IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [codec] possible issues to track

Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net> Thu, 25 March 2010 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <mknappe@juniper.net>
X-Original-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: codec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B965A3A6BA1 for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:17:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.144
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rMiLvfS0WvCN for <codec@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og104.obsmtp.com (exprod7og104.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.161]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA923A6B8D for <codec@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:17:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob104.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKS6vhG0OnIOAT5AmfuVDiGvcQFZeCekww@postini.com; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:18:06 PDT
Received: from EMBX02-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::18fe:d666:b43e:f97e]) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([fe80::a124:1ab1:8e0b:f671%11]) with mapi; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:10:01 -0700
From: Michael Knappe <mknappe@juniper.net>
To: "bens@alum.mit.edu" <bens@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:09:58 -0700
Thread-Topic: [codec] possible issues to track
Thread-Index: AcrMZr43fn23lPzkRheGW3JF4d69NwAASnSY
Message-ID: <C7D12D46.137D9%mknappe@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <4BABDD3F.4000306@fas.harvard.edu>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.3.0.091002
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Codec WG <codec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [codec] possible issues to track
X-BeenThere: codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Codec WG <codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/codec>
List-Post: <mailto:codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/codec>, <mailto:codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:17:58 -0000

Thanks Ben, my understanding had come from a discussion with Jean-Marc and
some others involved in that discussion a few days back, apologies if that
misrepresented consensus on this topic.

Jean-Marc, can you discuss your thoughts with respect to joint channel
coding?

Ben, how would you approach channel counts larger than 2? Joint coding
between any two L-R pairs, with other channels (like the center channel)
left singular?

Cheers,

Mike


On 3/25/10 3:01 PM, "Benjamin M. Schwartz" <bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:

> Michael Knappe wrote:
>> we need to decide if we will support any kind of joint channel
>> coding (current consensus so far is to keep all channels separable).
> 
> Could you clarify this?  I think we've had several discussions where
> people wanted jointly coded (i.e. non-separable) stereo.
> 
> --Ben
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email