Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2011-11-26, John Lundsten wrote:


Now for sure I'm not saying .wav is the only format for all time.


Of course not. RIFF, CAF, and whatever, follow the same EAV/TLV formula 
that Commodore Amiga's IFF did: 
entity-attribute-value/type-length-value. The four byte/32-bit total 
schema for each of those values actually originated with Motorola's 
680x0 series of processors, instead of the ones we now use. The original 
RIFF was Commodore Amiga's IFF.


I trust that you possess a copy of the original Interchange File Format 
specification, as I do.


But i do maintain the basic Wav structure was far better layed out & 
more to the point, shared, than say AIFF and then Wav got 'extended', 
building on the well stated idea of 'mandatory' chunks (Eg info) 
supplemented by various other chunks going from well defined or near 
universal, down to overt 'private chunks'.


Yes. (And sorry, you do seem to know about AIFF as well. Most don't.) 
The point is that that structure cuts through to QuickTime and MP4 BMFF 
as well. While getting better on the way. Unfortunately we don't know 
too well what the best and most widely spread contenders look like, 
internally. Like Flash or ShoutCast. But the fact is, the newer 
derivatives of the age-old IFF are better than the older kinds. By a 
mile.


The basic rule is if a chunk is not understood, ignore it - the basic 
Wav'ness means the file will still play just fine.


That's the basic theory, yes. But does it hold forever? No. Just look at 
SMB as a protocol or Microsoft Word's format even after it moved over to 
COM or whatever it was. It's a thorough wonder by now that them 
OpenOffice dudes have been able t decipher what that basic TLV/EAV 
format does, over the years and versions.


'The WAV format was compromised in its early years by mutually 
incompatible 'extensions', created by various software houses mainly 
for multichannel (> 2 channels), but also for plain mono and stereo.'


Sorry this is Nonsense.


Mostly, but not quite. It did happen, and the people working with the 
format fealt it. Just as they did with incompatible extensions to the 
standard MIDI file. But the ecosystem-wide effects were rather limited, 
which they are not today.


The absolute worst that can happen is the 'new stuff' is not 
understood & may even be 'played' as a 'splat'. [where software 
developers haven't bothered to read the Wav specs].


I actually have. And some others. Did you know RIFF WAVE is no longer 
primarily controlled by Microsoft as it used to be? That it's now RF64, 
an extension of BWF, a derivative of RIFF WAVE? RF64 is controlled by 
EBU. So is BWF. And I seem to remember both of them have been ratified 
by AES. So there you go: there's no WAV anymore. ;)


Mac apps on the other hand regularly wreck a BWF chunk. (which is 
vital to most Film /TV work).


Hell. Another format narc. Will yield if necessary...

Or some Mac apps attempt to add that which is basic to wav, and not in 
the 'archaic' AIFF spec, & add a 'timestamp'.


There are new genuinely new things in the QuickTime/BMFF stage. Like 
hints for realtime casting of an unevenly compressed, multiplexed file. 
Those can't really be neglected in the so called "manly work". Plus, 
those are already well-standardized.


As I said this may be the 'true way', but basically, IMO, it's yet 
another attempt by Apple to create yet another format 'the other lot 
can't read'.


Fully agreed. Though then you'd have to agree it's a neat format per se. 
Well-thought out, as clean as de novo ones come, and perhaps the only 
new one which includes at least some support for ambisonic. It might be 
that we're a bit partial here, being that many around here like 
ambisonic. But you too have to admit it's a neat de novo design.


Of course it only works for Apple, as an ecosystem. That's why nobody 
here really bets their livelihood on it. Just look at the logs and be 
assured of that. :)

--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2011-11-25, Richard wrote:

I totally agree, any mention of MP3/WMA or any of the very lossy 
formats in the same breath as surround cannot be taken seriously.


That is very much true where it goes to ambisonic and the existing 
formats. But as for the formats and say 5.1, not so much. That actually 
works rather well. Not perfectly, but it works. And on the other hand, 
ambisonic could work *extremely* well when compressed by its own 
standards and requirements. Perhaps even bettern than pair-wise panned 
stuff, which the other kind always is.


I mean, I've read entire reams of papers which apply PCA and whatnot to 
sets of channel feeds. They always get meager results, because of 
temporal effects which are difficult to compensate for. I've never seen 
a paper applying even the most simple packing technology to a normalized 
B-format at any order. Still, it'd stand to reason it'd pack 
unreasonably well because of the temporal coincidence of the signals, 
the directional rolloff of the signal-set which doesn't happen with 
non-coincident mics, and especially because you can then do certain 
tricks you couldn't otherwise do in compressing the signalset.


