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

Re: [web-audio-api] What should happen in case of cycles containing a delay node is under-defined (#75)

From: Olivier Thereaux <notifications@github.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:29:32 -0700
To: WebAudio/web-audio-api <web-audio-api@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/75/24244206@github.com>
> [Original comment](https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=23037#7) by Jussi Kalliokoski on W3C Bugzilla. Mon, 26 Aug 2013 21:14:28 GMT

(In reply to [comment #2](#issuecomment-24244174))
> 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.

---
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/75#issuecomment-24244206
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:33:40 UTC

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