Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Dear colleagues...

I take the opportunity to inform you about recent work at the MPEG, 
presenting updates and (by documents backed) official information.


1. 
http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2013/01.aspx#.UQVoNVK-Zkj


ITU-T’s Study Group 16 
 
has agreed first-stage approval (consent) of the much-anticipated 
standard known formally as Recommendation ITU-T H.265 or ISO/IEC 
23008-2. It is the product of collaboration between the ITU Video 
Coding Experts Group (VCEG) and the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts 
Group (MPEG).



ITU-T H.265 / ISO/IEC 23008-2 HEVC will provide a flexible, reliable 
and robust solution, future-proofed to support the next decade of 
video. The new standard is designed to take account of advancing 
screen resolutions and is expected to be phased in as high-end 
products and services outgrow the limits of current network and 
display technology.


Companies including ATEME, Broadcom, Cyberlink, Ericsson, Fraunhofer 
HHI, Mitsubishi and NHK have already showcased implementations of 
HEVC. The new standard includes a ‘Main’ profile that supports 8-bit 
4:2:0 video, a ‘Main 10’ profile with 10-bit support, and a ‘Main 
Still Picture’ profile for still image coding that employs the same 
coding tools as a video ‘intra’ picture.




The ITU/ISO/IEC Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding (JCT-VC) 
(formerly JVT) will continue work on a range of extensions to HEVC




2. Obviously, the future standard for 3D audio belongs to the same 
standard (or standard family) ISO/IEC 23008. The audio "part" is ISO/IEC 
23008-3, better known as MPEG-H part 3.



3. Here a "global" update on MPEG standard, presented by Leonardo 
Chiariglione himself. (Paper date: 26th June 2012)


http://www.ieee-bmsb2012.org/images/program/BMSB2012_Keynote_2_MPEG_standards_supporting_the_evolution_of_broadcast_media_Leonardo.pdf


Updates:

- p. 10 presents the intended timeline for the standardization process, 
including 3D audio.


New: We might have a bit more time than I have thought, which is good 
news. "CD" stands for committee draft. I guess they will start on the 
first working draft in Vienna, summer 2013. (I have posted the schedule 
of next MPEG meetings, within this thread.)


- p. 34ff: "No systems and video without audio"...

- p. 35-37: 3D audio requirements

Judge yourself if Ambisonics would fit to fulfill this requirement list. 
(A clear yes "here", if I have anyting to say about...)


- p. 38 "Envisioned architecture"

Ambisonics is actually included, as "audio scene" input into the first 
encoder.


BUT: This is still a very crude scheme, not anything eleaborated.

- The two "encoder" stages need some explication, or elaboration. I 
could imagine what they mean, more or less. However, as an acitectural 
diagram this is either a bit confused, or maybe "heavily underspecified".


- Indeed, the 500 bit/s for 3D audio seems to be a bit bit-starved, what 
Mr. Chiariglione actually seems to admit himself. (p. 42)


Parametric compression might achieve this rate, but how to reconcile 
this with the requirement list? ("quality of decoded sound 
perceptionally transparent"; note also that we are talking about UHD 
television and cinema audio, in this case, do it well?)


- The "64 kbit/s" stream to mobile phones/devices seems to be completely 
outfashioned, in a time of readiy available UMTS, HSPA , LTE etc.)


Stay at 128kbit/s or 256kbit/s, as anybody else in this industry? 
(Please don't be worse than any YouTube stream, ok? Just speaking for 
the new generation, which righteously expects some minimum quality over 
their handy earbuds...)


Nobody will listen to 3D audio on GSM phones, pretty safe bet.

"Smart phone TV" will be more like "video transmitted via Internet", 
"classical broadcast TV" probably included but hardly the main thing...



- p.39: "Immersive and enveloping audio expeience"

"Immersive" should mean "high quality", not "cheating" in a race for the 
lowest possible bitrate.



-Home theater: p. 41ff

The presented .AMB based proposal, 3rd horiz. /2nd vertical order (as 
option including 3 or 5 separate front speakers) seems to be 
sufficiently strong to be decoded to this "typical" but "high end" 
loudspeaker configuration.


Would also need significantly less transmission rate than 22.2, which 
seems to be a factor here. (Maybe they will take 1,5 MBit/s as upper 
rate limit, have a look at p. 42)



- p. 46: "Flexible rendering"


I leave the rest to your own interpretation, and good judgement. I hope 
there will be a little bit more support coming from this list, which is 
heavily involved into Ambisonics reasearch and practical implementation. 
And I fully believe that sursound is a very competent list/place...



Best regards,

Stefan Schreiber

P.S.: Further updates on the Shanghai and Genève meetings heavily 
needed, IMO.


Mr. Pallone et al., the CfP is issued by now, and it is time

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

I am apologizing for the HTML --> "plain text msg." formatting errors, I 
never seem to learn this. 





MPEG Surround was also defined as one of the MPEG-4 Audio Object 
Types 
 
in 2007.[8]  
There is also the MPEG-4 Low Delay MPEG Surround object type (LD MPEG 
Surround), which was published in 2010.[9] 
[10] 
 
The Spatial Audio Object Coding (SAOC) was published as MPEG-D Part 2 
- ISO/IEC 23003-2 in 2010 and it extends MPEG Surround standard by 
re-using its spatial rendering capabilities while retaining full 
compatibility with existing receivers. MPEG SAOC system allows users 
on the decoding side to interactively control the rendering of each 
individual audio object (e.g. individual instruments, vocals, human 
voices).[2] 
[3] 
[11] 
[12] 
[13] 
[14] 
[15] 
 There is 
also the Unified Speech and Audio Coding 
 (USAC) 
which will be defined in MPEG-D Part 3 - ISO/IEC 23003-3 and ISO/IEC 
14496-3:2009/Amd 3.[16] 
[17] 
 MPEG-D MPEG 
Surround parametric coding tools are integrated into the USAC 
codec.[18] 




Oops... You know what I mean, anyway!:-)

The rest was quite  legible, though...

Best,

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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Hi ...

Here some expert view on the "technical background", presented by some 
company in this area:


http://www.atsc.org/cms/pdf/pt2/07-Jean-Marc_Jot_3D_Audio.pdf

"Current state of the art".

Look for example to p. 6, "perceptual attributes that characterize 
natural, 3D-audio".


(and especially "proximity" and "depth". How good is HOA at that?!)

High-order Ambisonics is mentioned (interestingly together with 22.2, 
which is "fixed channel"; but should  play together very well with HOA!)


p. 10: "surround sound virtuzalization for headphones or frontal 
loudspeakers": the latter certainly based on X-talk cancellation, 
Ambiophonics style.



I am getting increasingly aware of recent work on MPEG SAOC (spacial 
audio object coding), also.


Moving Picture Experts Group 
 (MPEG) 
issued a call for proposals on MPEG Spatial Audio Coding in March 
2004. The group decided that the technology that would be the starting 
point in standardization process, would be a combination of the 
submissions from two proponents - Fraunhofer IIS / Agere Systems and 
Coding Technologies / Philips.[5] 



...

MPEG Surround was also defined as one of the MPEG-4 Audio Object Types 
 
in 2007.[8]  
There is also the MPEG-4 Low Delay MPEG Surround object type (LD MPEG 
Surround), which was published in 2010.[9] 
[10] 
 
The Spatial Audio Object Coding (SAOC) was published as MPEG-D Part 2 
- ISO/IEC 23003-2 in 2010 and it extends MPEG Surround standard by 
re-using its spatial rendering capabilities while retaining full 
compatibility with existing receivers. MPEG SAOC system allows users 
on the decoding side to interactively control the rendering of each 
individual audio object (e.g. individual instruments, vocals, human 
voices).[2] 
[3] 
[11] 
[12] 
[13] 
[14] 
[15] 
 There is 
also the Unified Speech and Audio Coding 
 (USAC) 
which will be defined in MPEG-D Part 3 - ISO/IEC 23003-3 and ISO/IEC 
14496-3:2009/Amd 3.[16] 
[17] 
 MPEG-D MPEG 
Surround parametric coding tools are integrated into the USAC 
codec.[18] 


Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_Surround


Now some recent AES "input":

http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=418

Because some of the established players are already presenting their own 
proposals (Fraunhofer Institut being very close to the MPEG/ISO anyway, 
because of standard-defining work on perceptional audio compression 
etc.), it might be a good strategy to define an open source 3D audio 
("next gen. surround sound") proposal based on Ambisonics/HOA - just 
forgetting the patent issues which might even not exist anyway. This 
open standard could be included into other standards - and last but not 
least - software and hardware products.


As nobody seems to "own" Ambisonics technology, I think an open source 
solution for 3D audio based on Ambisonics would fit well to Xiph.org and 
it's recent work on audio codecs/technology, including the newish "Opus" 
codec recognised by the IETF as official Internet audio standard.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_%28audio_format%29


If this makes sense or not, we have/had to look what happens elsewhere. 
My "political" view would be that HOA doesn't seem to have some big 
"lobby" at the MPEG/ISO, which might be biased heavily to parametric and 
object-based solutions, see MPEG-D part 1 and even more part 2...   

Now everybody should be confused including myself, after some serious 
"standard name dropping"  ... :-)



Best regards

Stefan

P.S.: USAC (Unified Speech and Audio Codec), part 3 of MPEG-D , could 
have a new and very powerful  competition in IETF's/Xiph's (free) Opus 
Codec.


Note that Opus includes some propietary technology for speech 
compression, which has been "gifted" by evil Microsoft.

Now M$ is a bit less evil...   Your view on this, Gregory?  ;-)



Gregory Maxwell wrote:


On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:
 


This is a t

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Fons Adriaensen]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 03:21:46PM +0100, Ronald C.F. Antony wrote:


> How so? FLAC has a different design objective than some of the commercial 
> lossless codecs.
> FLAC was intended mostly for "rippers", i.e. people who want to encode a lot 
> of CDs, and store them and play them back on computers, so a big emphasis was 
> encoding speed.
> 
> Other algorithms are designed for max. compression and are thus slower and 
> use more CPU but use less space. Others are optimized for minimal CPU use 
> during decompression, such as to be workable on low power CPUs in portable 
> devices.

Quoted from the FLAC documentation:

"FLAC is asymmetric in favor of decode speed. Decoding requires only
 integer arithmetic, and is much less compute-intensive than for most
 perceptual codecs. Real-time decode performance is easily achievable
 on even modest hardware." 

There is absolutely nothing in the documentation that suggests that
FLAC was "designed for rippers". OTOH it was designed to be streamable,
which suggest another type of use.

Ciao,

-- 
FA

A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)

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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Ronald C.F. Antony]

On 23 Jan 2013, at 02:53, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:

> P.S.: FLAC was the first widely used codec for lossless compression, so here 
> the commercial competition has a problem.

How so? FLAC has a different design objective than some of the commercial 
lossless codecs.
FLAC was intended mostly for "rippers", i.e. people who want to encode a lot of 
CDs, and store them and play them back on computers, so a big emphasis was 
encoding speed.

Other algorithms are designed for max. compression and are thus slower and use 
more CPU but use less space. Others are optimized for minimal CPU use during 
decompression, such as to be workable on low power CPUs in portable devices.