I'm reasonably sure a dedicated ambisonic compressor could do twice as 
much as a discrete 5.1 one ever could, given the same physical 
acoustical starting point.

--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2011-11-25, Marinos Koutsomichalis wrote:

but still I' m not quite sure about the most important issue: which is 
the most 'common' file-format for such things ?


In order the two most common ones are (I think):

1) Microsoft's AVI container (RIFF), with video as pure MPEG-2 and audio
   as 2 or 5.1 MPEG-2 layer 3 audio (mp3), or
2) any of Matroska/AVI/BMFF(MP4) container, with h.264/MPEG-4 AVC video,
   and AAC audio, inside.

The latter rhymes well with HTML5, for example. Apple's QuickTime, as a 
container format and the prototype for MPEG-4's BMFF, and OTOH CAF, work 
well with all of that stuff. So does the .3gpp mobile stuff, because 
it's basically the same .mp4 thingy. So: I'd go with pure mpeg-2 video 
and layer 2 audio for full compatibility. It will only buy you stereo. 
If you want more, go with either of Matroska or mp4 as a container, then 
one of the h.264 profiles for video (full is my favourite, but it can 
kill a nettop; go with Advanced Simple if you can), and AAC for audio 
(it also has profiles; at 48kbps stereo you should do HE-AAC; at 96kbps 
you can do without the HE part; at somewhere around 240-320kbps, with 
all of the coding options in use, you can finally do perceptually 
transparent 5.1, and not just "FM quality").


Would sth like quicktime or VLC or Windows-Media-Player playback 
4-channel Flacs or mp3-surround or whatever without any need for 
additional tweaking ???


I think you are asking the wrong question. There are many ways in which 
to project four channels of sound to a listener/audience. Around here, 
the right question is "where did those channels come from, what do they 
mean, and what do you want to do with them besides awe people."


I'm pretty sure we can tell you what to do with your channels. But first 
you have to tell us what that data is about, in all. How was it 
captured? What do you really want to do with it? A perfect 
reconstruction of what happened on-stage? Sure we can give you all of 
it, but first you have to tell us the basic numbers, with which we then 
calculate. :)


I did some web-research and I think that the most common formats for 
that surround sound is mp3/flac and AAC


You should prolly always save everything you do as FLAC, because it's 
fully lossless. Then save your encoding and decoding software as well. 
But for distribution purposes, nobody and nothing decodes FLAC: That's a 
matter of life, unfortunately.

--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2011-11-25, John Lundsten wrote:

And yes for sure the RIFF Wav (with Wav extensible) has the cool chan 
mapping features CAF has, and very much as on a Mac, hardly anyone has 
bothered to implement it.


Don't even go there. Really. E.g. Martin Leese spent real effort getting 
the OggPCM draft right at the time. I continued with the channel 
mapping, all with the examples to go with it.


All of that had zero impact. Absolutely zero. What *could* have impact 
is G+format. Thus, "what are you trying to do with your signals." "How 
can we help in pantophony, which is prolly what you want?" :)



IMO if one wants to store so called linear PCM, use WAV.


That also rather depends, at the lower level. AES already has the 64-bit 
version of WAV, where the channel masks are finally ratified at an 
international level. Unlike with RIFF WAVE, you know. I believe EBU 
members are actively using that extended format even now, perhaps even 
here in Finland...


All other formats offer less & only exist for (a) backward 
compatibility for which I have no problem or (b) to screw the 
customer, which I find obnoxious.


I'm rather certain as well that that WAV is where it's at at the moment. 
CAF would be better, if you can get it within your environment. Even 
within that you prolly won't get the ambisonic support which is built 
into it.



 From the (Apple) CAF standar (it really needs reading in context):


[...] This stuff is downright amateurish compared to what I/we did with 
the OggPCM channel map. Really. To quote from 
http://wiki.xiph.org/OggPCM :


// front left/right
OGG_CHANNEL_STEREO_LEFT = 0 = 0x (30 degrees left)
OGG_CHANNEL_STEREO_RIGHT = 1 = 0x0001 (30 degrees right)
OGG_CHANNEL_QUAD_FRONT_LEFT = 2 = 0x0002 (45 degrees left)
OGG_CHANNEL_QUAD_FRONT_RIGHT = 3 = 0x0003 (45 degrees right)
OGG_CHANNEL_BLUMLEIN_LEFT = 4 = 0x0004 (figure of eight response 45 
degrees to the left)
OGG_CHANNEL_BLUMLEIN_RIGHT = 5 = 0x0005 (figure of eight response 
45 degrees to the right)

