Re: [web-audio-api] Questioning the current direction of the Web Audio API (#263)

Hi Sebastien,

Thank you very much for getting in touch, it's great to hear from
computer musicians and to learn more about your requirements. I'll reply
in-line here, but perhaps we could continue the discussion as a group on

> ry similar paradigm). It turned out to be pretty much impossible. For
> a simple reason is that Web Audio API really lacks objects, so I would
> have to implement most of them using **ScriptProcessorNodes**, and
> then loose all the benefits of using Web Audio API (all dsp in one
> ScriptProcessorNode would be faster).

Could you clarify what you mean by "objects"? Do you mean node types,
and in particular one-to-one mapping to existing nodes within PD - or
are you talking about a JavaScript "object" layer on top of Web Audio?

> The only stab - that I know of - at implementing some serious sound
> programming library on top of other WAA nodes is
> [waax]( But it cruelly lacks objects,
> and uses a couple of [ugly
> hacks](

I could do with a clarification of "objects" again here, just to help
understand what you mean.

> I love the idea of Web Audio API. But right now I feel that it really
> lacks prespective, and a clear direction.

I think it's fair to say that the Web Audio API targets, at least in the
initial "version 1" form common use cases on the web where previously
one may have used Flash, plugins or hacks around the <audio>
element. Having said that, there has been a large amount of interest
from the computer music community in the API, and there is certainly a
lot of interest in developing more in this direction.

> I'd really like to hear people's opinion about why they do it like
> that, how and why they think it can/will be used for real-life
> applications, because the goals stated in the draft are - in my humble
> opinion - completely unrealistic with the current functionalities.

Our Use Cases document gives a good idea of the kind of real-life
applications we are targetting:

> I am sorry to be a bit harsh, and question this project in its
> foundations, but I suppose that's what you get for being implied in
> open standards : any random angry guy out there can come and complain
> :)

Not at all, speaking personally I think what you are doing is
fascinating and something I hope more people will attempt using the API
in the future. Please keep the discussion going!



Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:

Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 12:49:47 UTC