similar to: oggPCM for general data

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 Fri, Dec 08, 2006 at 01:37:15AM -0500, Bill Johnson wrote: > Has anyone built libogg and/or liboggz using a cross compiler such as the > arm-elf GNU port? Conrad didn't mention is explicitly, but libogg also works find on arm. For a small embedded app, I'd just compile the two source files into a static library manually. If you're not using a smart linker, you may also

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

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

Hi! I found what liboggz can't read comments for logical bitstreams with OggPCM content, because of in oggz_auto_read_comments () function from oggz_auto.c case entry for OGGZ_CONTENT_PCM is missing. Steps to represent: 1. Generate simple ogg file with content of type OGGZ_CONTENT_PCM and some comments in comments (second) header. 2. Try to read comments via oggz-comments tool.

What do you want to use OggPCM for? Why not use AU or WAV? I can only see an advantage in using OggPCM if you want it annotated using CMML or want to mix it with another codec, such as Theora. Cheers, Silvia. On 8/11/07, Paul Griffiths <gafferuk@gmail.com> wrote: > Paul Griffiths <gafferuk <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > Thanks for the info, been

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:

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 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

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

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

uans <engineering at wwrn.net> wrote: > I was looking at the wiki's sites and I came across some to the effect > of OggOCM. Is this already implemented in Ogg. How can I get some more > information on how to access it. I don't believe anyone has yet implemented it. Regards, Martin -- Martin J Leese E-mail: martin.leese stanfordalumni.org Web:

On 2007-12-30, Timothy B. Terriberry wrote: > In any format that is to be used on both, it is always better to pick > one and stick with it. Then recommend one single format. Nobody *has* to support all of the features present, yet it makes sense to *allow* common variances. Most of all, because: > Unless you can guarantee that you're writing streams that are only > going to

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

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)

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

On 2007-12-30, Ian Malone wrote: > Really it's pretty trivial and hardly taxing on the processor either. > As far as I can tell the OggPCM standard was designed to provide a way > to wrap and describe arbitrary PCM data[1]. If you prefer to > distribute it in little endian all well and good. My thoughts exactly. On a related note, comments on the reworked channel mapping