OGG_CHANNEL_WALL_FRONT_LEFT = 6 = 0x0006 (55 degrees left)
OGG_CHANNEL_WALL_FRONT_RIGHT = 7 = 0x0007 (55 degrees right)
OGG_CHANNEL_HEX_FRONT_LEFT = 8 = 0x0008 (60 degrees left)
OGG_CHANNEL_HEX_FRONT_RIGHT = 9 = 0x0009 (60 degrees right)
OGG_CHANNEL_PENTAGONAL_FRONT_LEFT = 10 = 0x000A (72 degrees left)
OGG_CHANNEL_PENTAGONAL_FRONT_RIGHT = 11 = 0x000B (72 degrees right)
OGG_CHANNEL_BINAURAL_LEFT = 12 = 0x000C (fed directly into the left 
ear canal, or front stereo dipole with crosstalk cancellation)
OGG_CHANNEL_BINAURAL_RIGHT = 13 = 0x000D (fed directly into the 
right ear canal, or front stereo dipole with crosstalk cancellation)

OGG_CHANNEL_FRONT_STEREO_DIPOLE_LEFT = 14 = 0x000E (5 degrees left)
OGG_CHANNEL_FRONT_STEREO_DIPOLE_RIGHT = 15 = 0x000F (5 degrees 
right)

OGG_CHANNEL_UHJ_L = 16 = 0x0010 (ambisonics UHJ left)
OGG_CHANNEL_UHJ_R = 17 = 0x0011 (ambisonics UHJ right)
OGG_CHANNEL_DOLBY_STEREO_LEFT = 18 = 0x0012 (dolby stereo/surround 
left total)
OGG_CHANNEL_DOLBY_STEREO_RIGHT = 19 = 0x0013 (dolby stereo/surround 
right total)
OGG_CHANNEL_XY_LEFT = 20 = 0x0014 (cardioid response 45 degrees to 
the left)
OGG_CHANNEL_XY_RIGHT = 21 = 0x0015 (cardioid response 45 degrees to 
the right)


// front center/mono
OGG_CHANNEL_SCREEN_CENTER = 256 = 0x0100 (ear level, straight 
ahead, at screen distance)
OGG_CHANNEL_MS_MID = 257 = 0x0101 (cardioid response, straight 
ahead)

OGG_CHANNEL_FRONT_CENTER = 258 = 0x0102 (ear level, straight ahead)

// lfe
OGG_CHANNEL_LFE = 512 = 0x0200 (omnidirectional, bandlimited to 
120Hz, 10dB louder than the reference level)
OGG_CHANNEL_LFE_SIDE_LEFT = 513 = 0x0201 (90 degrees left, 
bandlimited to 120Hz, 10dB louder than the reference level)
OGG_CHANNEL_LFE_SIDE_RIGHT = 514 = 0x0202 (90 degrees right, 
bandlimited to 120Hz, 10dB louder than the reference level)
OGG_CHANNEL_LFE_FRONT_CENTER_LEFT = 515 = 0x0203 (22.5 degrees 
left, bandlimited to 120Hz, 10dB louder than the reference level)
OGG_CHANNEL_LFE_FRONT_CENTER_RIGHT = 516 = 0x0204 (22.5 degrees 
right, bandlimited to 120Hz, 10dB louder than the reference level)
OGG_CHANNEL_LFE_FRONT_BOTTOM_CENTER_LEFT = 517 = 0x0205 (45 degrees 
lowered, 22.5 degrees left, bandlimited to 120Hz, 10dB louder than the 
reference level)
OGG_CHANNEL_LFE_FRONT_BOTTOM_CENTER_RIGHT = 518 = 0x0206 (45 
degrees lowered, 22.5 degrees right, bandlimited to 120Hz, 10dB louder 
than the reference level)


// back left/right
OGG_CHANNEL_ITU_BACK_LEFT = 768 = 0x0300 (back, 70 degrees left)
OGG_CHANNEL_ITU_BACK_RIGHT = 769 = 0x0301 (back, 70 degrees right)
OGG_CHANNEL_ITU_BACK_LEFT_SURROUND = 770 = 0x0302 (back, 70 degrees 
left)
OGG_CHANNEL_ITU_BACK_RIGHT_SURROUND = 771 = 0x0303 (back, 70 
degrees right)

OGG_CHANNEL_HEX_BACK_LEFT = 772 = 0x0304 (back, 60 degrees left)
OGG_CHANNEL_HEX_BACK_RIGHT = 773 = 0x0305 (back, 60 degrees rig

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2011-11-25, Marinos Koutsomichalis wrote:

I was asked a 4-channel work for an online-release - I' m now trying 
to figure out what the best way to "release" it would be..


