[Ffmpeg-devel] channel ordering and downmixing

[Michael Niedermayer]

Hi

On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 10:02:59PM -0400, Justin Ruggles wrote:
> Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > Hi
> > 
> > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 01:15:21AM -0400, Justin Ruggles wrote:
> >>The attached patch is not fully-functional, but gives an idea of how it
> >>might work.  The example used is encoding PCM wav to raw AC3.  The
> >>user-level parts (ffmpeg.c and ffplay.c) are not implemented yet, so the
> >>patch doesn't work at this point.
> >>
> >>Also, I don't really know what appropriate channel positions should be.
> > 
> > 
> > just guess and add a note that they are just guessed ...
> > 
> >> Anyone have any ideas or references I might refer to for this?
> 
> Now I've run into quite a mess, caused by none other than Microsoft.
> The two examples I've been using as to how to implement a multi-channel
> API are WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE and CAFF.  Well, it seems that Microsoft
> made a big mess, then Apple followed suit by copying Microsoft but
> without giving any usage guidelines.
> 
> What I'm referring to is the channel layout description of side speakers
> vs. rear speakers in the standard 5.1 home theater system.  Here is a
> quote from Microsoft's "Audio Driver Support for Home Theater Speaker
> Configurations" document at
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/audio/SpkrConfig.mspx
> 
> [start quote]
> 
> According to the bit definitions in Figure 3, the channel mask for
> recording the 5.1 stream shown on the left side of Figure 5 should be
> 0x60F, which assigns the six channels to the following speaker
> positions: FL, FR, FC, LFE, SL, and SR. (This is the side-speaker 5.1
> configuration discussed earlier.) In fact, the channel mask for the 5.1
> stream is 0x3F rather than 0x60F for reasons that were mentioned
> previously and will now be explained in detail.
> 
> In earlier versions of Windows (Windows 98/Me, Windows 2000, Windows XP
> with SP1, and Windows Server 2003), the interpretation of the channel
> mask 0x3F is that it assigns the six channels in the 5.1 format to the
> following speaker positions: FL, FR, FC, LFE, BL, and BR. (This is the
> back-speaker 5.1 configuration.)  However, the interpretation in Windows
> XP with SP2, Windows Server 2003 with SP1, and Windows Vista is
> different: by convention, the 5.1 format with the channel mask 0x3F is
> interpreted to mean the side-speaker 5.1 configuration instead of the
> back-speaker 5.1 configuration.
> 
> Interpreting the channel mask in this manner eliminates the requirement
> to introduce a second 5.1-channel format descriptor to distinguish the
> side-speaker 5.1 configuration from the back-speaker 5.1 configuration.
> These two configurations are so similar that typical users might have
> difficulty distinguishing between them.  Although having only a single
> 5.1-channel format descriptor avoids confusing users, it does require
> hardware vendors to remember to interpret the 0x3F channel mask to mean
> that channels 5 and 6 are assigned to the SL and SR speaker positions
> instead of the BL and BR positions. In return for having to remember
> this special-case interpretation of the channel mask for a 5.1 stream,
> vendors can spare users the difficulty of distinguishing between two
> very similar 5.1-channel format descriptors.
> 
> [end quote]
> 
> Okay, so at least now I have a clear answer on all this "which channel
> mask do I use" nonsense I've been dealing with for the past year, but
> now I've run into a question.  Do we keep with Microsoft's convention on
> channel mask or break rank to make it technically correct?  What Apple
> did with CAFF was to keep with Microsoft's convention, but renamed
> Microsoft's "back" channels to "surround" and renamed the "side"
> channels to "surround direct".  I think they've skirted the real issue
> though by not giving specific recommendations in the spec as to what
> mask values or channel labels the standard 5.1 channel setup should use.
>  In practice they seem to not use the channel mask or channel labels,
> but instead use an enum of pre-defined layouts with only vague
> information as to which actual speakers are being referred to.
> 
> I think we should probably go a different route by making a clear
> distinction between side and rear "surround" speakers, especially since
> we are defining explicit speaker positions.  So my inclination at this
> point would be to use the WAVE_FORMAT_EXTENSIBLE naming scheme, but
> actually implement it properly rather than using Microsoft's
> "special-case" scenario crap for side vs. back speakers.  The downside
> would be having confused users due to Microsoft's admittedly incorrect
> use of back speaker mask values for side speakers in 5.1.
> 
> I am open to any suggestions from those who have a more extensive
> background in this kind of stuff.

personally i would drop the mask and just rely on the positions but its
4am i the morning and iam tired so ... :)

[...]
-- 
Michael     GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB

Observe your enemies, for they first find out your faults. -- Antisthenes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/ffmpeg-devel/attachments/20070409/443afc6d/attachment.pgp>