FLAC is but a choice, and not always the best one, from a technical point of 
view, even though it's free.

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4853 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Stefan Schreiber wrote:


Marc Lavallée wrote:




Remember that MPEG is creating proprietary, industrial and commercial
standards using lots of patents. How Ambisonics can co-exist?

--
Marc

 



citing my 1st  posting:


Dear colleagues...

I would like to remember everybody interested or already being 
involved that ITU/MPEG plan to define and issue some 3D audio standard 
(better: 3D audio standard framework) during this year. The 3D audio 
codec is meant to be part of the (wider) MPEG-H standard.


This all makes a lot of sense, 'cos ;-)   there is already some 
competition around:


...
(further down in the thread)

- The "object audio" proposals are all driven by the need to cope for 
many different loudspeaker layouts. This issue is no problem for 
Ambisonics/soundfields... 




You either apply to be part of MPEG-H or not, look to the thread topic.

In this context, your question

How Ambisonics can co-exist? 



doesn't make any sense, at least not within the topic of the thread.

In a wider "review":

IF (supposedly)  HOA (and formats based on this) is not patent-free, 
would you refuse HOA, independently of technical merit?


This is actually a fair counterquestion...

At this stage, the MPEG/ISO has issued a call for a 3D audio 
codec/environmeny, Ambisonics/HOA fits into the requirements. If you 
don't apply, another technology will make it anyway.


(This is the situation how it is. I had written this before. "Time is 
running out", at least at MPEG. To establish some open project is a 
completely different thing. But in this case there should be a new 
thread, and people on behalf of MPEG et al. should be banned to read, 
for undisclosured reasons...   O:-) )


Best,

Stefan

P.S.: It means Ambisonic/HOA has competition. And even almighty MPEG/ISO 
has some competition. (This is why I have mentioned Dolby, Barco, DTS, 
Xiph.org ...)





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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Marc Lavallée wrote:


Stefan, I was not stating that MPEG and ISO are evil. As a hobbyist, my
question is: how Ambisonics might be included in a standard format made
by the industry for the industry, that "everybody" would then have to
use if there are no viable (and simple) alternative appart from the AMB
format. I can only wait and see.
--
Marc
 



You don't have to use any standard. But I see that especially MPEG has 
defined standards which are used pretty everywhere, included in the 
freeish Android OS based on Linux and Java.


Clients wouldn't buy phones which don't support MP3 or AAC or AVC 
codecs, every single one is a MPEG standard.


You could replace these maybe with Vorbis/Opus/ or Daala video codec (to 
be defined), but sometimes the first solutions will stay because people 
don't bother.


But at least you see that I am informed about the free competition, if 
citing topics like Daala etc.  :-)


At first you need a real standard for 3D audio, I would say.

(Dolby Atmos won't do it for home use, UHD TV etc.)

Best,

Stefan

P.S.: FLAC was the first widely used codec for lossless compression, so 
here the commercial competition has a problem.

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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Marc Lavallée]

Stefan, I was not stating that MPEG and ISO are evil. As a hobbyist, my
question is: how Ambisonics might be included in a standard format made
by the industry for the industry, that "everybody" would then have to
use if there are no viable (and simple) alternative appart from the AMB
format. I can only wait and see.
--
Marc


Stefan Schreiber  a écrit :

> Marc Lavallée wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >Remember that MPEG is creating proprietary, industrial and commercial
> >standards using lots of patents. How Ambisonics can co-exist?
> >
> >--
> >Marc
> >
> >  
> >
> The MPEG is part of the International Standard Organisation (ISO), in 
> fact it was founded by both ISO and IEC.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iso
> 
> > ISO has 162 national members 
> > ,[2]
> >  
> >  out of the 
> > 205  total 
> > countries in the world.
> 
> 
> In this context, I absolutely don't understand what the term 
> "propietary" standard means. A standard has to be defined, and
> somebody has to be responcible. The ISO is an international
> organization formed by national standard committees.
> If I buy some lights (I even don't use the word lightbulb...), it is
> a good thing that these work in different countries, and there are no 
> mechanical problems if I want to install the. It is a good thing if 
> railway lines have the same width in different places countries,
> airport communications works everywhere with available equipment, etc.
> 
> 
> Respective to Mpeg, I greatly admire the work they have done for 
> video/TV etc. If you should have used "free" Divx;-) or x264, these
> are still based on MPEG's work. So what?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_Picture_Experts_Group
> 
> The direct forerunner was the Joint Photographic Experts Group. 
> Everybody uses their format, how it seems...
> 
> 
> Now, it seems to me that Ambisonics and MPEG audio easily could
> co-exist.
> 
> >Remember that MPEG is creating proprietary, industrial and commercial
> >standards using lots of patents.
> >
> 
> Propietary is actually wrong, because you can license ISO standards 
> under known terms.
> 
> ---
> But anyway, you are really not informed at all... Because the ISO is 
> issuing lots of open standards, which matter literally everywhere.
> 
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/
> 
> > ISO /IEC    JTC1 
> > /SC22
> > /WG21
> >  is the international
> > standardization working group for the programming language C++.
> 
> 
> Yeah, you never should use this programming language again.
> 
> But then, things might get even more complicated for you to avoid
> THEIR standads...
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29
> 
> > In 1989 the American National Standards Institute 
> >  
> > published a standard for C (generally called "ANSI C 
> > " or "C89"). The next year,
> > the same specification was approved by the International
> > Organization for Standardization 
> > 
> >  
> > as an international standard (generally called "C90"). ISO later 
> > released an extension to the internationalization 
> >  
> > support of the standard in 1995, and a revised standard (known as
> > "C99 ") in 1999. The current
> > version of the standard (now known as "C11 
> > ") was 
> > approved in December of 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you know what evil ANSI and evil ISO are, and maybe even you
> are using some stuff of these evil, commercial guys. This is hard to
> avoid. Even the bytecodes for text messages are coded in evil ANSI
> and ISO way, which proves my case.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Character_Set
> 
> > The International Organization for Standardization 
> > 
> >  
> > (ISO) set out to compose the universal character set in 1989
> 
> ...
> 
> Damned... The ISO Capitalists (or Communists?!) took over, and nobody 
> stopped them when it was time!
> 
> ;-)
> 
> 
> Bye,
> 
> Stefan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 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/sursou

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Michael Chapman]

> ...
>> Don't write about supposed patent trolls if your sources are "Forbes"
>> etc. (This is business press, they certainly don't have any real clue
>> about patents.)
>
> The article was written by the CEO of Article
> One Partners; she knows what she is talking
> about.
>
If self-(corporate)-promotion is what she was writing about, she
sure knows what she is talking about ;-)>
Just my impression ... but I'm not a Forbes reader, so perhaps
I misjudge.

M


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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Ok, the citings and links weren't presented in the desired form.

I guess this is because there was no clear ISO standard for HTML 
citings...(In fact, maybe this is because I was copying HTML to 
plain text format, forced by the sursound list owners to do so.  :-) )


Anyway, I am completely shocked that even HTML seems to be based on some 
ISO stuff.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Generalized_Markup_Language

HTML , XHTML 
, and XML 
 are all examples of SGML-based languages.


Shock, awe, trembling... O:-)

Good night,

Stefan



Stefan Schreiber wrote:


Marc Lavallée wrote:




Remember that MPEG is creating proprietary, industrial and commercial
standards using lots of patents. How Ambisonics can co-exist?

--
Marc

 

The MPEG is part of the International Standard Organisation (ISO), in 
fact it was founded by both ISO and IEC.



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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Marc Lavallée wrote:




Remember that MPEG is creating proprietary, industrial and commercial
standards using lots of patents. How Ambisonics can co-exist?

--
Marc

 

The MPEG is part of the International Standard Organisation (ISO), in 
fact it was founded by both ISO and IEC.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iso

ISO has 162 national members 
,[2] 
 out of the 
205  total 
countries in the world.



In this context, I absolutely don't understand what the term 
"propietary" standard means. A standard has to be defined, and somebody 
has to be responcible. The ISO is an international organization formed 
by national standard committees.
If I buy some lights (I even don't use the word lightbulb...), it is a 
good thing that these work in different countries, and there are no 
mechanical problems if I want to install the. It is a good thing if 
railway lines have the same width in different places countries, airport 
communications works everywhere with available equipment, etc.



Respective to Mpeg, I greatly admire the work they have done for 
video/TV etc. If you should have used "free" Divx;-) or x264, these are 
still based on MPEG's work. So what?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_Picture_Experts_Group

The direct forerunner was the Joint Photographic Experts Group. 
Everybody uses their format, how it seems...



Now, it seems to me that Ambisonics and MPEG audio easily could co-exist.


Remember that MPEG is creating proprietary, industrial and commercial
standards using lots of patents.



Propietary is actually wrong, because you can license ISO standards 
under known terms.


---
But anyway, you are really not informed at all... Because the ISO is 
issuing lots of open standards, which matter literally everywhere.


http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/

ISO /IEC    JTC1 
/SC22 /WG21 
 is the international 
standardization working group for the programming language C++.



Yeah, you never should use this programming language again.

But then, things might get even more complicated for you to avoid THEIR 
standads...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_%28programming_language%29

In 1989 the American National Standards Institute 
 
published a standard for C (generally called "ANSI C 
" or "C89"). The next year, the 
same specification was approved by the International Organization for 
Standardization 
 
as an international standard (generally called "C90"). ISO later 
released an extension to the internationalization 
 
support of the standard in 1995, and a revised standard (known as "C99 
") in 1999. The current version of 
the standard (now known as "C11 
") was 
approved in December of 2011.




So, now you know what evil ANSI and evil ISO are, and maybe even you are 
using some stuff of these evil, commercial guys. This is hard to avoid. 
Even the bytecodes for text messages are coded in evil ANSI and ISO way, 
which proves my case.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Character_Set

The International Organization for Standardization 
 
(ISO) set out to compose the universal character set in 1989


...

Damned... The ISO Capitalists (or Communists?!) took over, and nobody 
stopped them when it was time!


;-)


Bye,

Stefan




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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Marc Lavallée]

Stefan Schreiber  a écrit :

> >As for Java, it is now a free software and its
> >implementation for Android (Dalvik), is free too. 
> >
> Really?! Java is not free, unless you are referring (only) to the 
> programming language. (Libraries? VM?)

Hi Stephan.

The Java language and its specifications are free, the Gnu classes are
free, the Dalvik VM is free, and most of the Oracle (Sun)
implementation is free. That's not so bad.

> I was (obviously) aware of Ubuntu, Firefox OS etc.

Obviously.

> >Android is "open" for both the industry and the (tech savvy) users.
> >We can install our own software on tons of different Android devices.
> >Users can install free software without the Google Market app, using
> >the F-Droid app, or manually with apk packages.
> >
> 
> It doesn't work always, and therefore is a hack. (Because 
> manufacturers/providers try to lock the system.)

Apps from the F-Droid "market" works on many Android phones and
devices. Phones from providers can be "rooted" and reflashed, but I was
thinking more about other kinds of SoC devices that we can buy (and
proudly hack).

> Have you ever installed a "free Android update"?;-)

No. Do you mean free as beer?

