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

Re: [minutes] Audio WG teleconference 2013-09-19

From: Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:32:48 -0400
Cc: Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk>, Audio WG <public-audio@w3.org>
Message-Id: <EBD432D4-7441-4DB3-80CF-BC19B3613895@noteflight.com>
To: Raymond Toy <rtoy@google.com>

On Sep 20, 2013, at 1:11 PM, Raymond Toy <rtoy@google.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Olivier Thereaux <Olivier.Thereaux@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> * Github web-audio-api Issue 127 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/127#issuecomment-24507931
> There was a discussion on this issue. Paul had suggested a solution where filtering out high frequency would not be a MUST but a SHOULD, so as to avoid unwanted filtering when using mathematical oscillators. The group raised issues with this proposal, and an alternative solution was found and adopted: keep filtering required, and add an option for oscillators to be audio or mathematical.
> 
> Is there a reason why a ScriptProcessorNode could not be used for these mathematical oscillators?

No, there is no reason why not. However if there is going to be an Oscillator source at all, people who want a mathematically rigorous modulation source based on one of Oscillator's supported wave shapes will expect to be able to use Oscillator, and it is a big convenience.

…Joe
Received on Friday, 20 September 2013 17:33:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:03:25 UTC