For me personally, the first question would be "which four channels"? 
"What are their semantics, precisely?"


Like, how did you come up with those channels? What did you use to make 
them? How did you process them? What did you think you were going to 
play them over? And so on.


I am totally inexperienced in web-friendly file formats for such 
things..


In the Web, you prolly want multiple different formats at the same time, 
most of them being pure stereo as far as sound goes. Unfortunately...



- I could use mp3-surround -> but it' s only 5.1 and this could possibly cause 
problems


You will have to stoop this low. Then, stoop even lower: make the basic 
format something like 48-96kbps stereo mp3.



- I could use flac -> but I' m not sure if common media-players support it


VLC does, and it's common enough. But that's then *very* high bandwidth 
in comparison. If you do this one, I'd at least try 96kbps AAC (in 
stereo) or something like 224kbps AAC (in full 5.1), in the high 
profile, in between.



- I could try some video format (?)


They're basically the same, given a fixed picture.

what is paramount is that the casual listener can listen to the 
4-channel mix without having to download nothing or in the worst 
scenario to download some specialized media-player which is 
flexible/easy to find and free.


They can listen to it, alright, so the paramount idea is to downmix it 
right. They are *not* going to get most of it without possessing the 
right hardware and setup, though. I don't, for instance.


So you really have to give us more details than that. Even for stereo 
listening. And especially for whatevermore you want. I'm thinking the 
usual 5.1 format could serve you well. From the ambisonic viewpoint, you 
could make it into G-format. But you really do have to divulge your 
signal format before we can do anything about it. :)


maybe there is specialized file-format/media-player or some lossy 
ambisonics formats for such things ??


Unfortunately there is not. We all want to will it into being, and it 
would be a hoot. Still, those gods of ours have proven reticent for some 
four decades, now. Apparently they like to try us faithful.

--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Marc Lavallée]

I suggest to take a look at the Web Audio API from the W3C :
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/audio/raw-file/tip/webaudio/specification.html

--
Marc

Le Sat, 26 Nov 2011 01:26:33 +0200
Marinos Koutsomichalis  a écrit:

> 
> about the 4 channels: they are 4 channels of audio to be played back
> by a quad set-up.. In fact they are decoded from a b-format
> recording, but what I want to release is a quad version of the piece. 
> 
> as I mentioned I cannot consider wav/aiff and other lossless options
> because of their size. 
> 
> So what I understand from this discussion is that I can use 
> 
> mp3 / flac / AC3 or DTS
> 
> and that more or less they will be ok with most recent players,
> right ?
> 
> so another question arises, 
> how can I create an interleaved file in each case ? what encoders are
> available and what are the easiest/cheapest options ??
> 
> can sox do the job ?
> 
> m
> 
> On 25 Nov 2011, at 20:53, Aaron Heller wrote:
> 
> > Marinos Koutsomichalis  wrote:
> >> but still I' m not quite sure about the most important issue:
> >> which is the most 'common' file-format for such things ?
> > 
> > In terms of installed base of players, AC3 and DTS are the most
> > common formats for delivery of surround audio.  VLC player can
> > decode either one, as can the DVD playing software preinstalled on
> > many PCs. Ambisonia and Nimbus have distributed 4-channel G-format
> > ('speaker feed') files in DTS-WAV format, which is DTS encoded
> > audio in a RIFF/WAV wrapper that can be burnt to a CD and played in
> > most home theater setups.  Judging form the limited statistics I
> > had access to and the comments on the site, many people downloaded,
> > played successfully, and enjoyed the DTS-WAV files distributed on
> > Ambisonia. If you need help with any of this, feel free to ask.
> > 
> > --
> > Aaron Heller 
> > Menlo Park, CA  US
> > ___
> > Sursound mailing list
> > Sursound@music.vt.edu
> > https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> 
> --
> Marinos Koutsomichalis
> Music Research Center, University of York
> Contemporary Music Research Centre (CMRC)
> www.marinoskoutsomichalis.com
> www.agxivatein.com
> skype: marinosk_81
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> 
> ___ Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] Image-source model with consideration of air absorption

[Sampo Syreeni]

On 2011-11-23, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

I don't think you need to reformulate the theory. Air absorbtion can 
be taken into account numerically just in the same way as the 
frequency response of the reflecting surfaces.


Seconded. The absorption term also seems to be pretty simple in the 
analog/continuous time domain: it's more or less a first order lowpass 
filter. As Fons already said, that applies even within a room. Not just 
in free space.


