- From: Olivier Thereaux <notifications@github.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 07:30:03 -0700
- To: WebAudio/web-audio-api <web-audio-api@noreply.github.com>
- Message-ID: <WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/113/24244626@github.com>
> [Original comment](https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17415#53) by Grant Galitz on W3C Bugzilla. Thu, 26 Jul 2012 23:42:29 GMT (In reply to [comment #53](#issuecomment-24244623)) > (In reply to [comment #51](#issuecomment-24244611)) > > Option 1 does not make the situation for gapless audio any better here. We're > > just making it harder to push out audio. The browser knows best when to fire > > audio refills. Forcing the JS code to schedule audio will make audio buffering > > and drop outs worse. > > I don't follow this. You're already using some JS scheduling to drive the > progress of the emulator (requestAnimationFrame? setInterval?). Each step of > the emulator generates some audio samples that you want to play back as soon as > possible. So stuffing those samples into an output pipe somehow should be good > for you. > > Or are you actually trying to drive the progress of the emulator off the audio > clock somehow? I drive off both. I use the audio clock and setInterval. If I used setInterval, almost every browser wouldn't run the code enough, so the right thing to do is to drive with the audio clock in addition to the setInterval. --- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/113#issuecomment-24244626
Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 14:38:13 UTC