> >My point is that it's possible to build
> >ambisonics players using cheap technologies with free software only;
> >there's maybe an opportunity to develop a parallel "industry" for
> >ambisonics content and delivery (I'm being naïve and idealistic).
> 
> I am abolutely in favour of this, "even" considering that a free3D
> audio codec could be developped without the MPEG, or say outside the
> MPEG.

Great!
 
> Currently, I try to evaluate what is happening...
>
> Best,
> 
> Stefan

Remember that MPEG is creating proprietary, industrial and commercial
standards using lots of patents. How Ambisonics can co-exist?

--
Marc

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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Martin Leese]

Stefan Schreiber wrote:
...
> Don't write about supposed patent trolls if your sources are "Forbes"
> etc. (This is business press, they certainly don't have any real clue
> about patents.)

The article was written by the CEO of Article
One Partners; she knows what she is talking
about.

...
>>..." a staggering 89% of all patents reviewed by the USPTO are judged
>>either partly or wholly invalid."
>
> Patent applications, right?

No, patents.  They are invalidated when prior
art is uncovered
.
...
> Anyway, I still have to hear which patents should apply to HOA...

I don't know of any.  MAG published the details
of HOA long ago, so the prior art is well
established.  What conceivably could be
patented is novel techniques for decoding (as
were Vienna decoders for first-order, and
Trifield for stereo).

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] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Marc Lavallée wrote:


Stefan Schreiber  a écrit :

 


The Android OS is "open", although not entirely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29#Licensing

 


Very closely controlled by Google, even if being based on Linux and
some (propietary) hack of Java?
   



Yes, developed and controlled by Google (because it owns the Android
copyright...). 




As for Java, it is now a free software and its
implementation for Android (Dalvik), is free too. 

Really?! Java is not free, unless you are referring (only) to the 
programming language. (Libraries? VM?)



Android is a big
step in the right direction (as least in terms of licensing). Google is
huge, but there are other free OSes based on Linux for phones and small
devices, that started long before Android. Also, Ubuntu is now
targeting the phone and tablet market (without using Java).
 



I was (obviously) aware of Ubuntu, Firefox OS etc.

 

Now I don't hate Android, but what about any Linux where you can't 
install your own software? This is supposedly  "open"?   Not entirely 
open? (Laughing...)


(Answer: "Open" for the industry, not user. )
   



Android is "open" for both the industry and the (tech savvy) users. We
can install our own software on tons of different Android devices.
Users can install free software without the Google Market app, using
the F-Droid app, or manually with apk packages.
 



It doesn't work always, and therefore is a hack. (Because 
manufacturers/providers try to lock the system.)


Have you ever installed a "free Android update"?;-)

 


The Replicant OS is a fork of Android, using only free software
(except from some bootloaders and drivers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant_%28operating_system%29
 



Most mainstream phones work with non-free drivers and bootloaders, but
there are some phones and SoC (system on a chip) devices that are
providing free drivers. 



From "most" to "some" phones, but if I think on which Android is based 
it looks like an accident.:-)



My point is that it's possible to build
ambisonics players using cheap technologies with free software only;
there's maybe an opportunity to develop a parallel "industry" for
ambisonics content and delivery (I'm being naïve and idealistic).
 



I am abolutely in favour of this, "even" considering that a free3D audio 
codec could be developped without the MPEG, or say outside the MPEG.


Currently, I try to evaluate what is happening...


Best,

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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Marc Lavallée]

Stefan Schreiber  a écrit :

> >The Android OS is "open", although not entirely:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29#Licensing
> >  
> 
> Very closely controlled by Google, even if being based on Linux and
> some (propietary) hack of Java?

Yes, developed and controlled by Google (because it owns the Android
copyright...). As for Java, it is now a free software and its
implementation for Android (Dalvik), is free too. Android is a big
step in the right direction (as least in terms of licensing). Google is
huge, but there are other free OSes based on Linux for phones and small
devices, that started long before Android. Also, Ubuntu is now
targeting the phone and tablet market (without using Java).

> Now I don't hate Android, but what about any Linux where you can't 
> install your own software? This is supposedly  "open"?   Not entirely 
> open? (Laughing...)
> 
> (Answer: "Open" for the industry, not user. )

Android is "open" for both the industry and the (tech savvy) users. We
can install our own software on tons of different Android devices.
Users can install free software without the Google Market app, using
the F-Droid app, or manually with apk packages.

> >The Replicant OS is a fork of Android, using only free software
> >(except from some bootloaders and drivers):
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant_%28operating_system%29

Most mainstream phones work with non-free drivers and bootloaders, but
there are some phones and SoC (system on a chip) devices that are
providing free drivers. My point is that it's possible to build
ambisonics players using cheap technologies with free software only;
there's maybe an opportunity to develop a parallel "industry" for
ambisonics content and delivery (I'm being naïve and idealistic).

> Well, if speaking about patents, the world's top innovators are 
> companies like IBM et al. Samsung files far more patents than Apple
> and Google, BTW. The latters earn their money mostly via software -
> patents never were decisive.

True.

> Don't write about supposed patent trolls if your sources are "Forbes" 
> etc. (This is business press, they certainly don't have any real clue 
> about patents.)

True, I don't have a patent to write on this forum... ;-) The patenting
system is crucial to the business world, so my bet is that Forbes knows
enough about it. The article is citing sources. 

> I don't care about Apple's litigation problems. (They had many
> patents cancelled, recently. I know this for sure. )

Apple is enforcing its patents as much as it can; it's scary enough.

> >..."small and midsize companies with less than $1 billion in revenues
> >now constitute 90% of the unique defendants in patent troll suits.
> >Firms with less than $100 million in revenue represent 66% of the
> >defendants."
> >  
> >
> Yeah. If everybody who comes is a "troll", you feel confirmed when
> you never pay.

There are a few legitimate patents, and some are even filled to protect
ideas from trolls, for the public interest. Invalidating patents is of
course the other way to protect public interest (see www.pubpat.org)

> >..." a staggering 89% of all patents reviewed by the USPTO are judged
> >either partly or wholly invalid."
> >  
> 
> Patent applications, right?

11% of applications were accepted after reexamination; the patent
system is a gigantic litigation industry. It drains a lot of energy.
 
> >The "next generation surround" is anything we want, but I hope that
> >ambisonics will stay patent free.
> 
> Now, this also doesn't make real sense to me. Either the patents have 
> been filed in the past and stay valid, or not.

Patents are expiring. Like any manufactured product with a shelf life.

> To claim that the original Ambisonics patents were applied by patent 
> trolls is what some people would like to hear, but I beg to differ.  
> They weren't trolls...  :-D

No, they were not trolls, but their patents seemed useless. Maybe
someone can explain how patents actually helped Ambisonics, and it will
help in the future.

> Anyway, I still have to hear which patents should apply to HOA...
> (Maybe there are some, but it is better to know any real facts than
> to talk about patent trolls and FUD issues at night-time)

Here's a good start for your search:
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=pts&q=ambisonics

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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Dave Malham wrote:


Hi Stefan,

   I doubt if B+ would meet the currently perceived needs of cinema
surround mixers/producers since it does not have the ability to go
"discrete". B++ might be enough - that's first order + 5.1 (I just
made that up :-)). A better option would be at least third order,
preferably fifth -  to get the most bang for buck - but to fit in the
22.2 channels that seem to be coming over the horizon fast, maybe
fourth would work better in terms of channel count.

 

Just some further ideas, open for some discussion, and meant to obtain 
some possible .AMB or HOA based 3D audio standard... ;-)


- For cinema 3D audio, you certainly could apply some mixed order 
approach, using a lower vertical order than horizontal order. You save  
a lot of channels...


Without mixed orders: 4th order needs 25 channels, above 22.2 channel count.

However: Current cinema 3D layouts don't use more than 3 levels! This 
would imply that you could use 2nd order for the vertical components, 
because any higher (vertical) order can't be resolved.


Even this might be overkill:

a) Dolby Atmos seems to have only 2 levels.

b) 22.2  has three levels, but one  is  "below surface". Also in this 
case,  a 1st order  vertical component looks to be sufficient.  
(Negative elevation, "zero elevation", upper ring.)


c) Auro-3D has  three "positive" levels. But the highest level is just 
some over-the-head/"voice of god" loudspeaker. Again, 1st order for the 
vertical component(s) seems probably adequate.


-

Now, if 2nd order "vertical component" is enough FAPP:

You easily fit even 6th order horzinal / 2nd order vertical "B format" 
(doesn't exist, ok) into 22.2 channels.


13 (horizontal 6th order) + 4 (vertical 2nd order) + (optional) up to 5 
discreet front channels + 2 LFE channels fit into... 21.2. (Fill up one 
channel with silence, if this mattered... I won't claim any patent for 
this decisive idea!:-) )


("Naive" 4th order was 25 channels, so probably 27 because of two 
additional LFE channels...)


Of course I was planning to use some mixed order approach anyway, but 
here anybody could see how channels can be saved. (You can cut channels 
if nobody can hear them after decoding. Or let us assume that there is 
no advantage in using components for which the loudspeaker 
configuration  would be underspecified... If you < can > hear a 
difference, the result of higher orders decoded to some undespecified 
array should be worse, not better.)



I don't think that any .AMB or HOA format would have to fit into 22.2, 
anyway... I just wanted to demonstrate that you could use even 6th order 
within a still acceptable (global) channel number count. If we are 
admitting that all existing cinema 3D audio layouts will have about 2-3 
levels. Maybe 4, but not more.



Anyway, my current "standard proposal"  would (still) be to use the 
"classical" 3rd/2nd mixed order .AMB format, extended with 2 LFE 
channels and (optionally) 3-5 front channels (direct channels).


This is about 13-16 channels, which seems to be ok. (For home and 
"mobile" use, 3rd oder horizontal/1st order vertical fits into 8 
channels, if the 8-channel limit still matters.)


Up for discussion:

- The sweet spot of any soundfield based approach for cinema audio 
should be equal or superior to 5.1.  Can 3rd order .AMB deliver this 
requirement?
(To compare, it might make sense to add the 3 to 5 "direct" front 
speakers, as I have proposed before. B format would refer to a 3rd order 
or mixed order - say 3rd/2nd order - soundfield. Compared to the 
original B+ format, we also have now 3 or 5 direct front channels, and 2 
LFE channels.)


- Could you further improve the decoding techniques for 2nd/3rd order 
soundfields, based on perceptional ideas (like 1st order 
Ambisonics/FOA), and/or via blind source separation algorithms (i.e. 
Harpex)?


- If so, do we really need anything above 3rd order? (But 4th, 5th and 
6th order can be done, even within 22.2 channels. Which has been 
demonstrated before,)



Best regards,

Stefan

P.S.: To my best knowledge, it is not so clear how the best perceptional 
decoding strategies for 2nd or 3rd order Ambisonics should look like. 
Feedback welcome...


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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Marc Lavallée wrote:


Stefan Schreiber  a écrit :

 


If it < doesn't >  cost to include AVC and AAC into web
browsers/plugins etc., maybe it is/was about Open Source principles?
(Any discussion leads to nothing, because I tend to see this in a
pragmatic way. For others it is about "open lifestyle". The same
people still buy an iPhone or an Android phone, both OS environments
definitively not "open". Linux admittedly is.)
   