If you want to do something new, though, you should try to model ray 
acoustics within a diffractive environment. A room with angles and all 
that. Here in Finland, Ville Pulkki has tackled the special case already 
( http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/demos/diffr-visual/ ) . But in the general 
case, nobody really knows how to do modal analysis on the one hand, ray 
acoustics on the other, and what-the-fuck Ville did in between the rest 
of the time.


(Mind me, I do know about cone tracing and whatnot. I've seen most of 
the papers, just via personal interest. I'm not impressed with most of 
them, because they seem to not mind how wavelength dependent audio work 
is, as opposed to the visual kind. Or perhaps rather, how short the 
visual waves are as opposed to the auditory kind. :)

--
Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - de...@iki.fi, http://decoy.iki.fi/front
+358-50-5756111, 025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[John Lundsten]

'This is stretching the actual facts a bit too much to be
left unchallenged.'

Ok. staying with the 'provocative' though true idea.

I see your 'challenge', but see nothing in your post to contradict my 
suggestions.  (or assertions if you like).

Now if Mac OS is a belief system for you, IE knowing the 'truth' with no need 
for boring unwanted proof, then I'm sorry to waste your time ... .. . . . .

Now for sure I'm not saying .wav is the only format for all time. 
But i do maintain the basic Wav structure was far better layed out & more to 
the point, shared, than say AIFF and then Wav got 'extended', building on the 
well stated idea of 'mandatory' chunks (Eg info) supplemented by various other 
chunks going from well defined or near universal, down to overt 'private 
chunks'. 

The basic rule is if a chunk is not understood, ignore it - the basic Wav'ness 
means the file will still play just fine.

'The WAV format was compromised in its early years by mutually
incompatible 'extensions', created by various software houses
mainly for multichannel (> 2 channels), but also for plain
mono and stereo.'

Sorry this is Nonsense.  
The absolute worst that can happen is the 'new stuff' is not understood & may 
even be 'played' as a 'splat'. [where software developers haven't bothered to 
read the Wav specs].
 
I know only too well, as a developer of the session conversion app, 
AATranslator, that even where formats are well documented & widely available, 
many dev's choose to ignore the 'spec' (& it seems the 'Big players' piss' on 
standards more than most & yeh therefore because of their Commercial 
significance, effectively can re-define any 'standard'. And yes i admit this 
'corruption' will be more common for the most significant OS.

However
Mac apps on the other hand regularly wreck a BWF chunk. (which is vital to most 
Film /TV work).
Or some Mac apps attempt to add that which is basic to wav, and not in the 
'archaic' AIFF spec, & add a 'timestamp'. But the chance of this being read by 
an app other than that which created it, is near to zero.

CAF
As I said this may be the 'true way', but basically, IMO, it's yet another 
attempt by Apple to create yet another format 'the other lot can't read'.
JL




  - Original Message - 
  From: Fons Adriaensen 
  To: sursound@music.vt.edu 
  Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 10:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release


  On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 03:51:03AM -, John Lundsten wrote:
   
  > Well as approx 98% of computers are PC's, whatever the merits
  > of CAF (beyond ticking the 'box' this is different to what is
  > available on a PC) it would be totally unsuitable to the OP.
  > 
  > And yes for sure the RIFF Wav (with Wav extensible) has the
  > cool chan mapping features CAF has, and very much as on a Mac,
  > hardly anyone has bothered to implement it.
  > 
  > IMO if one wants to store so called linear PCM, use WAV. All
  > other formats offer less & only exist for (a) backward compatibility
  > for which I have no problem or (b) to screw the customer, which
  > I find obnoxious.

  This is stretching the actual facts a bit too much to be
  left unchallenged.

  In fact, WAV is the one that exists for backwards compatibility
  only. 

  The WAV format was compromised in its early years by mutually
  incompatible 'extensions', created by various software houses
  mainly for multichannel (> 2 channels), but also for plain
  mono and stereo. There are even today lots of those around. 
  Microsoft was partly to blame for this by leaving some parts
  of the spec rather ambiguous. The result was chaos.

  Anyway, MS has officially deprecated multichannel WAV for ages
  now, and the WAVEX format was created to clean up the mess.
  Everything having more than 2 channels can't be WAV, it must
  be WAVEX. This has the same filename extension so you wouldn't
  normally notice. Mono or stereo WAV files are still accepted
  by official MS applications for the simple reason that there
  are so many of those around.

  At the moment, CAF is the only format I know of that doesn't
  drag a history of outdated junk behind it, that is 64-bit safe
  (WAV and WAVEX are not), and future-proof. 

  Ciao,

  -- 
  FA

  Vor uns liegt ein weites Tal, die Sonne scheint - ein Glitzerstrahl.

  ___
  Sursound mailing list
  Sursound@music.vt.edu
  https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound


  -
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.1869 / Virus Database: 2101/4638 - Release Date: 11/25/11
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Marinos Koutsomichalis]

about the 4 channels: they are 4 channels of audio to be played back by a quad 
set-up.. In fact they are decoded from a b-format recording, but what I want to 
release is a quad version of the piece. 

as I mentioned I cannot consider wav/aiff and other lossless options because of 
their size. 

So what I understand from this discussion is that I can use 

mp3 / flac / AC3 or DTS

and that more or less they will be ok with most recent players, right ?

so another question arises, 
how can I create an interleaved file in each case ? what encoders are available 
and what are the easiest/cheapest options ??

can sox do the job ?

m

On 25 Nov 2011, at 20:53, Aaron Heller wrote:

> Marinos Koutsomichalis  wrote:
>> but still I' m not quite sure about the most important issue:
>> which is the most 'common' file-format for such things ?
> 
> In terms of installed base of players, AC3 and DTS are the most common
> formats for delivery of surround audio.  VLC player can decode either
> one, as can the DVD playing software preinstalled on many PCs.
> Ambisonia and Nimbus have distributed 4-channel G-format ('speaker
> feed') files in DTS-WAV format, which is DTS encoded audio in a
> RIFF/WAV wrapper that can be burnt to a CD and played in most home
> theater setups.  Judging form the limited statistics I had access to
> and the comments on the site, many people downloaded, played
> successfully, and enjoyed the DTS-WAV files distributed on Ambisonia.
> If you need help with any of this, feel free to ask.
> 
> --
> Aaron Heller 
> Menlo Park, CA  US
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

--
Marinos Koutsomichalis
Music Research Center, University of York
Contemporary Music Research Centre (CMRC)
www.marinoskoutsomichalis.com
www.agxivatein.com
skype: marinosk_81












-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release/side topic

[Marinos Koutsomichalis]

On 25 Nov 2011, at 23:15, Bearcat M. Şandor wrote:

> If i'm messing around (i'm not a serious audio
> professional) in Ardour isn't it a wave file first,

afaic no. normally you select the kind of file you want your audio saved to. I 
use aiffs most of the times. And you can convert to lots of other file-types 
from aiff without having to convert first to wav of course..


--
Marinos Koutsomichalis
Music Research Center, University of York
Contemporary Music Research Centre (CMRC)
www.marinoskoutsomichalis.com
www.agxivatein.com
skype: marinosk_81












-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 03:51:03AM -, John Lundsten wrote:
 
> Well as approx 98% of computers are PC's, whatever the merits
> of CAF (beyond ticking the 'box' this is different to what is
> available on a PC) it would be totally unsuitable to the OP.
> 
> And yes for sure the RIFF Wav (with Wav extensible) has the
> cool chan mapping features CAF has, and very much as on a Mac,
> hardly anyone has bothered to implement it.
> 
> IMO if one wants to store so called linear PCM, use WAV. All
> other formats offer less & only exist for (a) backward compatibility
> for which I have no problem or (b) to screw the customer, which
> I find obnoxious.

This is stretching the actual facts a bit too much to be
left unchallenged.

In fact, WAV is the one that exists for backwards compatibility
only. 

The WAV format was compromised in its early years by mutually
incompatible 'extensions', created by various software houses
mainly for multichannel (> 2 channels), but also for plain
mono and stereo. There are even today lots of those around. 
Microsoft was partly to blame for this by leaving some parts
of the spec rather ambiguous. The result was chaos.

Anyway, MS has officially deprecated multichannel WAV for ages
now, and the WAVEX format was created to clean up the mess.
Everything having more than 2 channels can't be WAV, it must
be WAVEX. This has the same filename extension so you wouldn't
normally notice. Mono or stereo WAV files are still accepted
by official MS applications for the simple reason that there
are so many of those around.

At the moment, CAF is the only format I know of that doesn't
drag a history of outdated junk behind it, that is 64-bit safe
(WAV and WAVEX are not), and future-proof. 

Ciao,

-- 
FA

Vor uns liegt ein weites Tal, die Sonne scheint - ein Glitzerstrahl.

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release/side topic

[Bearcat M. Şandor]

On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 06:05:44PM + Dave Hunt wrote:

Hi,


Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 03:51:03 -
From: "John Lundsten" 



IMO if one wants to store so called linear PCM, use WAV. All other
formats offer less & only exist for (a) backward compatibility for
which I have no problem or (b) to screw the customer, which I find
obnoxious.



