W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Resolution to republish MSP as a note

From: Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 07:17:53 +0000
Message-ID: <20120810071753.yvhfr361skcg0ssk@staff.opera.com>
To: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>
Cc: olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, Mark Boas <markb@happyworm.com>, Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, James Wei <james.wei@intel.com>, Stéphane Letz <letz@grame.fr>, Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>, Matthew Paradis <matthew.paradis@bbc.co.uk>, Christopher Lowis <Chris.Lowis@bbc.co.uk>
Citerar Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>:

> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote:
>
>> I hope that we can have a serious discussion with the starting point of
>> making custom processing a first class citizen of the Web Audio API,
>> including identifying ways to make performance and latency as optimal as
>> possible. If we all conclude that some of the required changes are not
>> feasible at this point in time, we'll have to settle for something less,
>> but let's not close the debate prematurely based on assumptions such as
>> "It's complicated", or "Very few developers will use it anyway".
>>
>
> Hi Marcus,
>
> So far, we've been talking about allowing JavaScriptAudioNode to run in a
> web worker, adding the potential for multiple inputs/outputs, and also
> potentially adding tighter integration with AudioParam.  I know you've also
> been working on a math library, which looks like something which could be
> designed in parallel as a general-purpose API and that a
> JavaScriptAudioNode could call these functions.
>
> What are your thoughts here?

Hi Chris,

I think we're heading in the right direction, for sure.

- JSAudioNode interface (AudioParam support etc): I think  
"potentially" is a bit vague - we need some sort of resolution here.  
IMO it's important that you can mimic native nodes using custom nodes.  
It's useful for all kinds of purposes (customization/extensions,  
testing, future compatibility shims etc), but perhaps most importantly  
it will make sure that native and custom nodes are "equals". What are  
your thoughts?

- DSP library: My experiments so far show that you can implement  
most/all of the native nodes efficiently using the DSP library, plus  
you have the ability to do more interesting things that I think  
wouldn't be natural to do using native nodes in the Web Audio API (for  
instance, dynamic frequency domain effects and synthesis). I think it  
would be the perfect companion to the Web Audio API (I'm obviously a  
bit biased here ;) ).

- Web workers: Perhaps this is the area that needs to be explored a  
bit deeper. What are the implications of different solutions? What can  
we do to get latency-free processing or at least reduce the latency? I  
don't have any conclusive answers, so ideas are welcome.

/Marcus
Received on Friday, 10 August 2012 07:18:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 August 2012 07:18:42 GMT