W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: TPAC F2F and Spec Proposals (was: Attendance for the AudioWG F2F meeting on Monday, 31 October)

From: Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 08:40:32 -0400
Cc: Alistair MacDonald <al@signedon.com>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, tmichel@w3.org, Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, public-audio@w3.org, mgregan@mozilla.com
Message-Id: <0F6A8B0A-E916-44CB-8BE5-F0E03FF58E25@noteflight.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org

> 
> Furthermore it is a requirement that the same Audio object can be played simultaneously through the mixer with different playbackRates, amplitudes and mixdown parameters -- this is how a typical instrumental wavetable synth works. Will the approach of piping Audio objects through a mixer stream play nice with that requirement? Does captureStream() always return the same object for a given Audio being captured? If so, that might be a problem.
> 
> To play the same media element multiple times, you'll have to clone it. This isn't much code --- var e = element.clone(); var stream = e.captureStream(); e.play(); --- and we can make it less code. Browsers would need to make sure that's efficient. (Making element.clone().play() efficient is a good idea anyway, since it's the simplest API for applications that simply want to play preloaded sounds in response to events.)
> 

My question doesn't so much pertain to the API, which can be changed -- it has more to do with whether a streams implementation optimized for N-way telecommunication sessions  of duration M (where N typically < 10 and M > 1 minute) is going to perform well with 100s of tiny little streams (N > 100 and M < 1 sec).

... .  .    .       Joe

Joe Berkovitz
President
Noteflight LLC
84 Hamilton St, Cambridge, MA 02139
phone: +1 978 314 6271
www.noteflight.com
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:41:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:41:02 GMT