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 écrit : > > 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
