W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Audio Workers - please review

From: Norbert Schnell <Norbert.Schnell@ircam.fr>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 16:41:11 +0200
Message-Id: <42584D2F-856D-4FAF-82AB-0C9E56F5F4EE@ircam.fr>
Cc: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, Ehsan Akhgari <ehsan@mozilla.com>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
On 11 sept. 2014, at 15:41, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> wrote:
> I think this is actually indefinite in the spec today - and needs to be.  "start(0)" (in fact, any "start(n)" where n is < audiocontext.currentTime) is catch as catch can; thread context switch may happen, and that needs to be okay.  Do we guarantee that:
> 
> node1.start(0);
> ...some really time-expensive processing steps...
> node2.start(0);
> will have synchronized start times?  

IMHO, it would be rather important that these two really go off at the same time :

var now = audioContext.currentTime;
node1.start(now);
...some really time-expensive
node2.start(now);

... unless we can well define what "really time-expensive" means and the ability to avoid it. 
Is that actually case? I was never sure about this...

Evidently it could be sympathetic if everything <  audioContext.currentTime could just be clipped and behave accordingly. That would make things pretty clear and 0 synonymous to "now", which feels right.

Norbert
Received on Thursday, 11 September 2014 14:41:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:14 UTC