Well, we don't need to get hyper-paranoid about it. Apple have defined
channel IDs for WXYZ, which goes no further than make it possible to
create a 1st-order CAF file. CAF is not closed, the spec is fully open
and documented. It is supported in libsndfile (along with AMB), among
other things. I might even add it to the CDP m/c toolkit, if anyone is
still actually using it. There is no indication they have any interest
in providing an in-house codec for B-Format - which would nevertheless
be a strong way to establish it in the "mainstream'.
Those who want Ambisonics to become more widely established (aka
"mainstream") will need to talk to those who want it to remain a niche
process for the cognoscenti. To do the former will by definition require
some company or other to support it and present some de-facto standard
implementation. If it is pitched on the basis that most of the speakers
will just present subtle degree of ambience, which many listeners might
not notice at all, any more than they do in the concert hall or rock
venue, I suspect its commercial appeal will be negligible.
I suspect that if Dolby et al, rather than define a single 5.1 surround
format, had proposed umpteen options, arbitrary speaker positions,
multiple user options for encoding and decoding, etc, the format would
very likely not have been taken up at all. Sometimes choice is a good
thing, but sometimes it is not. Every decision an implementer has to
take, every option they have either to adopt or disregard, will reduce
their enthusiasm for the thing by 50%, progressively. 5.1 is a shoo-in
as there is just the one thing to implement, which everyone will use.
Even 7.1 is a problem as there are a whopping two alternative layouts
around.
B-format has so many options and permutations available that the
commercial enthusiasm factor will be down to 0.1% or less. So there is
absolutely no danger at all of Apple "locking in" B-Format as it is all
but un-lockable. That jelly+tree thing again.
What you might get, on the other hand, is a hardware-based turnkey
system aimed at a very specific market, such as IOSONO or Immsound,
where they tell you only the absolute minimum information required to
run the system, and it is probably closed beyond the possibility of
opening.
Unless of course they publish a file format for it....
Richard Dobson
On 03/04/2012 19:14, Robert Greene wrote:
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).
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
