Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Stefan Schreiber <st...@mail.telepac.pt> wrote:
This is a typical FUD approach presentend by the competition.
If I have anything to say about, I'd say that any Ambisonis based approach
would be "patent-light", iof not patent-free.
You confirm precisely the concern I raised: The result would likely be
a royalty bearing format. How can you accuse me of FUD while
concurrently affirming the concern I raised?
Gregory, I just was recognising that you are actually not working at
Orange, because this is another person... :-[
I am fully apologizing!
If we are talking about Xiph.org etc., you are exactly the person who
should address concerns about IP questions.
IMO, the patent issues are not very heavy. But I don't know enoug about.
One hint: If we speak about surround headphones (with or without head
tracking), the sweet spot is ead-sized, In this case, 1st order
Ambisonics might be adequate to reproduce a 3D audio soundfield. (I am
just a bit concerned about high frquencies, though...)
In this case there are no patent issues involved, at least not with the
file format and Internet transmission. (And maybe this is what Xiph.org
et al should care about. Internet, codec and software questions.)
Best regards,
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
