similar to: Proposal for Ambisonics format in vorbis comment.

On 3/22/07, Brian Willoughby <brianw@sounds.wa.com> wrote: ... > But to return to your question, exactly what kind of "support" are > you looking for? I wasn't looking for any particular support, but just to see what support was there (if any). ... > I do not believe that there is any need for code specifically > supporting Ambisonics. FLAC supports conversion to

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

>Yesterday I have finished writing the ambisonic pan filter for oggenc. May I ask what this "pan filter" is? I made some tentative suggestions for coupling Ambisonic B-format in a post "Vorbis Ambisonic coupling" on 4feb07 I gather from the last monthly meeting, that some of you, including Monty, had problems with the phase behaviour of B-format. Would anyone like a

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:51:12 +0100 (BST) From: DG Malham <dgm2@york.ac.uk> To: vorbis-dev@xiph.org Cc: DG Malham <dgm2@york.ac.uk>, Rob Fletcher <rpf1@york.ac.uk> Subject: Re: [vorbis-dev] True surround sound for Ogg -- a proposal (fwd) In-Reply-To: <Pine.SGI.3.95L.1000710092216.9043693B-100000@turpin.york.ac.uk> Message-ID:

Hi, I have posted this three times to the flac-dev, vorbis-dev, and ogg-dev mailing lists. I wanted to see what code there was currently to support Ambisonics. So I downloaded the code from the xiph download page for libogg-1.1.3, libvorbis-1.1.2, vorbis-tools-1.1.1 and flac-1.1.4, but wasn't able to find anything. If it exists then I missed it, so could somebody please point me to it.

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) What I'd like to propose is a simple way to encode ambisonic files in vorbis comments as simple tags. By this I don't

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

Martin, I do not believe that there is any need for code specifically supporting Ambisonics. FLAC supports conversion to and from other audio formats which hold multiple channels. Ambisonics B-format involves channels WXYZ, C-format is UHJ or BHJ, G-Format can be any number of channels, but typically 5.1 on DVD. You can work with Ambisonic recordings by either using individual mono

Hi everyone, Over the last two weeks or so, I've been thinking about how to add surround sound to Ogg -- and more than that, to do it in the best way possible. With this in mind, I started considering using Ambisonic surround sound. The advantages of this format are considerable: a) It was developed in the early to mid '70s, so the patents should be expired by now.

On 2/28/07, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves <justivo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/28/07, Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org> wrote: > > Well, there are todo pages at wiki.xiph.org, but I meant more in the > > community folklore sense. My point is a roadmap doesn't help much unless > > there are people committed to making things happen. That's been the > > problem with a

On 2/28/07, Ivo Emanuel Gon?alves <justivo@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/28/07, Ralph Giles <giles@xiph.org> wrote: > > Well, there are todo pages at wiki.xiph.org, but I meant more in the > > community folklore sense. My point is a roadmap doesn't help much unless > > there are people committed to making things happen. That's been the > > problem with a

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

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

Marc, Thanks for the comments. On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 5:50 PM, Marc Lavallée <marc at hacklava.net> wrote: > So, channels will stay uncoupled for Ambisonics? That would be great, > because considering how good Opus already is, I don't think that more > optimization is required, and it would put content creators at ease; > they often believe that any compression or channel

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

This came out of the OggPCM discussion, but I think it needs to be addressed on a wider scale. Let's start here, 5 years ago.. http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/vorbis-dev/2000-July/009513.html (I included this email, below) I emailed David (author of that email) and asked him to join this list. I'm thinking, as I look at the problem, that surround sound needs to be defined _outside_

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?

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

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

> 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