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
Noteflight LLC
84 Hamilton St, Cambridge, MA 02139
phone: +1 978 314 6271
Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 12:41:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:49:57 UTC