W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > April to June 2012

[Bug 17404] (OscillatorFolding): Oscillator folding considerations

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:49:10 +0000
To: public-audio@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1SeNio-0000Fe-3O@jessica.w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17404

Marcus Geelnard (Opera) <mage@opera.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
                 CC|                            |mage@opera.com
         Resolution|FIXED                       |

--- Comment #3 from Marcus Geelnard (Opera) <mage@opera.com> 2012-06-12 09:49:09 UTC ---
Over all, the new text is non-normative, except for the phrasing "care must be
taken to discard (filter out) the high-frequency information". Here, it is said
that something must be done, without specifying what must be done.

At this point, I don't really have a preference for whether we should strive to
have a common method for synthesizing sound, or allow for variations between
implementations. However, I think it should be clear what the upper/lower
quality bound is.

For instance, if we disregard the anti-aliasing requirement, it would be
possible for an implementation to simply do an inverse FFT of the wave table as
a pre-processing step, and then do nearest neighbor interpolation into that
time-domain signal without any anti-alising or interpolation efforts at all.
Would that be acceptable?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 12 June 2012 09:59:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 12 June 2012 09:59:15 GMT