- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 16:56:04 +0000
- To: public-audio@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17415 --- Comment #76 from Grant Galitz <grantgalitz@gmail.com> 2012-07-29 16:56:03 UTC --- (In reply to comment #75) > (In reply to comment #69) > > No, 0.5 seconds is trash. Needs to be no worse than 100 ms or it sounds like > > poop to the user. > > Obviously. I meant it more as an exercise: How low can you practically go? (out > of curiosity) Doesn't matter, because we would not be continuing from the previous stream, and the lack of audio clock. Firing sample buffers based on time rather than audio clock is something I would never do. I'd rather pipe in audio to the web worker and force the users of browsers that have to do that experience high copy overhead for the piping with the audio lag. I'd always rather deal with crazy audio lag than arbitrarily schedule new audio that's not driven from previous stream endings. -- Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2012 16:56:05 UTC