- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 07:40:27 +0000
- To: public-audio@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17366 Marcus Geelnard (Opera) <mage@opera.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mage@opera.com --- Comment #4 from Marcus Geelnard (Opera) <mage@opera.com> --- Paul, I think that specifying the amplitude (i.e. time-domain signal) the way you suggest requires that an implementation does not deal with frequency folding. An important point of the oscillator node is that it is capable of producing a high quality signal without folding effects. For instance, this requires that the signal is allowed to have ripples (for every wave type except the sine). I agree that we need to specify: - The phase of the signal (and it should be consistent between wave forms). - The signal strength (RMS, or something else). On the other hand, I'm not sure how to specify the actual time-domain amplitude level. As I've mentioned before, there are a wide range of options for implementing the signal generation logic. One option could be to specify the signal amplitude as a continuous time signal (i.e. with infinite sample rate), and then specify in what ways an implementation is allowed to sample this continuous time signal. Also, I think that we should decide whether or not it's OK for implementations to use different signal generation methods (e.g. trade quality for performance), or if all implementations must use a specific signal generation method. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Received on Monday, 2 September 2013 07:40:28 UTC