Re: De-zippering and the fundamental issue of target users

On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:

> The only place I've seen a problem with dezippering has been in setting
> frequency - the built-in dezippering is too slow, and you can hear an
> audible portamento effect.
>

Well, that can obviously be tuned. :-)

But this is good to know.

>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Raymond Toy <rtoy@google.com> wrote:
>
>> A general question: Have you (generic you, not you, Joe) actually
>> encountered a problem with dezippering?  WebKit and Blink have been doing
>> this for years now, so has dezippering been a problem?
>>
>> It doesn't count if you just cooked up an example specifically to show
>> how dezippering got in the way. :-)
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>wrote:
>>
>>> +1, and just one more angle on this — by way of an analogy.
>>>
>>> How would web developers feel if visual animation was applied by default
>>> for all changes in HTML geometry, and they had to set some special property
>>> in order to “really mean it” when they moved or resized an HTML element?
>>>
>>> Yes, animated motion usually looks better than a jump for many simple
>>> cases. But this doesn't make it a good idea to bake animation into the CSS
>>> API. And in fact, sure enough (even before CSS3 made it easier) users were
>>> perfectly happy with using JS middleware, i.e. jQuery, to get animated
>>> motion.
>>>
>>> Dezippering is no different. It’s a type of animation, but in the
>>> audible realm. Sometimes you want it, sometimes not. When you do want it,
>>> there are a lot of fussy, context-dependent conditions governing where and
>>> how it is used. We should not be guessing at these very un-obvious
>>> conditions (e.g. prescribing that gain should have it but playbackRate
>>> shouldn’t, etc.).
>>>
>>> So I continue to agree with the De-dezipperers. Let’s make this
>>> something that’s easy to do… if you want it. It doesn’t belong in the spec.
>>>
>>>    .            .       .    .  . ...Joe
>>>
>>> *Joe Berkovitz*
>>> President
>>>
>>> *Noteflight LLC*
>>> Boston, Mass.
>>> phone: +1 978 314 6271
>>>   www.noteflight.com
>>> "Your music, everywhere"
>>>
>>> On Nov 9, 2013, at 3:34 AM, s p <sebpiq@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 100% agree with K. Gadd
>>>
>>> > Sure, if you're wanting to develop an 8-bit-style game, you'll
>>> probably use a library; If you're just loading music tracks and sound
>>> effects, I don't see that much benefit to imposing someone else's structure.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Why don't you just try an audio middleware, and see what sound
>>> designers are actually doing in real-file? They almost never "just load a
>>> sound effect". One of the most basic example is a motor noise in a car
>>> game. How do you think this is implemented? You have a several sounds to
>>> which you apply filters/pitching/... and all those parameters are modulated
>>> according to the speed of the car in the game. And that's just a simple
>>> example of automation.
>>> For the complicated example : now it is more and more common to do
>>> generative music in games, simply because it is the most natural thing to
>>> do. "Just loading a sound track" is inherently linear, cause the soundtrack
>>> has a beginning and an end, while many games are really not linear, and
>>> generative music feels much more natural.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>