similar to: adwantages of ogg container?

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

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

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

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

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:

Am Samstag, den 28.08.2010, 01:01 +0300 schrieb Sampo Syreeni: > 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

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

Am Freitag, den 27.08.2010, 20:51 +0300 schrieb Sampo Syreeni: > 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

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 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 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 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

On 2005-11-19, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > Not sure this is a good idea. Remember that channel_map is just an > array (unless you want to make it a map?). So if you had a > OGG_CHANNEL_SPECIAL with an id of 1000, it would force 1000 entries in > the array. True, but remember that the channel map type implied the number of entries in the table, and also that in this organization

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

Hallo all, euphoria with cheese, the project i working on, i needed to make decision about codecs and containers we use. I'm clearly not expert in this. After the euphoria about vp8/webm going slowly to the end, i see advantages what theora has against vp8. Seems like theora perform better on LoEnd hardware. Even x264 with good optimisation work not really good on slow Athom. My question to

On 2017-11-01, Jean-Marc Valin wrote: > I'm not sure, but my best guess would be "because MP3's window is very > leaky and MP3 has to waste a lot of bits in the LF because of that". > It could also be just the MP3 encoder being silly, or other things. Was the original poster speaking about the SILK or the CELT derived mode? Because at least wrt SILK (and the rest of

Michael Graczyk wrote: ... > UHJ is an interesting way to preserve compatibility with non-ambisonic > playback systems. ... > If UHJ becomes popular in the future, we could > specify rules for encapsulating UHJ in Ogg. I guess it depends on how you define popular. The UHJ Discography lists over 270 UHJ-encoded records. This EXcludes over 450 releases by Nimbus Records. The UHJ

On 9/26/07, Josh Coalson <xflac@yahoo.com> wrote: > --- Martin Leese <martin.leese@stanfordalumni.org> wrote: ... > > Where can I find more detail on what is a > > "non-audio" RIFF chunk? > > it is any riff chunk that is not "fmt " or "data" > > > Ambisonic ".amb" files are WAVE-EX files with > > a

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

Not sure if this belongs here or in flac-dev. I am subscribed to both, so flop it over if fits better over there. Looking at the Changelog for FLAC 1.2.1 (17-Sep-2007), it says: "With the new --keep-foreign-metadata in flac, non-audio RIFF and AIFF chunks can be stored in FLAC files and recreated when decoding." Where can I find more detail on what is a