- From: Adam Goode <agoode@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:55:29 -0400
- To: Peter van der Noord <peterdunord@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, public-audio@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAOf41NkS--=jHZ_u3Ua_Db-XW9dN5b8LCqUzA3-jutmbuduB_w@mail.gmail.com>
I think you can use playbackTime to determine the absolute a-rate time of the beginning of the javascript buffer. But last I checked it wasn't present in webkit. You might be able to count samples, assuming you know the node's noteOn time, to keep track of the a-rate time. But with a short buffer size, sometimes you can have problems as you've noticed. On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Peter van der Noord <peterdunord@gmail.com>wrote: > Ermmm.....wait, what? And that is intened behavior? > > Peter > > > 2012/8/2 Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> > >> Hey Peter! >> >> I think this is because the JSNode has a delay equivalent to the buffer >> size, hence if you have parallel graphs that contain a different number of >> JSNodes, they will arrive to the common destination at a different delay. >> >> Cheers, >> Jussi >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Peter van der Noord < >> peterdunord@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm having a strange problem with some signals at the moment and i've >>> been staring at it for way too long now, so i thought: why not put it up >>> here, maybe someone sees what's going on. It's a lenghty story, so if you >>> want to hang on...i'll try to explain :) >>> >>> As you may know, i'm writing a modular synthesizer: >>> >>> http://petervandernoord.nl/patchwork_js (maybe clear your cache if >>> you've been there before) >>> >>> If you click the 'json to patch' button, a testpatch will be set. >>> (Important to know: all custom nodes will be created with the buffer-size >>> that's selected in the pulldown on the right). The patch contains 3 modules >>> (in patchwork, a module can contain one or more audionodes, with the >>> module's in/outputs mapped to certain in/outputs of the containing nodes): >>> >>> - The destination, which contains a normal destinationNode >>> http://localhost/patchworkjs/js/modules/DestinationModule.js >>> >>> - a clockmodule. one custom js node >>> http://localhost/patchworkjs/js/modules/DestinationModule.js >>> >>> - a triggersequencer, also one custom node. >>> http://localhost/patchworkjs/js/modules/TriggerSequencerModule.js (the >>> audioprocess callback is at the bottom) >>> >>> What is happening in the patch: the clock sends out single values of 1s >>> (all other values are 0) on a given interval (set in BPM). The sequencer >>> checks on every incoming value if that value is >0 AND the previous one was >>> <=0 (i'll call that a clock-pulse). If that is the case, its >>> SequencerParameter will proceed to the next step. A sequencer-parameter >>> (actually it is a LogicSequencerParameter, but that's almost the same - it >>> has one extra method) can be found here: >>> >>> http://localhost/patchworkjs/js/params/SequenceParameter.js >>> >>> It's basically just an array filled ith 0s and 1s (you can set a 1 by >>> clicking somewhere on the sequencer), and increases the current position >>> when it gets a next() command. So, back to the the sequencer module: If it >>> received a clock-pulse, it proceeds the sequencer. Then, if the (new) value >>> of the sequencer-parameter is 1, the sequencer will write a 1 in its >>> outputbuffer as well. >>> >>> My issues: >>> - in the testpatch, both the clockmodule and the seq-module are >>> connected to the output. if you activate some steps in the sequencer, you >>> will hear that the clicks do not run in sync. I have no idea why that is, >>> the stepsequencer writes a 1 in exact the same iteration as it reads the >>> incoming 1s from the clock. In my opinion, they should run exactly in sync. >>> - When you change the buffersize (which is for the customnodes) you will >>> hear that the timedifference between the ticks changes (since there's no >>> clear, you have to refresh the page, set another buffersize and click 'json >>> to patch') >>> - Something else i noticed: when i run just a clock module connected to >>> the output, with a very low buffersize (256, 512), the clock seems to run >>> very, very irregular. >>> >>> >>> So, my main question: Does anyone have any idea why those two modules do >>> not run in sync when both connected to the output? >>> >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> >> >
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 20:55:58 UTC