Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release
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
Michael Chapman s...@mchapman.com 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/side topic
Hi, Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 03:51:03 - From: John Lundsten john.lunds...@blueyonder.co.uk 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
Marinos Koutsomichalis mari...@agxivatein.com 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 hel...@ai.sri.com
Menlo Park, CA US
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release
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/side topic
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 06:05:44PM + Dave Hunt wrote: Hi, Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 03:51:03 - From: John Lundsten john.lunds...@blueyonder.co.uk 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/side topic
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: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2026/911fcfb3/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release
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 mari...@agxivatein.com 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 hel...@ai.sri.com
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:
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2026/99854f56/attachment.html
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release
'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: https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2026/ebe4df5d/attachment.html ___ Sursound mailing list Sursound@music.vt.edu https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release
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 mari...@agxivatein.com 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 mari...@agxivatein.com 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 hel...@ai.sri.com
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:
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/2026/99854f56/attachment.html
___ 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] online multichannel release
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 right)
Re: [Sursound] online multichannel release
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
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
