similar to: OggPCM : Need more justification for chunked data

HI all, John Kkoleszar has asked for the option of storing data. He gave the rational that a) SIMD optimized filters b) Writing filter chains. Conrad Parker supported this say that both Core Audio and Jack operate on multiple single channel buffers. On IRC both Jean-Marc and MikeS argued that if OggPCM supports interleaved, the addition of chunked is hard to justify. My slant on the

Hi all, Conrad, MikeS, Silvia, Erik, Illi, John and I have been working on another spec. It's definitely not final, but it should address several issues with the previous one. Please comment: http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/OggPCM2 Two other issues that remained were: 1) Need for minor version (Silvia and I want it, MikeS is against) 2) Having the header 32-bit aligned vs. making the channel

Hi John, all, I still have at least 3 issues: 1) What are we trying to achieve with the "source-ID"? 8 [uint] Source ID (Unique amongst all OggPCM streams in the physical stream) Are we trying to separate the different channels that may be interleaved with each other inside the flat multi-channel sample stream? Interpretation 1: ----------------- So, would each channel be in a

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

In one of the last monthly meetings it was decided that OggPCM is ready and all it needs is an implementation (for instance, in ogg123). The problem is that nobody seems available to do it. If either Martin or Sampo would like to work on it, I believe nobody will oppose. CMML and Skeleton implementations are far more urgent right now, though. I have changed the main page in the XiphWiki to

Hi All, What is the status of the oggpcm project? I'm investigation solutions to the following problem: losslessly encode double-precision mutli-channel timeseries data in a format that is compatible with free (libre) internet streaming technologies and that permits diverse metadata to be encoded with the stream. flac isn't suitable because it only supports integer data, lossy

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 03:10:22AM +1100, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > That spec is being superceded by: > > http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/OggPCM2 The project has been forked, not superceded. Work on OggPCM is continuing, the team working on OggPCM2 is free to submit their own draft but some are not welcome to continue work on OggPCM due to their recent social conduct. I'm

(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

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

Hi, The Xiph Wiki contains the four pages: OggPCM OggPCM Draft1 (with Talk page) OggPCM Draft2 OggPCM Draft3 Can I suggest that this be reduced to just one (or maybe two) pages. I suggest this because somebody has started making changes to OggPCM Draft2. My guess is that this is not desirable. Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese@stanfordalumni.org Web:

On 10/19/07, Sampo Syreeni <decoy@iki.fi> wrote: > On 2007-10-19, Martin Leese wrote: > > OggPCM Draft3 > > Draft 3 is obviously a joke. Draft 2 is what most of the people agreed > upon the last time around, with the channel maps left unfinished. Draft > 1 was abandoned by most people in favour of draft 2. So what is "OggPCM"? I started this thread

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

Hi all, The remaining issue to be decided for the OggPCM2 spec is the support of chunked vs interleaved data. Just so that everyone understands what we are talking about, consider a stereo file that gets stored as an OggPCM file. Within an OggPCM packet, the audio samples for the left and right channels can be stored as interleaved where the samples would be: l0, r0, l1, r1, ..... lN, rN

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)

On 10/21/07, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > But I agree that we need to get skeleton support into mainstream > encoders, not just the decoders. That's what I meant, especially now that Skeleton is a (SHOULD) requirement for video/ogg and audio/ogg. Lots of encoders will need to change. ffmpeg2theora, flac (the application), VLC... And CMML... I believe I

Hi Arc, illi, I think it would be advantageous if we take the emotion out of this discussion , so let's just argue technically. My experience with xiph is that we are a very friendly community and trying to help each other and listen, so let's keep that culture up. I think we all agree: it is a good idea to have an media mapping for ogg for uncompressed PCM. As for what is required in a

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:44:43AM +1100, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > > Sorry, but that fork took over now. As I mentioned in the last email, > your version needs to be renamed ArcPCM to reflect the fact that it's a > mix of Pulse Code Modulation with your ego. No. I started OggPCM, since it was never proposed to Xiph.org it remains my trademark until which time it is accepted by

List, A recent discussion over on XiphWiki is trying to decide if OggPCM should support only little-endianness or the usual combo of big and little. It started with the following statement by an user (Qqq): "Portable players are usually ARM, which is usually little-endian. The Macintosh is now little-endian. Obviously the PC is little-endian. Clearly there is a winner. It's long past

Greetings, I am building a data collection system that will ultimately have 28 channels and multi-rates up to 2 M/sec. I need some sort of lossless format framing and header system to transfer the data to a desktop PC over USB. Rather than reinvent, I looked around to see what others are using and for existing tools for testing. Surprisingly, I found few general purpose data formats that can

I've tried to solicit discussion on this point in the past, but now I'd like the press the issue for a bit. I'd like to remove the less well developed mapping header (option 1) from the OggPCM draft, and make my/our (with Martin Leese) suggestion (option 2) the definitive one. If anybody objects, let's discuss it on-list. If not, I think it wouldn't be too bad of an idea