I agree. My appeal for material to listen to
was not intended as a call to get Apple to take
over. The blood curdles.
Robert
On Tue, 3 Apr 2012, Marc Lavall?e wrote:
I would fear an "applelization" of ambisonics. Apple could impose its
own "ok" format (probably as a CAF "chunk" specification) with patents
and lock-ins, because it's a common practice in the audio industry. Not
everything in this world needs to be mainstream (but that's just my
opinion).
"Ronald C.F. Antony" <r...@cubiculum.com> a ?crit :
On 3 Apr 2012, at 16:52, newme...@aol.com wrote:
> Ronald:
>
>> Whiz-bang demos won't make any difference, but
>> adoption by Apple's iTunes Store, or something like
>> that would make a difference.
>
> Very interesting! Does iTunes currently support multi-channel
> audio (other than on purchased movies)?
>
> As best I can tell, they do not. Why would they in the future?
No, currently I don't think it's officially supported, although I'm
not sure what happens if some standard audio file with multi-channel
layout is dropped into iTunes and the default core-audio device
happens to be a multi-channel audio interface.
However, there are enough of the basics in Mac OS X and related Apple
products. e.g. Logic has B-format IR files for surround reverb,
core-audio supports multi-channel and has a standard surround panner
that uses Ambisonic theory to achieve its task, etc.
CAF is both an open file format, future proof and extensible, etc.
In short: there are enough of the ingredients and core audio plumbing
floating around without 3rd party solutions in Apples OS X and
application universe that if the right people were convinced, it
would not be a massive undertaking to get the basics going, i.e.
something like UHJ, G-Format and 1st order Horizontal-only-B-Format
playback in iTunes/QuickTime and production in Logic. It's something
that could easily be done within one or two of Apples typical product
cycles, BUT they first would have been convinced that it's worth it,
and that isn't ever going to happen as long as any time someone might
enquire they are going to hear an earful from purists that 1st order
isn't good enough and that anything below 3rd-order is beneath them.
After all, why would Apple do something that most people don't know,
and that causes the natural proponents of the system to just bitch
that what they do isn't good enough? For Apple that is just the
equivalent of kicking the hornets nest, because they potentially
confuse the average user, and then they get bad press on top, when
anti-Apple circles start looking for material to smear Apple and they
find plenty of people bitching about the "crappy, insufficient
implementation".
The Ambisonic community keeps shooting itself in the foot, because
they can't accept that OK is better than nothing, and that once OK is
the accepted standard, one can then incrementally push for
higher-order extensions to an already existing infrastructure.
Instead, they want it all, and they want it right now, and as a
result they are getting nothing ever.
Ronald
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
