RE: Use Cases and Requirements priorities: UC 6 and "Playback Rate"

Hi Joe,

Thank you for your feedback! A short reply for now - more soon. 

1) UC6 was put in "middle" priority during our call because there weren't a lot of voices making a case for it (only James thought all except 3, 8, 11 and 12 are high priority, hence making 6 a HIGH) but there was no objection against it either. If nobody objects to your message, I see no problem making it so.

2) I tried to keep the meaning of “playback rate adjustment” to be about the simple requirement (without pitch compensation), assuming that extra processing and filtering would be necessary for the use cases requiring a change of speed without changing the pitch. I may, however, have made a mistake in how I have associated this requirement with the 13 use cases. After a quick review, I believe the requirement should also be associated to use cases 2 (game) 3 (audio workstation) and 6 (virtual music instrument) indeed, leaving basically UC 1 (live chat), 7 (visualisation) 8 (UI sounds, where the requirement could possibly apply to) and 13 (audio recording) as use cases not meeting this requirement.

If that fits your understanding, I will change the document and table. 

We also need to decide whether the "complex" requirement (with pitch compensation) needs its own line in the table, or can simply be inferred from the others.


Cheers,
Olivier


-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Berkovitz [mailto:joe@noteflight.com]
Sent: Fri 2/17/2012 1:25 PM
To: Olivier Thereaux
Cc: public-audio@w3.org
Subject: Use Cases and Requirements priorities: UC 6 and "Playback Rate"
 
Hello everyone,

Sorry to have been unable to participate for most of this week -- and thank you Olivier for the prodigious work of mapping and summarizing.

I think this is tremendous progress and have a few points in response.

1. As you can imagine I would like to see UC 6 (Wavetable synthesis) elevated to a "high" priority, not only because I think it enables a substantial landscape of music applications but because I believe it implicitly supports the musical aspects of UC 2 (game with audio and music -- emphasis mine).

2. I think a significant mistake has occurred with respect to the requirement "Playback rate adjustment". This phrase has unfortunately carried two different meanings in our discussion and I think we've become confused:

    A. Upsampling/downsampling with an arbitrary time factor, resulting in proportionate changes to *both pitch and speed* -- commonly thought of as simply "playing a sample faster or slower".  This is an extremely basic and important function in audio processing, and is already implemented in Chris Rogers' API as the "playbackRate" property of an AudioBufferSourceNode. It requires little more than interpolation between nearby samples and is very easy to standardize. It does not introduce artifacts.

    B. Adjustment to *only* the playback speed of audio media, with *no effect on pitch*.  This is a much fancier and more complex type of transformation since interpolation does not do the trick: one must add or delete audio material in a way that manages to preserve the subjective impression of the original sound. There are multiple competing algorithms that tend to introduce different kinds of artifact. I demonstrated this function at the F2F.

Unfortunately we've conflated the two requirements.  The "playback rate adjustment" required by UC 6 is the very simple case (A), while the one referred to in all the other cases is the complex case (B).  Let's try to disambiguate by renaming (B) as "speed shift", and adjusting the requirement name/definition in all the cases except UC 6.  (There is also a "pitch shift" that turns out to be very like (B) in terms of complexity)

3. When it comes down to the actual requirements, (not the UCs) the only missing requirement for UC 6  is (2A), the simple playbackRate adjustment already implemented in Chris's API.  Likewise, UC 2 (games) will need to make frequent use of (2A) to vary the pitch of sound effects in a simple way (e.g. collision sounds between objects of varying sizes).

In summary, I have a simple request that I will probably keep on repeating: let's keep the "simple" playback rate adjustment (2A) as a high priority requirement.  It is going to be a basic function of UC 2, and it is the only thing standing in the way of UC 6.  I think (2B) is safe to put on the back burner.

Thanks!

... .  .    .       Joe

Joe Berkovitz
President

Noteflight LLC
84 Hamilton St, Cambridge, MA 02139
phone: +1 978 314 6271
www.noteflight.com


On Feb 16, 2012, at 9:41 AM, Olivier Thereaux wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> At our meeting this week, we discussed which use cases were deemed to be "highest priority", and I took the action to look at whether the "high priority" UCs were covering a large number of our requirements.
> 
> TL;DR: 23 of 28 requirements are covered by the "high priority" use cases. And there are other ways to split them which may help us with setting the "level 1" goalposts.
> 
> 
> Now for the detail:
> 
> 1) I updated the wiki page for use cases and requirements with a mention of priority. At the moment, use cases 1 (Video Chat), 2 (HTML5 game with audio, effects, music) and 7 (Audio/Music visualization) are HIGH priority, and UC6 (Wavetable synthesis of a virtual music instrument) is MEDIUM priority. All the others (including the newly added use case 13 for audio recording+saving) are LOW priority.
> 
> These priorities have gone unchallenged since the meeting on Monday, and since my pointer to the minutes two days ago, so I assume we have consensus?
> 
> 
> 2) I made a detailed mapping of the 13 uses cases and 28 requirements. See e.g:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/audio/wiki/Use_Cases_and_Requirements#UC1_.E2.80.94_Related_Requirements
> 
> This is the part which I have done in good faith but I am sure there are mistakes. There were many use cases where it wasn't entirely clear whether "Modularity of Transformation" was required, or "Dynamic Compression" (the latter because I am not enough of an expert to be certain). Likewise, some of our requirements (such as "Audio Quality") are very vague and hardly usable, and others ("Support for basic polyphony" and "Mixing Sources") are near-equivalent.
> 
> That said, I think the map is a flawed but reasonable approximation of the territory. I have re-mapped it to the table I had sent a couple of weeks ago. I am attaching the latest version to this mail. The visual representation makes it easy to know which requirements are associated with more or fewer use cases.
> 
> 
> Interestingly, if I count only whether a requirement is associated to a high priority use case, I find that 23 out of the 28 we have are.
> 
> The exceptions:
> * Playback rate adjustment
> * Dynamic range compression (possibly my mistake)
> * Generation of common signals for synthesis and parameter modulation purposes
> * The ability to read in standard definitions of wavetable instruments
> * Acceptable performance of synthesis
> 
> Alternatively, we could split requirements thus:
> 
> * 9 Requirements are shared by more than half of the UCs
>    Support for primary audio file formats
>    Playing / Looping sources of audio
>    Support for basic polyphony
>    Audio quality
>    Modularity of transformations
>    Transformation parameter automation
>    Gain adjustment
>    Filtering
>    Mixing Sources
> 
> * 14 Requirements shared by less than half of the Use Cases, but required by HIGH priority UCs
>    One source, many sounds
>    Capture of audio from microphone, line in, other inputs
>    Sample-accurate scheduling of playback
>    Buffering
>    Rapid scheduling of many independent sources
>    Triggering of audio sources
>    Spatialization
>    Noise gating
>    The simulation of acoustic spaces
>    The simulation of occlusions and obstructions
>    Ducking
>    Echo cancellation
>    Level detection
>    Frequency domain analysis
> 
> * 5 Requirements shared by less than half of the UCs and not required by HIGH priority UCs
>    Dynamic range compression
>    Playback rate adjustment
>    Generation of common signals for synthesis and parameter modulation purposes
>    The ability to read in standard definitions of wavetable instruments
>    Acceptable performance of synthesis
> 
> 
> 
> Thoughts? Opinion on whether this is helpful? Glaring mistakes in the process? Other ways you'd go at it?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Olivier
> <Audio-UseCases-Requirements-Map.html>




http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.