- From: Peter van der Noord <peterdunord@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 19:40:36 +0200
- To: Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>
- Cc: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, Adam Goode <agoode@google.com>, public-audio@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAL9tNz_N_hMBQE4JZmRqoiipgBPzUNE8kKnkmTiDf4pu2HnOrg@mail.gmail.com>
I agree fully that it won't be what most developers want or need to do, the api will be used for games and site music/effects mostly, but creating custom nodes would be my primary focus. To be honest, the list of native nodes that i wanted to use has thinned out, due to some behaviours and implementations that were not appropriate for what i wanted. That's all fine by itself, but if i can't recreate them myself... I personally don't think "a lot of people won't be using custom nodes anyway" is a good argument for not implement them correctly. If they add lag, i can't use them. Peter 2012/8/3 Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com> > How would you empower the JS node/DSP API to fix this? > > I still think, personally, that there's an awful lot of focus on custom > processing in our discussions here. I haven't felt the need to build a > JSNode yet - the first one I will build is probably a noise gate/expander, > since that's the only thing I can't easily replicate from the nodes already > available. I'm not really convinced that what most application developers > want to do - NEED to do - is process audio bits themselves directly. > > > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:11 AM, Jussi Kalliokoski < > jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It's a known and major issue all right, but it's not a bug. There's not >> much that can be done about it though, afaict. The processing thread has to >> buffer enough data (the buffer size) from the inputs of the JSNode before >> its callback can be invoked, and next it just sends an event to the JS >> thread to process the buffer. The audio thread, however, can't wait for the >> JS thread to process the buffer but instead plays back the previously >> processed buffer. >> >> This is one of the reasons why I think we should focus on empowering the >> JS node / DSP API. If you want to add any custom processing to the graph, >> you're going to have to adjust the rest of the graph accordingly and you'll >> end up with more latency. This means that if you want to do extensive >> custom processing you'll probably need to work around the graph or just go >> with just the JS and have your own routing which means you're in a much >> more flexible place already anyway. I think the graph serves best as an IO >> abstraction, and that's the part we should focus on. >> >> Cheers, >> Jussi >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Peter van der Noord < >> peterdunord@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Well, it seems indeed that custom-nodes add a delay-time to the signal. >>> I've connected a few bypass modules (they write their input to the output) >>> and i'm magically creating an echo... >>> >>> http://www.petervandernoord.nl/patchwork_js/?patch=2&buffer_size=8192 >>> >>> (to hear sound, you have to select the loaded buffer from the pulldown >>> in the buffersource-module) >>> >>> I'm getting somewhat confused and concerned about this, why does this >>> happen and isn't this a major bug/issue? >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> 2012/8/2 Adam Goode <agoode@google.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 Friday, 3 August 2012 17:41:05 UTC