Stefan Schreiber wrote:
Marc Lavallée wrote:
Remember that MPEG is creating proprietary, industrial and commercial
standards using lots of patents. How Ambisonics can co-exist?
--
Marc
citing my 1st posting:
Dear colleagues...
I would like to remember everybody interested or already being
involved that ITU/MPEG plan to define and issue some 3D audio standard
(better: 3D audio standard framework) during this year. The 3D audio
codec is meant to be part of the (wider) MPEG-H standard.
This all makes a lot of sense, 'cos ;-) there is already some
competition around:
...
(further down in the thread)
- The "object audio" proposals are all driven by the need to cope for
many different loudspeaker layouts. This issue is no problem for
Ambisonics/soundfields...
You either apply to be part of MPEG-H or not, look to the thread topic.
In this context, your question
How Ambisonics can co-exist?
doesn't make any sense, at least not within the topic of the thread.
In a wider "review":
IF (supposedly) HOA (and formats based on this) is not patent-free,
would you refuse HOA, independently of technical merit?
This is actually a fair counterquestion...
At this stage, the MPEG/ISO has issued a call for a 3D audio
codec/environmeny, Ambisonics/HOA fits into the requirements. If you
don't apply, another technology will make it anyway.
(This is the situation how it is. I had written this before. "Time is
running out", at least at MPEG. To establish some open project is a
completely different thing. But in this case there should be a new
thread, and people on behalf of MPEG et al. should be banned to read,
for undisclosured reasons... O:-) )
Best,
Stefan
P.S.: It means Ambisonic/HOA has competition. And even almighty MPEG/ISO
has some competition. (This is why I have mentioned Dolby, Barco, DTS,
Xiph.org ...)
_______________________________________________
Sursound mailing list
Sursound@music.vt.edu
https://mail.music.vt.edu/mailman/listinfo/sursound
