similar to: Define 6.1 and 7.1 channel mappings

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

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

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

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

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 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,

Hi All, Are multi-channel (more than 2) formats fully supported in the OggVorbis specification ? I couldn't find any information about multi-channel support on xiph.org. I've used 'oggdropXPd' to encode a 5.1 wavefile and the Xiph OggVorbis libraries (vorbisfile.dll) to decode the file successfully, however the order of the channel interleaving is different to the original wave

Hi guys, While updating the FLAC website I just found out the Xiph directshow filters already implement a certain channel mapping. I found this bug: https://trac.xiph.org/ticket/1657 It seems, from the bug report, that they use FL, FR, FC, LFE, BL, BR, SL, SR. On 22-01-13 08:19, Brian Willoughby wrote: > On Jan 17, 2013, at 21:41, Ralph Giles wrote: >> On 13-01-17 7:26 PM, Brian

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

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

lvqcl wrote: > Martin Leese wrote: >> Why place restrictions on which speaker a >> user can use? ... >> Finally to answer your question, for a >> single-channel file, FLAC should accept any >> one of the three masks 0x00000001 (FL), >> 0x00000002 (FR), 0x00000004 (FC), plus any >> one of the 15 other single-bit masks, plus zero. Please note that the

Sorry for the delay; I have been waiting for SourceForge to come back on-line. lvqcl wrote: > 1) It seems that some programs (eac3to) write the value of > WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE_CHANNEL_MASK tag with uppercase 'x' (e.g. 0X3) > (see <http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?p=1728852#post1728852>) > > Also, from MediaInfo changelog

The FLAC format specification never defined the semantics of 7- and 8-channel files, which has caused some pain for some years now. Attached is a patch to define them. I don't know if this follows "follows SMPTE/ITU-R recommendations," but it follows common tool practice. I chose the set of surround speaker designations used by home theatre systems, which is the same set used by the

List, Some time ago, Jose A. Peirote (Tebasuna in the HA community) started a thread[1] in the HA forums to improve oggenc. He has since posted a patch[2] in Trac. I have tested it and it appears to work, though I have to confess not knowing much of multi-channel encoding (I only work with stereo). The other issues it supposedly fix seem to work, too, though I did not experiment with 4+ GB

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 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

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

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

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