AIFF, AIFC, SD2, CAF, have no good reason to exist! (beyond some
dodgy Commercial imperative to .)
John L


WAV itself, although adopted for compatibility and universality
reasons, has been modified (BWAV, WAVE-FORMAT-EXTENSIBLE, W64, RF64),
and may become obsolete. Nothing lasts for ever.

Being a long term Mac user, almost my entire collection of audio
files are AIFF. I feel secure using it, and have never had any
problem with the format, whereas some WAV files don't work with some
applications and have to be converted

Ciao,

Dave.

Why would wav be obsoleted and all these other formats survive? Don't
they depend on wav in the first place? I know that CDs are converted to
wav first then to whatever format you want them in but can you convert a
CD directly to flac (or wavpack in my case)?  If i'm messing around (i'm 
not a serious audio

professional) in Ardour isn't it a wave file first, then a flac file (or
what have you)?
--
Bearcat M. Şandor
Cell: 406.210.3500
Jabber/xmpp/gtalk/email: bear...@feline-soul.net
MSN: bearcatsan...@hotmail.com
Yahoo: bearcatsandor
AIM: bearcatmsandor


-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Attached Message Part
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2025/5da171b5/attachment.bin>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Dave Kaleita]

If you are looking to release it in a format that a relatively large number
of people can play, you might want to consider mastering it in a combo DVD
Video/Audio format, in the form of an ISO file. Cirlinca has some relatively
inexpensive software for doing the job.

Dave Kaleita

-Original Message-
From: Marinos Koutsomichalis [mailto:mari...@agxivatein.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 7:34 PM
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: [Sursound] online multichannel release

Hello list, 

I was asked a 4-channel work for an online-release - I' m now trying to
figure out what the best way to "release" it would be.. 

I am totally inexperienced in web-friendly file formats for such things..

afaic
- I could use mp3-surround -> but it' s only 5.1 and this could possibly
cause problems
- I could use flac -> but I' m not sure if common media-players support it
- I could try some video format (?)

are there any other ideas/observations/advices ??

what is paramount is that the casual listener can listen to the 4-channel
mix without having to download nothing or in the worst scenario to download
some specialized media-player which is flexible/easy to find and free. 

maybe there is specialized file-format/media-player or some lossy ambisonics
formats for such things ??

--
Marinos Koutsomichalis
Music Research Center, University of York Contemporary Music Research Centre
(CMRC) www.marinoskoutsomichalis.com www.agxivatein.com
skype: marinosk_81












-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2025/08b
fe1b1/attachment.html>


___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Aaron Heller]

Marinos Koutsomichalis  wrote:
> but still I' m not quite sure about the most important issue:
> which is the most 'common' file-format for such things ?

In terms of installed base of players, AC3 and DTS are the most common
formats for delivery of surround audio.  VLC player can decode either
one, as can the DVD playing software preinstalled on many PCs.
Ambisonia and Nimbus have distributed 4-channel G-format ('speaker
feed') files in DTS-WAV format, which is DTS encoded audio in a
RIFF/WAV wrapper that can be burnt to a CD and played in most home
theater setups.  Judging form the limited statistics I had access to
and the comments on the site, many people downloaded, played
successfully, and enjoyed the DTS-WAV files distributed on Ambisonia.
If you need help with any of this, feel free to ask.

--
Aaron Heller 
Menlo Park, CA  US
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release/side topic

[Dave Hunt]

Hi,


Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 03:51:03 -
From: "John Lundsten" 

IMO if one wants to store so called linear PCM, use WAV. All other  
formats offer less & only exist for (a) backward compatibility for  
which I have no problem or (b) to screw the customer, which I find  
obnoxious.


AIFF, AIFC, SD2, CAF, have no good reason to exist! (beyond some  
dodgy Commercial imperative to .)

John L


The first three have existed for some time, and presumably there were  
good reasons for them being created. Apple showed interest in sound  
long before Microsoft. They fall into your category a).


SD2 has long been discarded for general use, but it is still  
desirable to be able to read and convert it.


AIFF to WAV conversion and vice versa is fairly trivial nowadays and  
both formats are generally cross platform.


AIFC has never really been in mainstream use, and the compression  
algorithms allowed in it have been superseded.


CAF is slightly different in that it is a container format that can  
contain many different audio formats and other data. Unlike .mov  
or .mpeg it is audio only, so possibly most useful for sample and  
loop libraries.


WAV itself, although adopted for compatibility and universality  
reasons, has been modified (BWAV, WAVE-FORMAT-EXTENSIBLE, W64, RF64),  
and may become obsolete. Nothing lasts for ever.