The Android OS is "open", although not entirely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29#Licensing
 



Very closely controlled by Google, even if being based on Linux and some 
(propietary) hack of Java?


Now I don't hate Android, but what about any Linux where you can't 
install your own software? This is supposedly  "open"?   Not entirely 
open? (Laughing...)


(Answer: "Open" for the industry, not user. )


The Replicant OS is a fork of Android, using only free software
(except from some bootloaders and drivers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant_%28operating_system%29

 


In any case, we probably agree. The difference is that I don't
believe that in this case patents will matter a lot.
IF there will be some 3D audio patent fee, it will be for handset 
makers/headpone makers etc. But don't worry about Apple or Samsung,

they won't die.
   



It does matter; there must be ways to promote and use ambisonics without
playing the games of Apple, Google, Samsung, MPEG LA and other patent
trollers.  Here's an interesting article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/11/15/a-powerful-new-weapon-against-patent-trolls/
Quotes:
"Apple and Google, the world’s two top innovators, now spend more on
patents and patent litigation than on research and development."
 



Well, if speaking about patents, the world's top innovators are 
companies like IBM et al. Samsung files far more patents than Apple and 
Google, BTW. The latters earn their money mostly via software - patents 
never were decisive.


Don't write about supposed patent trolls if your sources are "Forbes" 
etc. (This is business press, they certainly don't have any real clue 
about patents.)


I don't care about Apple's litigation problems. (They had many patents 
cancelled, recently. I know this for sure. )




..."small and midsize companies with less than $1 billion in revenues
now constitute 90% of the unique defendants in patent troll suits.
Firms with less than $100 million in revenue represent 66% of the
defendants."
 

Yeah. If everybody who comes is a "troll", you feel confirmed when you 
never pay.



..." a staggering 89% of all patents reviewed by the USPTO are judged
either partly or wholly invalid."
 



Patent applications, right?

 

The IETF or Xiph.org would probably demand something completely 
patent-free. Think that the "next generation surround" is something

like MP3 or DD+. The first codec is an MPEG standard, the second is
owned by Dolby. By any interpretation or say "standard" :-) , MP3 is
more open than DD+. (Known technological base.)
   



The "next generation surround" is anything we want, but I hope that
ambisonics will stay patent free.

--
Marc
 



Now, this also doesn't make real sense to me. Either the patents have 
been filed in the past and stay valid, or not.


To claim that the original Ambisonics patents were applied by patent 
trolls is what some people would like to hear, but I beg to differ.  
They weren't trolls...  :-D


Anyway, I still have to hear which patents should apply to HOA... (Maybe 
there are some, but it is better to know any real facts than to talk 
about patent trolls and FUD issues at night-time)


Best,

Stefan

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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Marc Lavallée]

Stefan Schreiber  a écrit :

> If it < doesn't >  cost to include AVC and AAC into web
> browsers/plugins etc., maybe it is/was about Open Source principles?
> (Any discussion leads to nothing, because I tend to see this in a
> pragmatic way. For others it is about "open lifestyle". The same
> people still buy an iPhone or an Android phone, both OS environments
> definitively not "open". Linux admittedly is.)

The Android OS is "open", although not entirely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29#Licensing

The Replicant OS is a fork of Android, using only free software
(except from some bootloaders and drivers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicant_%28operating_system%29

> In any case, we probably agree. The difference is that I don't
> believe that in this case patents will matter a lot.
> IF there will be some 3D audio patent fee, it will be for handset 
> makers/headpone makers etc. But don't worry about Apple or Samsung,
> they won't die.

It does matter; there must be ways to promote and use ambisonics without
playing the games of Apple, Google, Samsung, MPEG LA and other patent
trollers.  Here's an interesting article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/11/15/a-powerful-new-weapon-against-patent-trolls/
Quotes:
"Apple and Google, the world’s two top innovators, now spend more on
patents and patent litigation than on research and development."
..."small and midsize companies with less than $1 billion in revenues
now constitute 90% of the unique defendants in patent troll suits.
Firms with less than $100 million in revenue represent 66% of the
defendants."
..." a staggering 89% of all patents reviewed by the USPTO are judged
either partly or wholly invalid."

> The IETF or Xiph.org would probably demand something completely 
> patent-free. Think that the "next generation surround" is something
> like MP3 or DD+. The first codec is an MPEG standard, the second is
> owned by Dolby. By any interpretation or say "standard" :-) , MP3 is
> more open than DD+. (Known technological base.)

The "next generation surround" is anything we want, but I hope that
ambisonics will stay patent free.

--
Marc

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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:


On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:
 


This is a typical FUD approach presentend by the competition.
If I have anything to say about, I'd say that any Ambisonis based approach
would be "patent-light", iof not patent-free.
   



You confirm precisely the concern I raised: The result would likely be
a royalty bearing format. How can you accuse me of FUD while
concurrently affirming the concern I raised?
 

Gregory, I just was recognising that you are actually not working at 
Orange, because this is another person...   :-[  


I am fully apologizing!

If we are talking about Xiph.org etc., you are exactly the person who 
should address concerns about IP questions.


IMO, the patent issues are not very heavy. But I don't know enoug about.

One hint: If we speak about surround headphones (with or without head 
tracking), the sweet spot is ead-sized, In this case, 1st order 
Ambisonics might be adequate to reproduce a 3D audio soundfield. (I am 
just a bit concerned about high frquencies, though...)


In  this case there are no patent issues involved, at least not with the 
file format and Internet transmission. (And maybe this is what Xiph.org 
et al should care about. Internet, codec and software questions.)



Best regards,

Stefan



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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:


On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:
 


This is a typical FUD approach presentend by the competition.
If I have anything to say about, I'd say that any Ambisonis based approach
would be "patent-light", iof not patent-free.
   



You confirm precisely the concern I raised: The result would likely be
a royalty bearing format. How can you accuse me of FUD while
concurrently affirming the concern I raised?
 



Sorry, I didn't want to be "personal". I trust persons, but I don't 
trust companies. Is this statement "ok" for you?



If people believe there is a market for ambisonic distribution which
has less than lossless quality but only if the bitrate is low enough
then the parties who would profit from that should cooperate to
produce a royalty free format so that their success will not be
saddled with additional friction which will keep ambisonics in a
niche. AAC + mpeg surround licensing costs over $1 decoder unit— to be
added on top of the additional hardware costs (more DSP cpu cycles)
required. Because the market for this technology barely exists the
licensing costs could quite possibly keep it in a non-existing state.
I think surround advocates would very much like it if support ended up
in everything because the cost of doing so is only a modest hardware
bump and some one time integration and testing costs. Per-unit
royalties or even just the cost of negotiating a flat rate license
strongly discourage deployment.
 



Don't want to sound rude (again...), but I think this is a 
pseudo-problem. Surround headphones and "many speakers" for 3D audio 
will cost a bit more than normal headphones and 5.1 speakers (in cinemas 
you have a lot of speakers anyway...), so there will be some price 
increase. Undisclosured licensing fees if they exist don't seem to be 
the main cost factor, IMHO.


Interest the people in doing something "cool", don't think about the 
pennies or few dollars for some patent, which < might > be involved. (3D 
audio and "real surround" has to fit to movies/games etc.)


People have just been very interested in 4K and/or OLED panels (CES), 
which currently are outrageously expensive. But prices will come down, 
like always. Talking about cinema surround and new headphones, I would 
say the involved costs don't look prohibitive as long as you see/hear 
results and don't end with 10+ different standards. (Iosono - as a 
company - seems to do quite well, and WFS doesn't seem to be cheap.)


Dolby Atmos and Auro-3D are also not IP or patent-free, just to remember.



In some markets like support in web browsers or in Free software which
are distributed at no direct cost any royalty at all is a major or
absolute barrier.
 



This is why only MP3/AAC and AVC are universally supported? May this be 
Firefox/IE/Chrome/Safari,  or the still widely used Flash-plugin...


Also not "personal", but I am increasingly getting tired of all these 
"we need some free codec" discussions. Theora is outfashioned.WebM never 
made it because AVC is simply better, and seems to be free completelty 
for personal use. (And after all the FUD from certain circles...)


If it < doesn't >  cost to include AVC and AAC into web browsers/plugins 
etc., maybe it is/was about Open Source principles? (Any discussion 
leads to nothing, because I tend to see this in a pragmatic way. For 
others it is about "open lifestyle". The same people still buy an iPhone 
or an Android phone, both OS environments definitively not "open". Linux 
admittedly is.)



I think it would be irrational for anyone who wants there to be a
market for this to contribute to the development of a royalty bearing
effort. You may disagree, but I still do not think it should be a
concern which goes without mention. If pointing to an elephant in the
room makes me guilty of FUD then so be it.
 



I agree to use as few patents as possible. But I don't agree to avoid 
some patent which might improve things a lot if you save just the 
mentioned "pennies". Do we want some open standard or the best standard?
Inventions are supposed to improve things. After this I have to care for 
licensed, open and hidden costs etc.


But if I am at this point: The MPEG is introducing standards which are 
supposed to be "best in class". (see HEVC)
Consequently, I don't think they care a lot if patents are included. On 
the other hand, Mpeg codecs seem to have some track record to be 
reasonably priced, otherwise they wouldn't be used everywhere.


 


P.S.: 1st order Ambisonics should be patent-free, nowadays.
Higher orders can't be "overpatented", because the theory behind is quite
old. Certainly more than 20 years back...
   



Yes, they are _now_. 



If so, there is competition, and IP owners certainly can't charge 
whatever they want. (As a patent holder, you want your patent actually 
to be applied. )



I think it would be a shame to revert ambisonics
back to the bad— harder to deploy— state where including support for
the

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Ron Carpenter]

From: Gregory Maxwell 
To: Surround Sound discussion group  
Sent: Monday, 21 January 2013 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, 
MPEG/ITU style...

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:
> This is a typical FUD approach presentend by the competition.
> If I have anything to say about, I'd say that any Ambisonis based approach
> would be "patent-light", iof not patent-free.

You confirm precisely the concern I raised: The result would likely be
a royalty bearing format. How can you accuse me of FUD while
concurrently affirming the concern I raised?

If people believe there is a market for ambisonic distribution which
has less than lossless quality but only if the bitrate is low enough
then the parties who would profit from that should cooperate to
produce a royalty free format so that their success will not be
saddled with additional friction which will keep ambisonics in a
niche. AAC + mpeg surround licensing costs over $1 decoder unit— to be
added on top of the additional hardware costs (more DSP cpu cycles)
required. Because the market for this technology barely exists the
licensing costs could quite possibly keep it in a non-existing state.
I think surround advocates would very much like it if support ended up
in everything because the cost of doing so is only a modest hardware
bump and some one time integration and testing costs. Per-unit
royalties or even just the cost of negotiating a flat rate license
strongly discourage deployment.

In some markets like support in web browsers or in Free software which
are distributed at no direct cost any royalty at all is a major or
absolute barrier.

I think it would be irrational for anyone who wants there to be a
market for this to contribute to the development of a royalty bearing
effort. You may disagree, but I still do not think it should be a
concern which goes without mention. If pointing to an elephant in the
room makes me guilty of FUD then so be it.

