similar to: Proposal for Ambisonics format in vorbis comment.

"Gabriel I." wrote: > Greetings, > > I apologize if I posted this in the wrong list, I wasn't sure where to post > it, but seeing as the tags are called "vorbis comments" I thought vorbis, > rather than ogg-dev, would be the right choice. (actually, I'm not even a > developer anyway) Hi Gabriel, I doubt whether the Xiph community would promote a

Alright, here is a somewhat formal definition of the channel mapping I had in mind: ------ Channel Mapping Family 2 Allowed numbers of channels: (1 + l)^2 for l = 1...15. Explicitly 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, 121, 144, 169, 196, 225. Ambisonics from first to fifteenth order. Each channel is assigned to an ambisonic component in Ambisonic Channel Number (ACN) order. The ambisonic

I've discussed hemispherical ambisonics and mixing matrices with a few people. The consensus is that there is no set of hemispherical basis functions common enough to warrant inclusion yet. We should force channel counts to be values (l + 1)^2 for simplicity and to keep the possibility open of including hemispherical bases should one ever become popular. As for mixing matrices, we are not

Hi Marc, On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Marc Lavallée <marc at hacklava.net> wrote: > I subscribed because your discussion on the IETF draft ("Ambisonics in > an Ogg Opus Container") was mentioned on the sursound list. Thanks for your interest! Please feel free to voice your support for this work on the codec at ietf.org mailing list. The more support the better. > I

On Sat, 28 May 2016 16:21:33 -0700, Michael Graczyk <mgraczyk at google.com> wrote : > Hi Marc, Hi Micheal. > On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Marc Lavallée <marc at hacklava.net> > wrote: > > I subscribed because your discussion on the IETF draft ("Ambisonics > > in an Ogg Opus Container") was mentioned on the sursound list. > > Thanks for

Hello Jean-Marc, Thanks for the quick reply and comments. On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 5:41 PM, Jean-Marc Valin <jmvalin at jmvalin.ca> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Here's some more minor comments below. As long as you address the two > comments from my previous email (254 -> 2 and the draft name), the draft > is good for submitting as initial version on the IETF website (even

On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:32 AM, Timothy B. Terriberry <tterribe at xiph.org> wrote: > Jean-Marc Valin wrote: >> >> Would it make sense to allow an arbitrary number of channels and just >> "truncate" the list of channels. For example, two-channel ambisonics >> would be W plus X and three-channel would be W, X and Y. The idea is >> that you would get

Hello Tim and others, Thanks for your help explaining this process on IRC. I wrote out a first draft in the RFC xml format. I have attached the xml (labeled as xml.txt so it will appear inline) and the rendered txt files. Please let me know where I can make improvements. I will upload this draft to the IETF datatracker and send it out to codec@ after addressing your comments. -------------- next

Hi Drew, Sorry for the delay. FYI the patch that you attached is not your latest version. This thread that you replied to is an older thread; the latest version is on a different thread. The patch does not use the mapping family numbers used by libopus and libopusenc; could you update it to use family 2 and 3 rather than 254 and 253? The patch also appears to break encoding of surround files

Hi Andrew, I suspect that the configure option should be enable-ambisonics (instead of enable_ambisonics), but for each of opus, libopusenc, opusfile and opus-tools git repos (on master branch), when I try "./configure --enable-ambisonics", I get this error message: configure: WARNING: unrecognized options: --enable-ambisonics Thanks for your help. Marc Le 19-12-18 à 11 h 52, Andrew

Le 19-12-18 à 12 h 29, Marc Lavallée a écrit : > Hi Andrew, > > I suspect that the configure option should be enable-ambisonics > (instead of enable_ambisonics), but for each of opus, libopusenc, > opusfile and opus-tools git repos (on master branch), when I try > "./configure --enable-ambisonics", I get this error message: > > configure: WARNING: unrecognized

Since the opusenc and opusinfo changes were independent I split them up and landed the opusinfo changes (with updated mapping family numbers). - Mark On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 4:22 AM, Mark Harris <mark.hsj at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Drew, > > Sorry for the delay. > > FYI the patch that you attached is not your latest version. This > thread that you replied to is an older

I compiled the latest (git master) of opus, libopusenc, opusfile and opus-tools: $ opusenc --version opusenc opus-tools 0.2-8-g4976421 (using libopus 1.3.1-4-gad8fe90d) I tried to encode a 3rd order Ambisonics wav file with the standard Ambix (ACN-SN3D) format; opusinfo is reporting : Streams: 16, Coupled: 0     Channel Mapping Family: 255 Map: [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,

Hi Marc, In order to use the ambisonics API, if you haven't already, you will need to activate the enable_ambisonics build flag during configuration. Then, when encoding the file, make sure to manually select mapping family 3 since opus does not auto-detect ambisonic files. Let me know if you have any questions! Cheers, Andrew On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 7:16 PM Marc Lavallée <marc at

Unfortunately, ambisonics aren't exposed in opusenc yet, thus the trouble. They're an API-only feature, but it's a good time to discuss what such a command-line interface would look like, notably: how to specify multiple streams & stream order, select the mapping family, coupled channels, and how to specify the matrix (for family 3). Likewise, there's no multistream support at

Hello, I am trying to encode an Opus file with Ambisonics including Head-Locked (non-diegetic) Stereo sound for a Virtual Reality 360° video. YouTube describes the spatial audio requirements here: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6395969 It's the last list item 5. > 5. Supported First Order Ambisonics (FOA) with Head-Locked Stereo format: > W, Y, Z, X, L, R as a 6-channel

Hi Opus list. I subscribed because your discussion on the IETF draft ("Ambisonics in an Ogg Opus Container") was mentioned on the sursound list. I tried Opus for ambisonics more than a year ago. It does works with uncoupled channels (I had to patch the encoder). I don't know what else could be done to optimize support for ambisonics, as I'm not a codec expert. So I think that

> Also, there has been some recent work on channel mappings for OggPCM (uncompressed PCM data in an Ogg container), which may be related: Our proposal involves only Vorbis. Uncompressed PCM Ambisonics is already well catered for. > It is indeed related. We are proposing a different ambisonic channel scheme (not speaker mapping though) called N3D (different to the usual FuMa scheme). The

Michael Graczyk wrote: > As for mixing matrices, we are not confident in any choices for setups > beyond stereo. Although there have been papers and studies on Okay, better to give no advice than bad advice. > provide only a stereo downmixing matrix. It looks like this would go > in 5.1.1.5? The matrix should be As a general point, it's too late to add anything to the soon-to-be

Hi Michael, On 04/25/2016 05:32 AM, Michael Graczyk wrote: > Channel Mapping Family 2 > > Allowed numbers of channels: (1 + l)^2 for l = 1...15. > > Explicitly 1, 4, 9, 16, 25, 36, 49, 64, 81, 100, 121, 144, 169, 196, > 225. Ambisonics from first to fifteenth order. Would it make sense to allow an arbitrary number of channels and just "truncate" the list of