Tim's proposal seems reasonable but it conflicts with the FLAC documentation that says the channel ordering follows SMPTE/ITU-R recommendations. I think we may be butting up against an area where the standards aren't clear. ITU-R BS.2159-4 (http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BS.2159-4-2012-PDF-E.pdf) doesn't define a 7.1 layout but simply diagrams several possibilities on page 27. DTS-HD seems to specify 7 different possible 7.1 layouts (http://www.scribd.com/doc/17630423/21/Channel-Layout).
I think my preference for the Apple/Core Audio layouts is known but obviously any standard would be better than none. Do I understand correctly that WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE simply defines a standard channel order and FLAC would specify compatible channel masks? http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/gg463006.aspx hasn't been updated since 2007 so I may have been looking at an old document. Stephen On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Tim W. wrote: > > > I'm personally in favor of mapping (1) as it doesn't vary between 6.1/7.1, > > and is fully compatible with the WAVEFORMATEXTENSIBLE specification. > > > > > I'm in favour of Tims proposal and intent to apply Ralph's patch > to implement this unless someone comes up with a really good reason > not to. > > Erik > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Erik de Castro Lopo > http://www.mega-nerd.com/ > _______________________________________________ > flac-dev mailing list > flac-dev@xiph.org (mailto:flac-dev@xiph.org) > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev > >
_______________________________________________ flac-dev mailing list flac-dev@xiph.org http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/flac-dev
