similar to: FW: Ambisonics und OggPCM

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

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 That spec is being superceded by: 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 http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/OggPCM2 The project has been forked, not superceded.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

Arc, I always thought of you as a harmless idiot, but I no longer think you are harmless. You are now alone working on the OggPCM because everyone got tired of your power trip (I always thought some power was required to do that). Funnily enough, from the moment people gave up on you, it took only 24 hours to write a much better OggPCM definition than what you had (even though we don't

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

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

Hi, I'd support the view of freezing the main header, since it helps in actually getting some implementation happening and it seems fully agreed on by everyone. FAIK, Zen has already started an implementation and if you, Conrad, implement, too, there is enough code to do validation. What do you expect now to make it an "officially frozen" specification? Publish it on the main

I made a few updates to OggPCM2 http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/OggPCM2 reflecting the latest discussions. Could everyone have a look at it and see if they agree. Otherwise, what do you feel should be changed? Anyone wants to speak in support of chunked PCM? For all those that are just tired of this mess like me, please express yourself in the new spec I created: OggPCM3

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 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 10/19/07, 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

In November 2005 the discussion on OggPCM2 died down before we got around to finalizing the channel map. I thought it would be a good time to resurrect the topic. The previous threads are at http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/ogg-dev/2005-November/000097.html and http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/ogg-dev/2005-November/000168.html . In draft 2 of the spec, there are two types of channel maps: a

Hi, although the OggPCM2 draft states that it is a work in progress, it also states that the main points of contention are in optional headers. I'd like to add OggPCM2 seeking support to liboggz, which will also display correct timestamps in oggzdump and allow oggz-validate to run on OggPCM2 files for testing, while implementations are being developed. In order to do this, only the Main

2008/9/25 e deleflie <edeleflie at gmail.com>: > Hi Vorbis-dev, > Hi, > I've been on this list for a couple of weeks, but its been quiet, so I > dont know who is who. > > My name is Etienne Deleflie, I am the creator of www.ambisonia.com, > and I am (together with the Ambisonic community) looking for a > 'delivery format' for Ambisonic 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

On 2005-11-16, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > Otherwise, what do you feel should be changed? One obvious thing that seems to be lacking is the granulepos mapping. As suggested in Ogg documentation, for audio a simple sampling frame number ought to suffice, but I think the convention should still be spelled out. Secondly, I'd like to see the channel map fleshed out in more detail. (Beware

John Koleszar wrote: > I have OggPCM (as currently defined) support implemented in mencoder and > mplayer. I'd like to request that we settle on modifications to this > header by the middle of next week or freeze the current header as the > official major version 1.0, so I can get the patches cleaned up and > released. One week is very little time to get public comment

Hi, I also think that outside of the extra headers, OggPCM2 is ready to be implemented. I suggest we make the main part (no extra headers) "officiel" now. We could always add stuff later on by bumping the minor number if really needed. If we go this way, I also suggest we rename it to OggPCM just to make sure it doesn't get confusing with the original OggPCM. Does anyone see a good

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

I have OggPCM (as currently defined) support implemented in mencoder and mplayer. I'd like to request that we settle on modifications to this header by the middle of next week or freeze the current header as the official major version 1.0, so I can get the patches cleaned up and released. We will be shipping a separate product based on this work in the near-term future, and compatability