Re: Thoughts about the AudioPanner

It's a vector, so it's variable.  -1 to 1 works well - but remember, you're
placing a sound in a sound field, so it's not going to completely mask it
from the other ear.

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Peter van der Noord
<peterdunord@gmail.com>wrote:

> Ah, nice thanks. But what is the valuerange for the newPanningPosition
> then?
>
> Peter
>
>
> 2012/8/2 Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
>
>> "Panning" - as in stereo panning - isn't a clear-cut in a 5.1 surround
>> sound system.  If you really do just want to control volume level, you
>> could (via splitter/gain nodes/merger), but you'll miss the aural placement.
>>
>> The current AudioPanner is actually quite easy to use as just a simple
>> stereo panner - in fact, I have a slide about that in my I/O talk on Web
>> Audio: http://webaudio-io2012.appspot.com/#40:
>>
>> var panner = audioContext.createPanner();
>>
>> // default to straight ahead
>> panner.setPosition(0.0, 1.0, 0.0);
>>
>>    ...
>> // remember, 0.0 is straight ahead: negative=left, positive=right
>> panner.setPosition( newPanningPosition, 1.0, 0.0 );
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:37 AM, Peter van der Noord <
>> peterdunord@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I wanted to use the panner, but was a little overwhelmed by the options
>>> that the AudioPannerNode has. Two thoughts:
>>>
>>> - I am only looking for a panner, and i'm expecting a node that has just
>>> one property: a param that i can set from -1 to 1 or something like that
>>> (and maybe an algorithm to choose from). The current AudioPanner can
>>> probably be set up to do that, but it's not very inviting to say the least.
>>> I could create a node that does what i want, but i think a native module
>>> that simply does panning is a basic tool that a lot of users would expect.
>>>
>>> - I think the name of the AudioPannerNode is misleading. It doesn't do
>>> panning, it does spatialization. I'd suggest renaming it to
>>> AudioSpatializerNode (and add an AudioPannerNode that that does panning)
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>
>>
>

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 17:07:41 UTC