Hmm, now I think I see basic gain control, so that was a poor example - replace that with delay, or filtering, etc. As for the other built-in effects - perhaps I misspoke. But I'd suggested that this was the major issue - that you needed to do everything in libraries - and was never corrected, and I see in the examples inclusions like "effect.js" and "audio-ducking.js". In the case where you have substantial built-in libraries, I don't see a huge difference between where we are today and MSP, then, other than the known problem of script nodes being in the main thread. On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote: > >> My dislike for the Media Streams Processing proposal was not its >> incorporation of JS; it was that it RELIED on JS to do even basic >> processing like gain, >> > > That was never the case. > > >> and in order to do pretty much anything in it, I would have to be writing >> a lot of script myself, or including reverb.js, filter.js, oscillator.js, >> etc in most of my projects. >> > > There was always an extension point for specifying built-in effects. That > I never got around to specifying and implementing a good set of them is > admittedly my fault. > > Rob > -- > Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni > le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa > stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, > 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp > waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * > * >
Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 17:04:32 UTC