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

Re: [web-audio-api] (OscillatorFolding): Oscillator folding considerations (#127)

From: Olivier Thereaux <notifications@github.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:29:47 -0700
To: WebAudio/web-audio-api <web-audio-api@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/127/24244363@github.com>
> [Original comment](https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17404#2) by Marcus Geelnard (Opera) on W3C Bugzilla. Tue, 12 Jun 2012 09:49:09 GMT

Over all, the new text is non-normative, except for the phrasing "care must be taken to discard (filter out) the high-frequency information". Here, it is said that something must be done, without specifying what must be done.

At this point, I don't really have a preference for whether we should strive to have a common method for synthesizing sound, or allow for variations between implementations. However, I think it should be clear what the upper/lower quality bound is.

For instance, if we disregard the anti-aliasing requirement, it would be possible for an implementation to simply do an inverse FFT of the wave table as a pre-processing step, and then do nearest neighbor interpolation into that time-domain signal without any anti-alising or interpolation efforts at all. Would that be acceptable?

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/127#issuecomment-24244363
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:35:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:24 UTC