Re: [codec] #3: 2.2. Conferencing: Support of binaural audio?

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

On 03/23/2010 11:32 AM, Michael Knappe wrote:
> I agree that any spatial processing should be independent (either out
> of band cues or in-band spatially processed audio) of the codec's
> underlying audio carriage. We may wish to specify the order of
> channels packed into an RTP packet, does anyone know if that has
> already been covered in AVT?

RFC 3551 section 4.1

>
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From:
> [e-mail]<[e-mail]> To:
> [e-mail]<[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]<[e-mail]> Cc:
> [e-mail]<[e-mail]> Sent: Tue Mar 23 13:53:32 2010
> Subject: Re: [codec] #3: 2.2.  Conferencing: Support of binaural
> audio?
>
> I agree 100% that the conference should be stereo, however, I am not
> sure that CODEC should solve еры positioning task. There are other
> ways like sending the spatial position toward the client and let the
> client-side to the positioning job. (remember, that in today's
> conference, like H.264SVC, assume that each participant MAY HAVE
> DIFFERENT LAYOUT of participants on the screen, therefore, spatial
> position can be different for different listeners). So its not
> probably wise to mix in stereo on the server...
>
> Slava Borilin
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of codec issue tracker
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 8:33 PM To: [e-mail] Cc:
> [e-mail] Subject: [codec] #3: 2.2. Conferencing: Support of
> binaural audio?
>
> #3: 2.2.  Conferencing: Support of binaural audio?
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>
>
Reporter:  hoene@…                 |       Owner:
> Type:  enhancement             |      Status:  new Priority:  major
> |   Milestone: Component:  requirements            |     Version:
> Severity:  -                       |    Keywords:
> ------------------------------------+---------------------------------------
>
>
The mono mixing in teleconferences is somewhat technically outdated. It
> would make more sense to state the requirements for stereo mixing,
> which greatly helps to quality of teleconferencing. Then, if
> participants are placed at particular positions, they can be
> identified and understood much better, especially if multiple
> persons speak at the same time.
>
> Thus, I would suggest to give the low complexity mono mixing a low
> priority and the stereo mixing a higher priority.
>