> P.S.: 1st order Ambisonics should be patent-free, nowadays.
> Higher orders can't be "overpatented", because the theory behind is quite
> old. Certainly more than 20 years back...

Yes, they are _now_. I think it would be a shame to revert ambisonics
back to the bad— harder to deploy— state where including support for
the distribution format required unfortunate per-unit or
per-organization royalties and burdensome license negotiation.

> P.S. 2: And I for my part didn't patent "Ambisonics of order >=2 + front
> channels"...    Promised!  :-D

Thank you for not being personally evil. :P
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound


From R Carpenter Australia

   Microsoft 1998 , Speaker configuration for WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE ...still 
applicable?
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130120/49e0f363/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:
> This is a typical FUD approach presentend by the competition.
> If I have anything to say about, I'd say that any Ambisonis based approach
> would be "patent-light", iof not patent-free.

You confirm precisely the concern I raised: The result would likely be
a royalty bearing format. How can you accuse me of FUD while
concurrently affirming the concern I raised?

If people believe there is a market for ambisonic distribution which
has less than lossless quality but only if the bitrate is low enough
then the parties who would profit from that should cooperate to
produce a royalty free format so that their success will not be
saddled with additional friction which will keep ambisonics in a
niche. AAC + mpeg surround licensing costs over $1 decoder unit— to be
added on top of the additional hardware costs (more DSP cpu cycles)
required. Because the market for this technology barely exists the
licensing costs could quite possibly keep it in a non-existing state.
I think surround advocates would very much like it if support ended up
in everything because the cost of doing so is only a modest hardware
bump and some one time integration and testing costs. Per-unit
royalties or even just the cost of negotiating a flat rate license
strongly discourage deployment.

In some markets like support in web browsers or in Free software which
are distributed at no direct cost any royalty at all is a major or
absolute barrier.

I think it would be irrational for anyone who wants there to be a
market for this to contribute to the development of a royalty bearing
effort. You may disagree, but I still do not think it should be a
concern which goes without mention. If pointing to an elephant in the
room makes me guilty of FUD then so be it.

> P.S.: 1st order Ambisonics should be patent-free, nowadays.
> Higher orders can't be "overpatented", because the theory behind is quite
> old. Certainly more than 20 years back...

Yes, they are _now_. I think it would be a shame to revert ambisonics
back to the bad— harder to deploy— state where including support for
the distribution format required unfortunate per-unit or
per-organization royalties and burdensome license negotiation.

> P.S. 2: And I for my part didn't patent "Ambisonics of order >=2 + front
> channels"...Promised!   :-D

Thank you for not being personally evil. :P
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:


On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:
 


Dear colleagues...

I would like to remember everybody interested or already being involved that
ITU/MPEG plan to define and issue some 3D audio standard (better: 3D audio
standard framework) during this year. The 3D audio codec is meant to be part
of the (wider) MPEG-H standard.
   



Will the working group be creating a preference for a royalty free
format— or will is be the normal RAND terms?

Excessive patent encumbrances appears to be one of the things which
originally blocked the deployment of B-format— and I don't see the
situation as being any different today.  Getting people deploy the
hardware for good surround is enough of a barrier without the added
cost of per-unit pricing and the resulting incompatibilities created
by a failure to converge on a single standard.

I strongly encourage anyone here looking to contribute to such a
standards effort to decline to participate unless some effort is made
to produce a result which is royalty free.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
 



The MPEG works always on RAND terms. Think of AAC, MP3, evrything ...



Excessive patent encumbrances appears to be one of the things which
originally blocked the deployment of B-format— and I don't see the
situation as being any different today. 



This is a typical FUD approach presentend by the competition.

If I have anything to say about, I'd say that any Ambisonis based 
approach would be "patent-light", iof not patent-free.


This is a non-issue, I would say.

But it would be nice to know that Orange and FT don't want to include 
too much own IP into the new standard...:-)



Best,

Stefan Schreiber

P.S.: 1st order Ambisonics should be patent-free, nowadays.

Higher orders can't be "overpatented", because the theory behind is 
quite old. Certainly more than 20 years back...


P.S. 2: And I for my part didn't patent "Ambisonics of order >=2 + front 
channels"...Promised!   :-D



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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:
> Dear colleagues...
>
> I would like to remember everybody interested or already being involved that
> ITU/MPEG plan to define and issue some 3D audio standard (better: 3D audio
> standard framework) during this year. The 3D audio codec is meant to be part
> of the (wider) MPEG-H standard.

Will the working group be creating a preference for a royalty free
format— or will is be the normal RAND terms?

Excessive patent encumbrances appears to be one of the things which
originally blocked the deployment of B-format— and I don't see the
situation as being any different today.  Getting people deploy the
hardware for good surround is enough of a barrier without the added
cost of per-unit pricing and the resulting incompatibilities created
by a failure to converge on a single standard.

I strongly encourage anyone here looking to contribute to such a
standards effort to decline to participate unless some effort is made
to produce a result which is royalty free.
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Dave Malham wrote:


Hi Stefan,

   I doubt if B+ would meet the currently perceived needs of cinema
surround mixers/producers since it does not have the ability to go
"discrete". B++ might be enough - that's first order + 5.1 (I just
made that up :-)).


:-)

I also fear(ed) that 5.1 + FOA ("B++") won't make it...8-)


A better option would be at least third order,
preferably fifth -  to get the most bang for buck - but to fit in the
22.2 channels that seem to be coming over the horizon fast, maybe
fourth would work better in terms of channel count.
 



Ok. But you don't have to "fit" into any channel count! We are just 
talking about several (few) new file formats?!


Auro-3D is 11.1, so you have another format. (You have to decode 
Ambisonics anyway, and also any object-based approach.)



I don't, personally, think that first order is a good choice for
cinema for anything other than home use. It certainly can be pressed
into use for large areas (been there, done that, got not just the T
shirt but the entire wardrobe) but it would really struggle in
anything other than the smaller art cinemas.


This was my question, so this one is  < maybe > answered.

However, I believe it is helpful to start with the most basic approach, 
and you/we will see < why > you would need a higher order approach.


The MPEG won't look into these issues, all the standardization process 
is very much fast-track. (Necessary discussions have to happen 
somewhere, so... ;-) )



The biggest limitation to
the whole thing is the availability of higher order microphones,
though Eigenmikes are becoming more widely available and one can hope
that Peter Craven's new ideas
(http://www.findaphd.com/search/ProjectDetails.aspx?PJID=40193) pan
out and give us at least a good second order microphone.  However, if
you are constructing the soundscapes entirely from scratch, such
considerations do not really matter - in fact, to that end, improving
the use of spot microphones to generate convincing, realistic higher
order recordings is probably at least as important.
 



They will mix cinema sound from  track, don't worry too much about 
Eigenmikes... 


On audio objects and where they should be mixed in, I have some
sympathy with your point that they should only be used in the studio
but in purely practical terms (and, again, only really for non-home
use) they can be very useful at the decoding stage where you are
dealing with very irregular arrays, so don't rule them out.
 



But this was/is the other issued which needed (needs...) some serious 
discussion.


Thanks for the feedback,

Stefan



On 20 January 2013 04:11, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:


Reading back, and evaluating...

http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/005/384/Miles_Fulwider_Thesis.pdf

I believe B+ "classic" could serve as a convincing "1st" proposal for a
sound-field based 3D cinema audio system.  (And therefore, as a general
surround format).

The very obvious changes "could"/would be:

- You have at least 3 front channels behind the screen (up to 5 in Dolby
Atmos), not 2

- Which Ambisonics order would you need for cinema use? Might even 1st order
suffice (provided there is a "direct"/precise front)

- LFE channel(s) should (probably) be treated in a simple
channel-loudspeaker "configuration", such as the front channels. (You also
could code an "LFE soundfield", B format style. Or you don't code LFE at all
- but we are talking about cinema use, in which case LFE seems to matter.)

- If using a sound field approach, you would not want to mix soundfields
this with audio objects at rendering time. (Rather, use audio objects in the
studio. Mixing stage, not decoding stage...)

- The "object audio" proposals are all driven by the need to cope for many
different loudspeaker layouts. This issue is no problem for
Ambisonics/soundfields...
(Could say much more about this point, but it is too late, and why should
I... :-)  )


Best,

Stefan Schreiber




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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Svein Berge]

>  is sufficient for all uses

that was supposed to read… "is not sufficient for all uses"… 

Svein

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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Svein Berge]

Hello all,

Since I've been named I guess a quick comment might be in order. Of course, 
Dave is correct about the potential for artifacts of bss algorithms and that 
means that a single first-order b-format stream is sufficient for all uses, 
even with upsampling and whatnot. More channels are required to fully harness 
large loudspeaker arrays, and the main options on the table are then to add 
direct loudspeaker channels, vbap-panned audio objects or higher order 
ambisonics. Another option exists, using the mentioned bss-related methods that 
I have some interest in, so I'll throw it out there:

If the audio material is distributed as several 1st order b-format streams, 
each having only a small number of sound sources, then any bss-related 
artifacts can be limited below any chosen level, limited only by the number of 
available channels. This assumes that each stream is decoded separately with a 
parametric decoder. You would for example put dialogue on a separate b-format 
stream. Center-positioned speech would then decode to the center speaker only, 
which is a basic requirement. Since audio tracks are typically downmixed from a 
multitude of tracks anyway, the need of downmixing to a handful of b-format 
streams shouldn't affect the workflow of sound designers much. Once suitable 
streams for the highest-quality targeted systems are created, it would be 
trivially simple to downmix them to a suitable number of b-format streams for 
lower-quality media intended for smaller loudspeaker arrays.

Cheers,

Svein

> From: Dave Malham 
> Subject: Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, 
> MPEG/ITU style...
> Date: 20. januar 2013 17:53:31 GMT+01:00
> To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> Reply-To: Surround Sound discussion group 
> 
> 
> Hi Jo,
> To some extent, yes, but only if you are working with material
> which can tolerate the artefacts that blind source separation
> algorithms will, sooner or later - and usually sooner - generate. Such
> algorithms, including those in Harpex, are getting much better (I can
> remember hearing some really terrible earlier attempts) but, so far
> anyway, it is always possible to find some material that will screw
> them up.  There are two factors which will reduce this as time goes on
> - the continuing improvements in the technology and the fact that much
> of the audience these days have perceptions that are so screwed up by
> listening to compressed audio that maybe the artefacts maybe won't be
> heard by them anyway :-)
> 
>  All the best
>   Dave
> 
> 
> On 20 January 2013 11:58, Joseph Anderson  wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>> 
>> I'll throw in...
>> 
>> 
>> On 20 Jan 2013, at 9:02 am, Dave Malham  wrote:
>> 
>>> The biggest limitation to
>>> the whole thing is the availability of higher order microphones,
>> 
>> Actually, as we've heard, upsampling from a 1st order mic can give very good 
>> results. Svein Berge's Harpex (http://www.harpex.net) is available as a 
>> plugin... which means the production path open.
>> 
>> 
>>> though Eigenmikes are becoming more widely available and one can hope
>>> that Peter Craven's new ideas
>>> (http://www.findaphd.com/search/ProjectDetails.aspx?PJID=40193) pan
>>> out and give us at least a good second order microphone.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It'll be great to see 'native' HOA mics on the market
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> My best,
>> Jo
>> 
>> ~~
>> Joseph Anderson
>> 
>> Artist: http://joseph-anderson.org
>> Ambisonic Toolkit:  http://ambisonictoolkit.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: 
>> <https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130120/c61fd3dc/attachment.html>
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this
> disclaimer is redundant
> 
> 
> These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
> 
> Dave Malham
> Ex-Music Research Centre
> Department of Music
> The University of York
> Heslington
> York YO10 5DD
> UK
> 
> 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/private/sursound/attachments/20130120/62a198bd/attachment.html>
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Joseph Anderson]

Hence the discussion re MPEG...!

