[gmpi] Re: Topic 7: Audio packaging

At 05:51 PM 5/27/03 -0700, you wrote: 
If we go the way of enumerated formats I want to make one thing clear - we
should support channel layouts, AND NOT encodings.

I agree. However, we may have to support different channel ordering. For example, with 5.1 there are at least two standards: L, R, C, LFE, LS, RS, and also L, R, LS, RS, C, LFE (it's quad compatible). If we go with multi-channel streams we either need additional info about which variant of 5.1 is in use, or we have to pick one variant only.

As I see it, there are three levels of detail:

1) physical channel format: mono, stereo, 2.1, quad, 5.1, generic N-channel, ...
2) channel organization (for variants of above)
3) encoding (optional)

The physical format is essential. I like the generic N-channel idea as an catch-all for arbitrary formats, and in fact it may be that mono, stereo, and quad should be represented as N-channel with 1, 2, and 4 channels, respectively. However, I feel that 2.1 is sufficiently different from 3-channel to warrant separate enumeration.

Channel organization is only needed if there are variants of the physical formats.

Encoding information (like matrix info, M/S, binaural, noise reduction info) would be nice to have, but I think it should be optional.

Bill






----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: