Re: Questioning the current direction of the Web Audio API

Answer from Chris Lowis :

 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

> 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! Cheers, Chris

Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 14:01:32 UTC