;-)



On 20 Jan 2013, at 4:53 pm, Dave Malham  wrote:

> Hi Jo,
> To some extent, yes, but only if you are working with material
> which can tolerate the artefacts that blind source separation
> algorithms will, sooner or later - and usually sooner - generate. Such
> algorithms, including those in Harpex, are getting much better (I can
> remember hearing some really terrible earlier attempts) but, so far
> anyway, it is always possible to find some material that will screw
> them up.  There are two factors which will reduce this as time goes on
> - the continuing improvements in the technology and the fact that much
> of the audience these days have perceptions that are so screwed up by
> listening to compressed audio that maybe the artefacts maybe won't be
> heard by them anyway :-)
> 
>  All the best
>   Dave
> 
> 
> On 20 January 2013 11:58, Joseph Anderson  wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>> 
>> I'll throw in...
>> 
>> 
>> On 20 Jan 2013, at 9:02 am, Dave Malham  wrote:
>> 
>>> The biggest limitation to
>>> the whole thing is the availability of higher order microphones,
>> 
>> Actually, as we've heard, upsampling from a 1st order mic can give very good 
>> results. Svein Berge's Harpex (http://www.harpex.net) is available as a 
>> plugin... which means the production path open.
>> 
>> 
>>> though Eigenmikes are becoming more widely available and one can hope
>>> that Peter Craven's new ideas
>>> (http://www.findaphd.com/search/ProjectDetails.aspx?PJID=40193) pan
>>> out and give us at least a good second order microphone.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> It'll be great to see 'native' HOA mics on the market
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> My best,
>> Jo
>> 
>> ~~
>> Joseph Anderson
>> 
>> Artist: http://joseph-anderson.org
>> Ambisonic Toolkit:  http://ambisonictoolkit.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- next part --
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: 
>> 
>> ___
>> Sursound mailing list
>> Sursound@music.vt.edu
>> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this
> disclaimer is redundant
> 
> 
> These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer
> 
> Dave Malham
> Ex-Music Research Centre
> Department of Music
> The University of York
> Heslington
> York YO10 5DD
> UK
> 
> 'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

~~
Joseph Anderson

Artist: http://joseph-anderson.org
Ambisonic Toolkit:  http://ambisonictoolkit.net




-- 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] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Dave Malham]

Hi Jo,
 To some extent, yes, but only if you are working with material
which can tolerate the artefacts that blind source separation
algorithms will, sooner or later - and usually sooner - generate. Such
algorithms, including those in Harpex, are getting much better (I can
remember hearing some really terrible earlier attempts) but, so far
anyway, it is always possible to find some material that will screw
them up.  There are two factors which will reduce this as time goes on
- the continuing improvements in the technology and the fact that much
of the audience these days have perceptions that are so screwed up by
listening to compressed audio that maybe the artefacts maybe won't be
heard by them anyway :-)

  All the best
   Dave


On 20 January 2013 11:58, Joseph Anderson  wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I'll throw in...
>
>
> On 20 Jan 2013, at 9:02 am, Dave Malham  wrote:
>
>> The biggest limitation to
>> the whole thing is the availability of higher order microphones,
>
> Actually, as we've heard, upsampling from a 1st order mic can give very good 
> results. Svein Berge's Harpex (http://www.harpex.net) is available as a 
> plugin... which means the production path open.
>
>
>> though Eigenmikes are becoming more widely available and one can hope
>> that Peter Craven's new ideas
>> (http://www.findaphd.com/search/ProjectDetails.aspx?PJID=40193) pan
>> out and give us at least a good second order microphone.
>
>
>
> It'll be great to see 'native' HOA mics on the market
>
>
>
> My best,
> Jo
>
> ~~
> Joseph Anderson
>
> Artist: http://joseph-anderson.org
> Ambisonic Toolkit:  http://ambisonictoolkit.net
>
>
>
>
> -- next part --
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> 
> ___
> Sursound mailing list
> Sursound@music.vt.edu
> https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound



-- 
As of 1st October 2012, I have retired from the University, so this
disclaimer is redundant


These are my own views and may or may not be shared by my employer

Dave Malham
Ex-Music Research Centre
Department of Music
The University of York
Heslington
York YO10 5DD
UK

'Ambisonics - Component Imaging for Audio'
___
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Joseph Anderson]

Hi Dave,

I'll throw in...


On 20 Jan 2013, at 9:02 am, Dave Malham  wrote:

> The biggest limitation to
> the whole thing is the availability of higher order microphones,

Actually, as we've heard, upsampling from a 1st order mic can give very good 
results. Svein Berge's Harpex (http://www.harpex.net) is available as a 
plugin... which means the production path open.


> though Eigenmikes are becoming more widely available and one can hope
> that Peter Craven's new ideas
> (http://www.findaphd.com/search/ProjectDetails.aspx?PJID=40193) pan
> out and give us at least a good second order microphone. 



It'll be great to see 'native' HOA mics on the market



My best,
Jo

~~
Joseph Anderson

Artist: http://joseph-anderson.org
Ambisonic Toolkit:  http://ambisonictoolkit.net




-- 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] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Dave Malham]

Hi Stefan,

I doubt if B+ would meet the currently perceived needs of cinema
surround mixers/producers since it does not have the ability to go
"discrete". B++ might be enough - that's first order + 5.1 (I just
made that up :-)). A better option would be at least third order,
preferably fifth -  to get the most bang for buck - but to fit in the
22.2 channels that seem to be coming over the horizon fast, maybe
fourth would work better in terms of channel count.

I don't, personally, think that first order is a good choice for
cinema for anything other than home use. It certainly can be pressed
into use for large areas (been there, done that, got not just the T
shirt but the entire wardrobe) but it would really struggle in
anything other than the smaller art cinemas. The biggest limitation to
the whole thing is the availability of higher order microphones,
though Eigenmikes are becoming more widely available and one can hope
that Peter Craven's new ideas
(http://www.findaphd.com/search/ProjectDetails.aspx?PJID=40193) pan
out and give us at least a good second order microphone.  However, if
you are constructing the soundscapes entirely from scratch, such
considerations do not really matter - in fact, to that end, improving
the use of spot microphones to generate convincing, realistic higher
order recordings is probably at least as important.

On audio objects and where they should be mixed in, I have some
sympathy with your point that they should only be used in the studio
but in purely practical terms (and, again, only really for non-home
use) they can be very useful at the decoding stage where you are
dealing with very irregular arrays, so don't rule them out.

   All the best
Dave

On 20 January 2013 04:11, Stefan Schreiber  wrote:
> Reading back, and evaluating...
>
> http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/005/384/Miles_Fulwider_Thesis.pdf
>
> I believe B+ "classic" could serve as a convincing "1st" proposal for a
> sound-field based 3D cinema audio system.  (And therefore, as a general
> surround format).
>
> The very obvious changes "could"/would be:
>
> - You have at least 3 front channels behind the screen (up to 5 in Dolby
> Atmos), not 2
>
> - Which Ambisonics order would you need for cinema use? Might even 1st order
> suffice (provided there is a "direct"/precise front)
>
> - LFE channel(s) should (probably) be treated in a simple
> channel-loudspeaker "configuration", such as the front channels. (You also
> could code an "LFE soundfield", B format style. Or you don't code LFE at all
> - but we are talking about cinema use, in which case LFE seems to matter.)
>
> - If using a sound field approach, you would not want to mix soundfields
> this with audio objects at rendering time. (Rather, use audio objects in the
> studio. Mixing stage, not decoding stage...)
>
> - The "object audio" proposals are all driven by the need to cope for many
> different loudspeaker layouts. This issue is no problem for
> Ambisonics/soundfields...
> (Could say much more about this point, but it is too late, and why should
> I...:-) )
>
>
> Best,
>
> Stefan Schreiber
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Richard Furse wrote:
>
>> Very interesting post & following discussion.
>>
>> I've actually been added very recently to the IST/37 committee, which
>> apparently is a close relative to the MPEG one. However, I've not talked
>> to
>> any other members so far and I'm not sure how all this stuff works just
>> yet!
>>
>> In other news, I spent a bit of time last year putting together a C API
>> for
>> object streaming etc (including Ambisonics). Hopefully it roughly captures
>> the suggestions/requirements below. This project is now in a state where
>> there's a fairly short API that seems to work and a basic SDK which
>> provides
>> some basic reference tools like a simple stereo renderer, lossless file
>> format and network streaming. However, this isn't part of the API/Spec
>> itself - the intent is that the C API should be independent of actual
>> rendering/stream/persistence formats (although a reference is provided),
>> so
>> would hopefully play nice with Atmos/MDA. That said, I've not seen a
>> *technical* spec for either of these yet, so there's a fair bit of
>> guesswork
>> happening. Certainly what's there now seems to work well for me, so far.
>> :-/
>> The provisional spec has been bounced off a few folk but I've not heard
>> much
>> back (though I also had some email problems at a similar time). I'm
>> wondering about releasing the API and SDK using some kin

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Reading back, and evaluating...

http://steinhardt.nyu.edu/scmsAdmin/uploads/005/384/Miles_Fulwider_Thesis.pdf

I believe B+ "classic" could serve as a convincing "1st" proposal for a 
sound-field based 3D cinema audio system.  (And therefore, as a general 
surround format).


The very obvious changes "could"/would be:

- You have at least 3 front channels behind the screen (up to 5 in Dolby 
Atmos), not 2


- Which Ambisonics order would you need for cinema use? Might even 1st 
order suffice (provided there is a "direct"/precise front)


- LFE channel(s) should (probably) be treated in a simple 
channel-loudspeaker "configuration", such as the front channels. (You 
also could code an "LFE soundfield", B format style. Or you don't code 
LFE at all - but we are talking about cinema use, in which case LFE 
seems to matter.)


- If using a sound field approach, you would not want to mix soundfields 
this with audio objects at rendering time. (Rather, use audio objects in 
the studio. Mixing stage, not decoding stage...)


- The "object audio" proposals are all driven by the need to cope for 
many different loudspeaker layouts. This issue is no problem for 
Ambisonics/soundfields...
(Could say much more about this point, but it is too late, and why 
should I...:-) )



Best,

Stefan Schreiber






Richard Furse wrote:


Very interesting post & following discussion.

I've actually been added very recently to the IST/37 committee, which
apparently is a close relative to the MPEG one. However, I've not talked to
any other members so far and I'm not sure how all this stuff works just yet!

