similar to: Define 6.1 and 7.1 channel mappings

I apologize for the terribly long message, but here goes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, regarding existing tools that I now about. libavcodec and users (e.g. HandBrake): - if there are 6 channels or less, the layout is set by the decoder as per the FLAC specification - if there are more than 6 channels, the layout is

I like the idea of standardizing the channel maps. I would suggest the following channel orderings: 6.1: L R C LFE Ls Rs Cs (MPEG 6.1 A layout) 7.1: L R C LFE Ls Rs Rls Rrs (MPEG 7.1 B layout) I think this more closely matches what Apple has done and what the default WAVE channel order is (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463006.aspx). Stephen On Friday, September 21,

On Fri Sep 21 16:31:21 2012, Stephen F. Booth wrote: > 6.1: L R C LFE Ls Rs Cs (MPEG 6.1 A layout) I'm confused. WAV puts the rear centre before everything but 'Front left of center' and 'Front right of center'. Are you saying you prefer the extra front channels to to side/rear surround, or that you prefer the MPEG order to the WAVE order? -r

On 7/16/15, Martin Leese <martin.leese at stanfordalumni.org> wrote: > Martijn van Beurden wrote: >> I would propose: 0000-0111 : (number of independent channels)-1. >> The channel order is defined through the >> WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE_CHANNEL_MASK vorbis comment, if defined. If >> no WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE_CHANNEL_MASK is present, the channel >> order follows

On 12-10-12 4:47 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > I've read through this thread and it didn't really come to any > conclusion. Can we try again and make a decision this time? Anyone else have thoughts on this? I'd like to get this added before the 1.3.x release. Especially helpful would be research into what current tools actually do. -r

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."

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

Tim's proposal seems reasonable but it conflicts with the FLAC documentation that says the channel ordering follows SMPTE/ITU-R recommendations. I think we may be butting up against an area where the standards aren't clear. ITU-R BS.2159-4 (http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BS.2159-4-2012-PDF-E.pdf) doesn't define a 7.1 layout but simply diagrams several possibilities on

lvqcl wrote: ... > From FLAC 1.2.1 documentation: > > 0000-0111 : (number of independent channels)-1. Where defined, the channel > order follows SMPTE/ITU-R recommendations. The assignments are as follows: > 1 channel: mono > 2 channels: left, right > 3 channels: left, right, center > 4 channels: left, right, back left, back right > 5 channels: left, right, center,

On Jan 17, 2013, at 21:41, Ralph Giles wrote: > On 13-01-17 7:26 PM, Brian Willoughby wrote: >> I vote for documenting the --channel-map option in the --help > > Do you ever use --channel-map yourself, or recommend it to clients? Professional surround mastering is delivered on very specific media, and FLAC is not an option (to my knowledge). I use FLAC for archival of original

I vote for documenting the --channel-map option in the --help I don't like the idea of rejecting a multichannel file merely for mapping, so there should be a documented option plus an error message pointing to the option. This should compare to the WAVE and AIFF errors where the utility suggests to the user how to get the file converted safely. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting On

Hello, You guys might want to join this discussion. (And maybe some others too.) On the WhatWG mailing list, there's been a fury of e-mails about adding a <video> element to HTML5. They're talking about codecs and containers now. It might be helpful to have your representatives there. And help shape things. See ya ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dave Singer

>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

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

On 13-01-01 4:36 PM, Tim W. wrote: > - 4 channels: left, right, back left, back right (FL FR BL BR) > - 5 channels: left, right, center, back/surround left, back/surround right > (FL FR FC BL BR or FL FR FC SL SR, same order so doesn't matter) > - 6 channels: left, right, center, LFE, back/surround left, back/surround right > (FL FR FC LFE BL BR or

Now that we've selected a channel mapping for 7 and 8 channel flac, the command-line encoder tools needs updating to accept wav files with compatible channel maps. -r -------------- next part --------------

On Fri Sep 21 16:31:21 2012, Stephen F. Booth wrote: > 6.1: L R C LFE Ls Rs Cs (MPEG 6.1 A layout) Having read a bit more: This matches the WAV (or USB) order if you map Ls (Left Surround?) to Back Left and Rs (Right surround) to Back Right, instead of mapping them to Side Left and Side Right as I do. Practically, there's not much difference in what you call these for 6.1. If you only

This patch to opus-tools adds optional support to WavPack lossless format as input to opusenc. Like support to FLAC, it depends on an external library, libwavpack, and may be disabled on configure. Lucas Clemente Vella (1): Reading input from WavPack files. Makefile.am | 7 +- configure.ac | 37 ++++++++ src/audio-in.c | 71 ++++++++------- src/opusenc.c | 19 +++- src/opusenc.h

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, I'm getting mired in conflicting and dated information, so I think I need to ask this of live humans... :-) I'm essentially trying to create an Ogg file that works like DVD video does. In particular, in addition to the Theora video stream, there will be multiple audio "tracks" (By "track", I mean a collection of channels to be played all at once, but only one