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

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

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

when i encode i multi channel file, does flac encode every channel seperatly or does is look for similarities between channels? the documentation says: INTER-CHANNEL DECORRELATION In the case of stereo input, once the data is blocked it is optionally passed through an inter-channel decorrelation stage. The left and right channels are converted to center and side channels through the following

>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

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 20030610: Gregory Maxwell wrote: (in reply to Ralph Giles) >> I assume you're aware of the technical documentation on dolby's site? >> (http://www.dolby.com/pro/) In particular the surround mixing guide has >> a lot of detailed guidelines. I don't have any practical experience >> with it though, so I can't vouch for it. >Yes I am. I've done 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

An issue was raised at <http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1728923#post1728923> - FLAC uses WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE_CHANNEL_MASK tag to describe non-standard layout, but it isn't mentioned anywhere in FLAC format. Channel assignment is described at <https://xiph.org/flac/format.html#frame_header>: "Where defined, the channel order follows SMPTE/ITU-R recommendations."

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.

lvqcl wrote: > Martin Leese wrote: >> Note that the channel order may not be defined. > > IMHO it doesn't matter in this place of documentation (which describes > default channel assignments for FLAC). Your proposed wording was: 0000-0111 : (number of independent channels)-1. The channel order follows SMPTE/ITU-R recommendations. The assignments are as follows: 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?

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

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

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

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

Sampo Syreeni wrote: > Secondly, I'd like to see the channel map fleshed out in more detail. Sampo, I did flesh out the wiki a **little** more. Is the intent clearer now? > (Beware of the pet peeve...) What is that pet peeve? > IMO the mapping should cover at least the > channel assignments possible in WAVE files, the most common Ambisonic > ones, and perhaps some added