Re: [LAD] jack_capture

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 02:09:36PM -0400, Fred Gleason wrote:
> On Tuesday 16 September 2008 01:54:53 pm Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
> > Can you clarify this? Do you think wav>2ch is
> > less supported than wavex>2ch? I'm not going
> > to set default format based on ideological reasons.
>
> I think it's a question of specification. With the original RIFF/WAVE format,
> at channels>2, elements of the data layout (specifically, the sample packing
> in the 'data' chunk) were explicitly declared to be undefined (essentially
> meaning, left up to the implementor), whereas in WAVE-EX they are explicitly
> defined. Thus, you have a much better chance of achieving successful
> inter-operability for channels>2 with WAVE-EX.

Absolutely right. A number of different interpretations of the
sample packing have been used by various authors, and they are
not compatible. For this reasons MS has been encouraging (or
forcing) Windows software authors to use WAVEX for >2 ch for
years. Also the channel mapping is undefined in a WAV for >2
channels.

Ciao,

-- 
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
Wie der Mond heute Nacht aussieht !
Ist es nicht ein seltsames Bild ?
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev