similar to: OggPCM family

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

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

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

Ian Malone wrote: > This is all well and good but OggPCM is in an Ogg transport > stream, so that needs to be unpacked anyway. Fair enough. Since the ogg pages (which I beleive are 4k) need to be unpacked anyway, there is little harm in having to (possibly) do endswapping as well. Erik -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erik de Castro Lopo

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 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. > I suggest this because somebody has started making changes to OggPCM > Draft2. That someone is me. I've asked about this on-list

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 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

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

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

On 2008-02-14, Conrad Parker wrote: > I tend to disagree with your sentiment. The specification of any > format or protocol has mandatory and recommended sections (not > "features"); MUST and SHOULD respectively for IETF and W3C stuff. Then why not make the common endianness MUST and the rest of it SHOULD? That was my sentiment, after all... -- Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy -

On Tue, 31 May 2016 09:41:37 -0700 Michael Graczyk <mgraczyk at google.com> wrote: > UHJ is an interesting way to preserve compatibility with non-ambisonic > playback systems. However, I have not seen it generalized to higher > orders. I expect that its popularity will decrease as HOA becomes more > and more common. If UHJ becomes popular in the future, we could > specify

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

Where can I find the Header file or whatever which specifies the "Mapping" flag. In feb - apr 2007, there was a lot of discussion about Ambisonics and Monty kindly stated that Mapping = 1 ; Denotes and Ambisonic file as opposed to = 0 which is 1 speaker/ 1 channel Has this been written explicitly into the standard? Which standard should I be looking at?

> I that this is handled pretty nicely by the "simple map" that Sampo > suggested. This is basically the same thing as the "channel map" > described on the wiki, but with the (physical,logical) channel pair > swapped. So, using the syntax from the wiki: > channel_type = OGG_CHANNEL_MAP_STEREO > channel_map [OGG_CHANNEL_FRONT_LEFT] = 1 > channel_map

On 2010-08-27, Ralph Giles wrote: >> My question to you, What advantages has ogg vs matroska. > > They're both free containers, and there isn't a significant > performance difference, so either one works from a free media > perspective. [...] Personally I would add the following points/bullets: * Ogg has a lesser semantic burden, so that e.g. embedded

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

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 2010-08-27, Alexey Fisher wrote: > Doing one thing seem to be good reason. User normally see just file > name say bla.ogg or bla.mkv . [...] Yes, that might be a benefit as well. But an unexpected one: in well-designed and matched protocol environments, if you expect to see some array of differing protocols, you will also see an easy way of discerning those protocols from each