Re: Questioning the current direction of the Web Audio API

Hmm, now I think I see basic gain control, so that was a poor example -
replace that with delay, or filtering, etc.  As for the other built-in
effects - perhaps I misspoke.  But I'd suggested that this was the major
issue - that you needed to do everything in libraries - and was never
corrected, and I see in the examples inclusions like "effect.js" and
"audio-ducking.js".  In the case where you have substantial built-in
libraries, I don't see a huge difference between where we are today and
MSP, then, other than the known problem of script nodes being in the main

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Robert O'Callahan <>wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Chris Wilson <> wrote:
>> My dislike for the Media Streams Processing proposal was not its
>> incorporation of JS; it was that it RELIED on JS to do even basic
>> processing like gain,
> That was never the case.
>> and in order to do pretty much anything in it, I would have to be writing
>> a lot of script myself, or including reverb.js, filter.js, oscillator.js,
>> etc in most of my projects.
> There was always an extension point for specifying built-in effects. That
> I never got around to specifying and implementing a good set of them is
> admittedly my fault.
> Rob
> --
> Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
> le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
> stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
> 'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
> waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
> *

Received on Monday, 21 October 2013 17:04:32 UTC