similar to: status of oggpcm?

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 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

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

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

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 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 -

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 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 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 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

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, I've got a Powerware Prestige 9 1kVA UPS that seems to not be working with nut. It's not in the current "supported hardware" list, but the old bcmxcp page lists it as being a UPS that speaks that protocol. I have the following in my ups.conf [powerware] driver = bcmxcp port = /dev/ttyS0 desc = "Powerware Prestige 9 EXT" baud_rate = 2400 And when I start the

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 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

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

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:

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