- From: Olivier Thereaux <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:29:52 -0700
- To: WebAudio/web-audio-api <web-audio-api@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/134/24244466@github.com>
> [Original comment](https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17388#8) by Ray Bellis on W3C Bugzilla. Mon, 03 Dec 2012 23:36:10 GMT (In reply to [comment #8](#issuecomment-24244457)) > I like the idea of having anonymous AudioParams, it does indeed simplify > things. Great :) > I'm not sure what you're after with this part. Your suggestion has no way of > differentiating between k-rate and a-rate parameter inputs, which has > implications on performance. I think that we should just change the previous > proposal a bit to accommodate: > > partial interface AudioProcessingEvent { > void getParamValues(uint index, Float32Array values); > float getParamValue(uint index); > } AIUI, whether an AudioParam is a-rate or k-rate depends on the specification of each type of AudioNode. It's actually not clear to me that k-rate AudioParams make sense in the context of a ScriptProcessorNode. I'm not intimately familiar with the internals of any of the WebAudio implementations, but it sounds like your second function prototype wouldn't fit with the requirement that k-rate samples are taken on a 128 sample block boundary, given that a ScriptProcessorNode could easily be processing a block longer than that. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/134#issuecomment-24244466
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:35:53 UTC