Le 2021-05-23 à 10 h 22, Stefan Schreiber a écrit :
> “So using the Ambix format in a CAF container with ALAC compression
is a good choice.”
> Seriously: Is a good choice for what?
Good for production, because Ambix is a recognized format, and maybe a
de-facto standard (without ALAC because it's not a working solution).
Distribution formats are at the end of the chain (and moving targets),
so the first concern is production.
What I'm looking for is a simple container for capture, production and
archival (but not for distribution). Ambix can be used to include custom
data for production and archival. Because Ambix is limited to audio I'm
also considering using the Matroska container; but containers are not
easy to configure to include special tracks (or "chunks"), in order to
interleave streams of continuous data (GPS, orientation, cues, etc).
Compression is nice for storage (and capture) but it's not essential
(except in some capture situations). WavPack already have more features
than FLAC, as a compression format and container. It'd be nice if
WavPack could be used with the CAF container (as suggested in the 2011
Ambix article), like with the Matroska container.
> Neither WavPack or ALAC are universally accepted formats, so you
could ask if “extended Flac” (normal adapation to changing realities
requires more than 8 channels) could be a better choice in the long-term.
Maybe? But WavPack is already a better fit than FLAC for Ambisonics use
cases (for example: Zylia chose it).
What I'd like is a "Matroskambix" or "Ambimkv" format! :-)
I also wonder if scientific formats like HDF5 could be used...
Marc
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound - unsubscribe here, edit
account or options, view archives and so on.
