W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Resolution to republish MSP as a note

From: Mark Boas <markb@happyworm.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:32:00 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMnc=uBJxhTXoKusXfxr9+UYmGGN0iwMk6jkx8bqUMD+fsCuHA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com>
Cc: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>, olivier Thereaux <olivier.thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>, James Wei <james.wei@intel.com>, Stéphane Letz <letz@grame.fr>, Audio Working Group <public-audio@w3.org>, Matthew Paradis <matthew.paradis@bbc.co.uk>, Christopher Lowis <Chris.Lowis@bbc.co.uk>
I just wanted to clarify that I hope we can see both. I didn't mean to give
the impression that I was for exclusively low-level access.

Happy that we're having this discussion.


On 10 August 2012 09:17, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote:

> Citerar Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>:
>  On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com> wrote:
>>  I hope that we can have a serious discussion with the starting point of
>>> making custom processing a first class citizen of the Web Audio API,
>>> including identifying ways to make performance and latency as optimal as
>>> possible. If we all conclude that some of the required changes are not
>>> feasible at this point in time, we'll have to settle for something less,
>>> but let's not close the debate prematurely based on assumptions such as
>>> "It's complicated", or "Very few developers will use it anyway".
>> Hi Marcus,
>> So far, we've been talking about allowing JavaScriptAudioNode to run in a
>> web worker, adding the potential for multiple inputs/outputs, and also
>> potentially adding tighter integration with AudioParam.  I know you've
>> also
>> been working on a math library, which looks like something which could be
>> designed in parallel as a general-purpose API and that a
>> JavaScriptAudioNode could call these functions.
>> What are your thoughts here?
> Hi Chris,
> I think we're heading in the right direction, for sure.
> - JSAudioNode interface (AudioParam support etc): I think "potentially" is
> a bit vague - we need some sort of resolution here. IMO it's important that
> you can mimic native nodes using custom nodes. It's useful for all kinds of
> purposes (customization/extensions, testing, future compatibility shims
> etc), but perhaps most importantly it will make sure that native and custom
> nodes are "equals". What are your thoughts?
> - DSP library: My experiments so far show that you can implement most/all
> of the native nodes efficiently using the DSP library, plus you have the
> ability to do more interesting things that I think wouldn't be natural to
> do using native nodes in the Web Audio API (for instance, dynamic frequency
> domain effects and synthesis). I think it would be the perfect companion to
> the Web Audio API (I'm obviously a bit biased here ;) ).
> - Web workers: Perhaps this is the area that needs to be explored a bit
> deeper. What are the implications of different solutions? What can we do to
> get latency-free processing or at least reduce the latency? I don't have
> any conclusive answers, so ideas are welcome.
> /Marcus
Received on Friday, 10 August 2012 07:32:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:50:01 UTC