On 23/01/2013 01:39, Stefan Schreiber wrote:
..
Why are you actually not reading what I was posting? One of the
requirements is "arbitrary" speaker layouts. Full stop. (There will be
some fixed layouts, I guess. But still.)
...
of multi-channel audio programs and the ability to flexibly render an
audio program to an arbitrary number of loudspeakers with arbitrary
configurations.
Possibly people were working on the basis of your initial comment:
"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.
"
Which would narrow the range of layouts considerably.
I can well understand the attraction that dealing with specific
companies would have for the MPEG committees. They have clearly
identified and authoritative individuals to deal with who represent the
company - whether a CTO or a CEO. Who will stand up to be the CTO or
CEO of "Ambisonics", with the support of the community? It would
ostensibly need to be someone (or a small group) not encumbered by
possible conflicts of interests with commercial organisations they work
for. But also someone who can discuss and accommodate the special needs
of cinema while making the broader argument too. So they would still
need one way or another to speak with the authentic voice of "the industry".
Ambisonics may in all sorts of ways be both the superior and the most
appropriate technology, but even now it has barely escaped the
laboratory and the concert hall. We can be sure Auro-3D etc will be
lobbying intensively, not least on the strength of existing industry
adoption (e.g. Auro-3D's list of cinemas using their system). So
ambisonics has quite a bit of ground to make up, in effect not only to
make its case, but also to make the case against the existing and
already more established choices.
Richard Dobson
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