In other news, I spent a bit of time last year putting together a C API for
object streaming etc (including Ambisonics). Hopefully it roughly captures
the suggestions/requirements below. This project is now in a state where
there's a fairly short API that seems to work and a basic SDK which provides
some basic reference tools like a simple stereo renderer, lossless file
format and network streaming. However, this isn't part of the API/Spec
itself - the intent is that the C API should be independent of actual
rendering/stream/persistence formats (although a reference is provided), so
would hopefully play nice with Atmos/MDA. That said, I've not seen a
*technical* spec for either of these yet, so there's a fair bit of guesswork
happening. Certainly what's there now seems to work well for me, so far. :-/
The provisional spec has been bounced off a few folk but I've not heard much
back (though I also had some email problems at a similar time). I'm
wondering about releasing the API and SDK using some kind of open source
license. Anyway - if folk are interested in more detail, please get in touch
off-list!

Best wishes,

--Richard


-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu]
On Behalf Of Stefan Schreiber
Sent: 06 January 2013 02:00
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec,
MPEG/ITU style...

Dear colleagues...

I would like to remember everybody interested or already being involved 
that ITU/MPEG plan to define and issue some 3D audio standard (better: 
3D audio standard framework) during this year. The 3D audio codec is 
meant to be part of the (wider) MPEG-H standard.


This all makes a lot of sense, 'cos ;-)  there is already some 
competition around:


1. Hamasaki 22.2, well known as (audio) part of former UHDTV (Super 
Hi-vision) proposals.


2. http://www.auro-3d.com/system/listening-formats

(Note:

a)

 


The Auro-3D® Engine comprises:

Auro Codec: The revolutionary codec that delivers native, discrete 
Auro-3D® content.


Auro-Matic: The groundbreaking up-mixing algorithm that converts 
legacy content into the Auro- 3D® format.


Auro-3D® Headphone: Like other audio configurations, similar results 
can be achieved with headphones that use binaural technology. 
   



b)

 

Film, Broadcast, Gaming, Mobile, Automotive and Multimedia industries 
are all searching for a next generation sound format. With 3D 
Stereoscopic imagery becoming commonplace, the time is right for an 
audio experience that matches this increased level of fidelity. Sound 
in 3D is clearly the next step. 
   





3. http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/technology/movie/dolby-atmos.html

(IMHO, Dolby won't participate in the MPEG standardization process. And 
even if, Dolby Atmos seems to be finished.)




The current situation at MPEG:

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/video/Pages/jctvc.aspx

Next meetings:

 


   * Geneva, Switzerland, October 2013 (tentative)
   * Vienna, Austria, 27 July - 2 August 2013 (tentative)
   * Incheon, Korea, 20-26 April 2013 (tentative)
   * Geneva, Switzerland, 14-23 January 2013 (tentative)

   



During the next conference (January, Genè

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

(Now in the  thread-context where it belongs, sorry for my error before...)


Dear Mr. Furse,

many thanks for some real contributions, in the past and now...   :-)

Now, on a short note:

There might not be sufficient time left to add ideas (and APIs) like 
presented to any standad they will issue in summer 2013 (?). Maybe 
something in this direction could be part of a 2nd (relatively 
independent) version, adding support for audio objects/object streaming 
etc.


However, my impression is that the MPEG's intention is more to settle on 
something relatively simple, like 22.2, Auro-3D speaker layout etc.  
(Otherwise the standardization timeframe from 2012 to 2013 didn't make 
any sense)


I think the best way you could help is to get into contact with the MPEG 
3D Audio group, if there exists any "real" MPEG audio group. (This is 
the next problem. The MPEG has co-established video expert groups like 
JVT for AVC/H.264 and JCT for HEVC/H.265. I don't see anything like this 
for audio, correct me if I am wrong...)


How things stand, interesting proposals might not be discussed/worked 
out because the standaization process itself has been very short-term. 
(They work on HEVC since 2010, many meetings.)


http://www.ist37.org/index.xalter

IST/37 prepares national contrbutions into the international standards 
committee, ISO/IEC JTC1/SC29 - two of whose working groups have 
achieved worldwide recognition for their work as MPEG and JPEG.




Exactly. IST/37 is actually not only "close" to the MPEG, you have been 
and are a direct contributor.  :-)



If we talk about "MPEG audio" and Ambisonics, I think they should really 
listen to you.



Best regards,

Stefan


Richard Furse wrote:


Very interesting post & following discussion.

I've actually been added very recently to the IST/37 committee, which
apparently is a close relative to the MPEG one. However, I've not talked to
any other members so far and I'm not sure how all this stuff works just yet!

In other news, I spent a bit of time last year putting together a C API for
object streaming etc (including Ambisonics). Hopefully it roughly captures
the suggestions/requirements below. This project is now in a state where
there's a fairly short API that seems to work and a basic SDK which provides
some basic reference tools like a simple stereo renderer, lossless file
format and network streaming. However, this isn't part of the API/Spec
itself - the intent is that the C API should be independent of actual
rendering/stream/persistence formats (although a reference is provided), so
would hopefully play nice with Atmos/MDA. That said, I've not seen a
*technical* spec for either of these yet, so there's a fair bit of guesswork
happening. Certainly what's there now seems to work well for me, so far. :-/
The provisional spec has been bounced off a few folk but I've not heard much
back (though I also had some email problems at a similar time). I'm
wondering about releasing the API and SDK using some kind of open source
license. Anyway - if folk are interested in more detail, please get in touch
off-list!

Best wishes,

--Richard


-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu]
On Behalf Of Stefan Schreiber
Sent: 06 January 2013 02:00
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec,
MPEG/ITU style...

Dear colleagues...

I would like to remember everybody interested or already being involved 
that ITU/MPEG plan to define and issue some 3D audio standard (better: 
3D audio standard framework) during this year. The 3D audio codec is 
meant to be part of the (wider) MPEG-H standard.


This all makes a lot of sense, 'cos ;-)  there is already some 
competition around:


1. Hamasaki 22.2, well known as (audio) part of former UHDTV (Super 
Hi-vision) proposals.


2. http://www.auro-3d.com/system/listening-formats

(Note:

a)

 


The Auro-3D® Engine comprises:

Auro Codec: The revolutionary codec that delivers native, discrete 
Auro-3D® content.


Auro-Matic: The groundbreaking up-mixing algorithm that converts 
legacy content into the Auro- 3D® format.


Auro-3D® Headphone: Like other audio configurations, similar results 
can be achieved with headphones that use binaural technology. 
   



b)

 

Film, Broadcast, Gaming, Mobile, Automotive and Multimedia industries 
are all searching for a next generation sound format. With 3D 
Stereoscopic imagery becoming commonplace, the time is right for an 
audio experience that matches this increased level of fidelity. Sound 
in 3D is clearly the next step. 
   





3. http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/technology/movie/dolby-atmos.html

(IMHO, Dolby won't participate in the MPEG standardization process. And 
even if, Dolby Atmos seems to be finished.)




The current situation at MPEG:

http:

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Richard Furse]

Very interesting post & following discussion.

I've actually been added very recently to the IST/37 committee, which
apparently is a close relative to the MPEG one. However, I've not talked to
any other members so far and I'm not sure how all this stuff works just yet!

In other news, I spent a bit of time last year putting together a C API for
object streaming etc (including Ambisonics). Hopefully it roughly captures
the suggestions/requirements below. This project is now in a state where
there's a fairly short API that seems to work and a basic SDK which provides
some basic reference tools like a simple stereo renderer, lossless file
format and network streaming. However, this isn't part of the API/Spec
itself - the intent is that the C API should be independent of actual
rendering/stream/persistence formats (although a reference is provided), so
would hopefully play nice with Atmos/MDA. That said, I've not seen a
*technical* spec for either of these yet, so there's a fair bit of guesswork
happening. Certainly what's there now seems to work well for me, so far. :-/
The provisional spec has been bounced off a few folk but I've not heard much
back (though I also had some email problems at a similar time). I'm
wondering about releasing the API and SDK using some kind of open source
license. Anyway - if folk are interested in more detail, please get in touch
off-list!

Best wishes,

--Richard


-Original Message-
From: sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu [mailto:sursound-boun...@music.vt.edu]
On Behalf Of Stefan Schreiber
Sent: 06 January 2013 02:00
To: Surround Sound discussion group
Subject: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec,
MPEG/ITU style...

Dear colleagues...

I would like to remember everybody interested or already being involved 
that ITU/MPEG plan to define and issue some 3D audio standard (better: 
3D audio standard framework) during this year. The 3D audio codec is 
meant to be part of the (wider) MPEG-H standard.

This all makes a lot of sense, 'cos ;-)  there is already some 
competition around:

1. Hamasaki 22.2, well known as (audio) part of former UHDTV (Super 
Hi-vision) proposals.

2. http://www.auro-3d.com/system/listening-formats

(Note:

a)

> The Auro-3D® Engine comprises:
>
> Auro Codec: The revolutionary codec that delivers native, discrete 
> Auro-3D® content.
>
> Auro-Matic: The groundbreaking up-mixing algorithm that converts 
> legacy content into the Auro- 3D® format.
>
> Auro-3D® Headphone: Like other audio configurations, similar results 
> can be achieved with headphones that use binaural technology. 

b)

> Film, Broadcast, Gaming, Mobile, Automotive and Multimedia industries 
> are all searching for a next generation sound format. With 3D 
> Stereoscopic imagery becoming commonplace, the time is right for an 
> audio experience that matches this increased level of fidelity. Sound 
> in 3D is clearly the next step. 



3. http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/technology/movie/dolby-atmos.html

(IMHO, Dolby won't participate in the MPEG standardization process. And 
even if, Dolby Atmos seems to be finished.)



The current situation at MPEG:

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/video/Pages/jctvc.aspx

Next meetings:

> * Geneva, Switzerland, October 2013 (tentative)
> * Vienna, Austria, 27 July - 2 August 2013 (tentative)
> * Incheon, Korea, 20-26 April 2013 (tentative)
> * Geneva, Switzerland, 14-23 January 2013 (tentative)
>

During the next conference (January, Genève), the important HEVC codec 
should be technically finished. (Status: FDIS, for "Final Draft 
International Standard")


There will also be issued a final call for an 3D audio codec:

> At the 102nd MPEG meeting MPEG has issued a Draft Call for Proposals 
> (CfP) on 3D Audio Coding.  

(This was the last meeting, Shanghai, October 2012)

> MPEG-H 3D Audio is envisaged to provide a highly immersive audio 
> experience to accompany the highly immersive experience provided by 
> MPEG-H HEVC.  Such an immersive listening experience will be realized 
> by the rendering of a realistic and compelling 3D audio scene either 
> by using a large number of loudspeakers, such as for 22.2 channel 
> audio programs, or by using headphones supporting binauralization.  
> Key issues to be addressed are a compact and bit-efficient 
> representation of multi-channel audio programs and the ability to 
> flexibly render an audio program to an arbitrary number of 
> loudspeakers with arbitrary configurations. 3D Audio support via 
> headphones is also a key capability in order to deliver an immersive 
> experience for users of mobile devices.
> A final CfP will be issued at the 103rd meeting in January 2012, 

(they mean January 2013, of course...)

