Re: [web-audio-api] Proper FFT / IFFT missing (#248)

I'm also not going to claim to represent the entire group.  But to me, the
current version of the Web Audio API wasn't designed to satisfy every need
(though it does have an escape hatch in ScriptProcessor).  For example, I
find the BiquadFilter far easier to use and manipulate than a generic
FFT/IFFT node, and it led me to writing a bunch of samples that I simply
never would have attempted if I first had to fully understand FFTs.  The
goal was to start enabling audio for HTML gaming, music production
applications, and the like.

I do think exposing FFT/IFFT nodes is a good feature for a future version;
I also think what we have is a good layer to expose.  HRTF controls sound
pretty advanced, given the relatively low usage of Panner and HRTF today.
The DynamicsProcessor, I have to agree, needs some work, even in V1; and
ScriptProcessor is a problem (though an ongoing conversation with the TAG).
 I'm not totally convinced just providing a Web Worker based solution fixes
the problem, though it does help.

Again, just my opinion.

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 5:04 AM, kickermeister <>wrote:

> I completely understand that you cannot implement every feature request,
> but don't you think that a FFT / IFFT is a very basic and important tool
> for audio processing? At least from my perspective as someone who wants to
> implement some advanced audio processing in web browsers for fancy web
> applications, this is an important feature missing in your toolbox.
> Of course, I could also use the ScriptProcessorNode to apply a FFT and
> IFFT (I'm doing this actually by using
> but I'm having (still) some
> problems which make it a hackish workaround from my feeling.
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<>
> .

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 15:36:34 UTC