W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-audio@w3.org > July to September 2013

[Bug 23037] What should happen in case of cycles containing a delay node is under-defined

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:14:28 +0000
To: public-audio@w3.org
Message-ID: <bug-23037-5429-xKl2W9ThEq@http.www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23037

Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com

--- Comment #8 from Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Regarding clamping: Delay times below |128/ctx.sampleRate| are very useful,
> e.g. in chorus effects, flangers and when adjusting group delay time in
> parallel signal paths.

I agree with this statement. Short delays are also useful for wind / pipe
synthesis, etc. A lot of the graph based synthesis software seem to allow this
(e.g. NI Reaktor), I wonder how the implementation is done... I think it would
even be fine to fall back to per-sample processing if the delay goes under the
block size. It's nicer to pay a performance price for features than to not have
them at all. In cases of delay node + gain node (i.e. finite response) feedback
loops you could usually even optimize it away into vector operations. This
would have the additional benefit of not exposing implementation details, i.e.
the block size.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 26 August 2013 21:14:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:23 UTC