> with selection of technology from amongst t

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Michael Chapman wrote:


OK, Stefan, I'll look at my diary ;-(>

But

1) January 14-23 is ten days ... it is alo both "tentative" and 'next' week;

2 How does all this tye in with "the MPEG-H 3D Audio Workshop" (see copied
email below).


 

1) I am sorry, the date for the MPEG meetings seem to differ. (The 
JCT/ITU HEVC meetings might have a different schedule, oops...)


Here the current schedules:

http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings

http://mpeg.chiariglione.org/meetings/103

Date: 
Monday, 21 January 2013 to Friday, 25 January 2013
Venue: 
CICG

rue de Varembé 17
1211  Geneve
Switzerland




See also agenda: HEVC is session nr. 21-22, 3D Audio nr. 23.

2) I didn't want to confuse, but I gave an update to possible channel 
layouts. 10.2 is actually offtopic, 11.1 not?



Mr. Pallone: Could you give some hint on which day/time the 3D audio 
session is scheduled?



Thanks for the valuable feedback

Stefan


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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Michael Chapman]

OK, Stefan, I'll look at my diary ;-(>

But

1) January 14-23 is ten days ... it is alo both "tentative" and 'next' week;

2 How does all this tye in with "the MPEG-H 3D Audio Workshop" (see copied
email below).
Whether related, or not, it would seem worth involving Gregory Pallone. If
Orange (aka France Telecom) have a commercial interest in ambisonics then
we have an ally.

Michael



Stefan Schreiber wrote:
> Michael Chapman wrote:
>
>>>The current situation at MPEG:
>>>
>>>http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/video/Pages/jctvc.aspx
>>>
>>>Next meetings:
>>>
>>>
>>>
* Geneva, Switzerland, October 2013 (tentative)
* Vienna, Austria, 27 July - 2 August 2013 (tentative)
* Incheon, Korea, 20-26 April 2013 (tentative)
* Geneva, Switzerland, 14-23 January 2013 (tentative)



>>
>>Possibly not relevant in these days of (relatively) cheap air travel,
>> but:
>>I am near Geneva,
>>colleagues at Graz are near Vienna,
>>_if_ physical presence is a factor.
>>
>>But this is just 'mechanics' ... and should not distract from the main
thrust of Stefan's call !
>>
>>Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> I think it would be a < great > idea if some people like you would show
up, because others ARE there and won't take "our" case.
>
> After reading all this Auro-3D/Barco stuff: It really seems they have
invented 3D audio, and I am scratching my head in despair... :-)
>
>
> Somebody should also tell them  that decoding to binaural/motion
compensated binaural is of course possible and probably < available >,
because this is currently an important topic. (If you can play surround
/3D audio on some of all these trillions of mobile devices, surround of
any kind ain't be a niche.)
>
>
> Thanks for your posting, very good point...
>
> Stefan
>
>


 Original Message 
Subject: [Sursound] Make HOA count
From:gregory.pall...@orange.com
Date:Thu, July 5, 2012 11:33 pm
To:  "sursound@music.vt.edu" 
--

Hello,
I'm new to this group (even if my colleague Jerome (Daniel) shares
sometimes info about it) so I hope you will excuse my usage of this list
for the following information and questions ...
The MPEG audio group is about to start a standardization process in order
to create a 3D audio codec.
As 3D audio experts, you are welcome to assist freely to the MPEG-H 3D
Audio Workshop in Stockholm on July the 18th (all details here:
http://www.audioresearchlabs.com/mpeg-h-workshop/101-3D-AudioWorkshop.pdf)
This codec should have the ability to flexibly render an audio program to
an arbitrary number of loudspeakers with arbitrary configurations. I think
it could be a good opportunity to make it also support HOA format (as
input of the audio encoder, output of the audio decoder, or both), and not
only classical "multichannel" formats such as 5.1, 7.1, 10.2, 22.2... In
this context, could you please send an email before July 11th to
hoamilit...@gmail.com indicating in just
several sentences:

-  if you support HOA format as an input of the future 3D audio
encoder, and why (what use-cases?)

-  if you support HOA format as an output of the future 3D audio
decoder, and why (what use-cases?)

-  please indicate also what is your point of view: content
creator, capturing or rendering device manufacturer, researcher, developer
...
Thank you for sharing this valuable information which should help in
militating in favor of HOA, and sorry for people not interested in my
message.
Gregory

PS: Don't hesitate to forward this message to
people/organizations/companies who could also be interested in attending
the workshop and/or helping to militate in favor of HOA.


_

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez
recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete
altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If
you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for
messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

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

Re: [Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Michael Chapman wrote:


The current situation at MPEG:

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/video/Pages/jctvc.aspx

Next meetings:

   


   * Geneva, Switzerland, October 2013 (tentative)
   * Vienna, Austria, 27 July - 2 August 2013 (tentative)
   * Incheon, Korea, 20-26 April 2013 (tentative)
   * Geneva, Switzerland, 14-23 January 2013 (tentative)

 



Possibly not relevant in these days of (relatively) cheap air travel, but:
I am near Geneva,
colleagues at Graz are near Vienna,
_if_ physical presence is a factor.

But this is just 'mechanics' ... and should not distract from the main
thrust of Stefan's call !

Michael



 

I think it would be a < great > idea if some people like you would show 
up, because others ARE there and won't take "our" case.


After reading all this Auro-3D/Barco stuff: It really seems they have 
invented 3D audio, and I am scratching my head in despair... :-)



Somebody should also tell them  that decoding to binaural/motion 
compensated binaural is of course possible and probably < available >, 
because this is currently an important topic. (If you can play surround 
/3D audio on some of all these trillions of mobile devices, surround of 
any kind ain't be a niche.)



Thanks for your posting, very good point...

Stefan

-- 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] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Michael Chapman]

> The current situation at MPEG:
>
> http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/video/Pages/jctvc.aspx
>
> Next meetings:
>
>> * Geneva, Switzerland, October 2013 (tentative)
>> * Vienna, Austria, 27 July - 2 August 2013 (tentative)
>> * Incheon, Korea, 20-26 April 2013 (tentative)
>> * Geneva, Switzerland, 14-23 January 2013 (tentative)
>>
>

Possibly not relevant in these days of (relatively) cheap air travel, but:
I am near Geneva,
colleagues at Graz are near Vienna,
_if_ physical presence is a factor.

But this is just 'mechanics' ... and should not distract from the main
thrust of Stefan's call !

Michael




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

[Sursound] A proposal for an Ambisonics based 3D audio codec, MPEG/ITU style...

[Stefan Schreiber]

Dear colleagues...

I would like to remember everybody interested or already being involved 
that ITU/MPEG plan to define and issue some 3D audio standard (better: 
3D audio standard framework) during this year. The 3D audio codec is 
meant to be part of the (wider) MPEG-H standard.


This all makes a lot of sense, 'cos ;-)  there is already some 
competition around:


1. Hamasaki 22.2, well known as (audio) part of former UHDTV (Super 
Hi-vision) proposals.


2. http://www.auro-3d.com/system/listening-formats

(Note:

a)


The Auro-3D® Engine comprises:

Auro Codec: The revolutionary codec that delivers native, discrete 
Auro-3D® content.


Auro-Matic: The groundbreaking up-mixing algorithm that converts 
legacy content into the Auro- 3D® format.


Auro-3D® Headphone: Like other audio configurations, similar results 
can be achieved with headphones that use binaural technology. 


b)

Film, Broadcast, Gaming, Mobile, Automotive and Multimedia industries 
are all searching for a next generation sound format. With 3D 
Stereoscopic imagery becoming commonplace, the time is right for an 
audio experience that matches this increased level of fidelity. Sound 
in 3D is clearly the next step. 




3. http://www.dolby.com/us/en/consumer/technology/movie/dolby-atmos.html

(IMHO, Dolby won't participate in the MPEG standardization process. And 
even if, Dolby Atmos seems to be finished.)




The current situation at MPEG:

http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/studygroups/com16/video/Pages/jctvc.aspx

Next meetings:


* Geneva, Switzerland, October 2013 (tentative)
* Vienna, Austria, 27 July - 2 August 2013 (tentative)
* Incheon, Korea, 20-26 April 2013 (tentative)
* Geneva, Switzerland, 14-23 January 2013 (tentative)



During the next conference (January, Genève), the important HEVC codec 
should be technically finished. (Status: FDIS, for "Final Draft 
International Standard")



There will also be issued a final call for an 3D audio codec:

At the 102nd MPEG meeting MPEG has issued a Draft Call for Proposals 
(CfP) on 3D Audio Coding.  


(This was the last meeting, Shanghai, October 2012)

MPEG-H 3D Audio is envisaged to provide a highly immersive audio 
experience to accompany the highly immersive experience provided by 
MPEG-H HEVC.  Such an immersive listening experience will be realized 
by the rendering of a realistic and compelling 3D audio scene either 
by using a large number of loudspeakers, such as for 22.2 channel 
audio programs, or by using headphones supporting binauralization.  
Key issues to be addressed are a compact and bit-efficient 
representation of multi-channel audio programs and the ability to 
flexibly render an audio program to an arbitrary number of 
loudspeakers with arbitrary configurations. 3D Audio support via 
headphones is also a key capability in order to deliver an immersive 
experience for users of mobile devices.
A final CfP will be issued at the 103rd meeting in January 2012, 


(they mean January 2013, of course...)

with selection of technology from amongst the responses received at 
the 105th meeting in July 2013. This technology will form the basis 
for MPEG-H 3D Audio, the Audio part (Part 3) of the MPEG-H (ISO/IEC 
23008) suite of technologies.



Taken together, the final deadline for any proposal seems to be around 
April 2013. (Incheon, Korea meeting, April 2013)



If some Ambisonics based audio-codec is proposed (it has been done, but 
as an official proposal??), I would like to add some observations.


Cinema audio and UHD TV (and this is where the push comes from) iclude 
some "discrete" elements, and anybody has to be aware of this.  Firstly, 
there are one or two (Hamasaki 22.2) separate LFE channels. (LFE 
channels make sense for movies and in the cinema, even if some people 
always will dispute this...we are not talking about most music you will 
listen to at home, but about cinema sound with special effects.)


Secondly, a lot of  sound is tied to the screen. The narrow-spaced front 
speakers might represent a problem for Ambisonics, at least for 
low-order Ambisonics. (Dolby Atmos defines actually up to 5 "screen" 
loudspeakers, this means three or five. Note that the front C channel is 
often used as voice/conversation channel.)


A possible solution would be to offer some kind of B"+" option, the 
"plus" part being the front and LFE channels. 2D/3D surround for all the 
"resting" sound field would be offered via the B format (order?) sound 
field, or HOA sound field. (To mix such a hybrid sound format is rather 
trivial, I would say. Just leave out the front and the LFE parts in the 
surround/3D field... )


So maybe define some "purist" solution (say B format 3rd order, or 
horizontal 4th order mixed with vertical 1st/2nd order, or whatever), 
and also some "B+" option. (The original B+ proposal was FOA + 2 stereo 
channels.  Note that a direct consequence of the "hybrid" Ambisonics 
option would be that a 2nd or 3rd order soundfield should