Being a long term Mac user, almost my entire collection of audio  
files are AIFF. I feel secure using it, and have never had any  
problem with the format, whereas some WAV files don't work with some  
applications and have to be converted


Ciao,

Dave.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Martin Leese]

Marinos Koutsomichalis  wrote:

> quite a few ideas thus far..
>
> but still I' m not quite sure about the most important issue:
> which is the most 'common' file-format for such things ?

Four channel works are not common.
Therefore, there are no common file formats
for on-line delivery.

Regards,
Martin
-- 
Martin J Leese
E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Martin Leese]

"Michael Chapman" 

> At 05:52 25/11/2011, Marinos Koutsomichalis wrote:
>> Hello list,
>>
>> I was asked a 4-channel work for an online-release - I' m now trying to
>> figure out what the best way to "release" it would be..
...
>> are there any other ideas/observations/advices ??

...
> It would help to know what the four channels are:
> - B-format ?
> - 'speaker feeds' for a square ?
> - ?

This would seem to be a key question.  How
was your four-channel work produced?  What
are the four channels?

Regards,
Martin
-- 
Martin J Leese
E-mail: martin.leese  stanfordalumni.org
Web: http://members.tripod.com/martin_leese/
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Richard]

I totally agree, any mention of MP3/WMA or any of the very lossy formats in the 
same breath as surround cannot be taken seriously.

Flac has done a sterling job, most people use it, and so far I've no 
complaints.

(oh, now what have I started  LOL)


Richard
  I dont know why FLAC and MP3 are mentioned in the same 
  sentence.  While FLAC is reckoned to be non-lossy (and certainly 
  seems to be so), MP3 is definitely lossy and I would personally not 
  expect a sursound file in that format to be worth listening to seriously.

  Just my two penn'oth...

  David

  ___
  Sursound mailing list
  Sursound@music.vt.edu
  https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound


  -
  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
  Version: 2012.0.1873 / Virus Database: 2101/4637 - Release Date: 11/24/11
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2025/b2c4c55e/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[David Pickett]

At 05:52 25/11/2011, Marinos Koutsomichalis wrote:

>I did some web-research and I think that the most common formats for
>that surround sound is mp3/flac and AAC

I dont know why FLAC and MP3 are mentioned in the same 
sentence.  While FLAC is reckoned to be non-lossy (and certainly 
seems to be so), MP3 is definitely lossy and I would personally not 
expect a sursound file in that format to be worth listening to seriously.


Just my two penn'oth...

David

___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Marinos Koutsomichalis]

quite a few ideas thus far.. 

but still I' m not quite sure about the most important issue: 
which is the most 'common' file-format for such things ?

CAFs and WAVs etc are not-considered because of their size.
Would sth like quicktime or VLC or Windows-Media-Player playback 4-channel 
Flacs or mp3-surround or whatever without any need for additional tweaking ???

I did some web-research and I think that the most common formats for that 
surround sound is mp3/flac and AAC 

I' ll make some test versions and see if it works out well

thanks

m


On 25 Nov 2011, at 13:41, Joseph Anderson wrote:

> Hello Marinos,
> 
> Doesn't the "label" (presumably a label?) have any preferences or advice?
> 
> If they are interested in online releases of surround sound works, I'd have 
> thought they might have some ideas.
> 
> If you've done your work in B-format, you could make several versions 
> available:
> 
> --quad
> --5.1
> --binaural
> --stereo
> 
> 
> All suitable for various listeners with varying circumstances.
> 
> 
> My best
> J Anderson
> 
> 
> On 25 Nov 2011, at 12:33 am, Marinos Koutsomichalis wrote:
> 
>> I was asked a 4-channel work for an online-release - I' m now trying to 
>> figure out what the best way to "release" it would be.. 
> 
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2025/648bddca/attachment.html>
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

--
Marinos Koutsomichalis
Music Research Center, University of York
Contemporary Music Research Centre (CMRC)
www.marinoskoutsomichalis.com
www.agxivatein.com
skype: marinosk_81












-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2025/83138571/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release

[Joseph Anderson]

Hello Marinos,

Doesn't the "label" (presumably a label?) have any preferences or advice?

If they are interested in online releases of surround sound works, I'd have 
thought they might have some ideas.

If you've done your work in B-format, you could make several versions available:

--quad
--5.1
--binaural
--stereo


All suitable for various listeners with varying circumstances.


My best
J Anderson


On 25 Nov 2011, at 12:33 am, Marinos Koutsomichalis wrote:

> I was asked a 4-channel work for an online-release - I' m now trying to 
> figure out what the best way to "release" it would be.. 

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2025/648bddca/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound