- From: Raymond Toy <rtoy@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 11:22:09 -0800
- To: Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>
- Cc: s p <sebpiq@gmail.com>, "K. Gadd" <kg@luminance.org>, Chris Wilson <cwilso@google.com>, Marcus Geelnard <mage@opera.com>, Lonce Wyse <lonce.wyse@zwhome.org>, "public-audio@w3.org" <public-audio@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAE3TgXHXLpzwuPzUduc5N0b-z-tnV3huYVhuAiOTsjN6stb2bA@mail.gmail.com>
A general question: Have you (generic you, not you, Joe) actually encountered a problem with dezippering? WebKit and Blink have been doing this for years now, so has dezippering been a problem? It doesn't count if you just cooked up an example specifically to show how dezippering got in the way. :-) On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Joseph Berkovitz <joe@noteflight.com>wrote: > +1, and just one more angle on this — by way of an analogy. > > How would web developers feel if visual animation was applied by default > for all changes in HTML geometry, and they had to set some special property > in order to “really mean it” when they moved or resized an HTML element? > > Yes, animated motion usually looks better than a jump for many simple > cases. But this doesn't make it a good idea to bake animation into the CSS > API. And in fact, sure enough (even before CSS3 made it easier) users were > perfectly happy with using JS middleware, i.e. jQuery, to get animated > motion. > > Dezippering is no different. It’s a type of animation, but in the audible > realm. Sometimes you want it, sometimes not. When you do want it, there are > a lot of fussy, context-dependent conditions governing where and how it is > used. We should not be guessing at these very un-obvious conditions (e.g. > prescribing that gain should have it but playbackRate shouldn’t, etc.). > > So I continue to agree with the De-dezipperers. Let’s make this something > that’s easy to do… if you want it. It doesn’t belong in the spec. > > . . . . . ...Joe > > *Joe Berkovitz* > President > > *Noteflight LLC* > Boston, Mass. > phone: +1 978 314 6271 > www.noteflight.com > "Your music, everywhere" > > On Nov 9, 2013, at 3:34 AM, s p <sebpiq@gmail.com> wrote: > > 100% agree with K. Gadd > > > Sure, if you're wanting to develop an 8-bit-style game, you'll probably > use a library; If you're just loading music tracks and sound effects, I > don't see that much benefit to imposing someone else's structure. > > Wrong. Why don't you just try an audio middleware, and see what sound > designers are actually doing in real-file? They almost never "just load a > sound effect". One of the most basic example is a motor noise in a car > game. How do you think this is implemented? You have a several sounds to > which you apply filters/pitching/... and all those parameters are modulated > according to the speed of the car in the game. And that's just a simple > example of automation. > For the complicated example : now it is more and more common to do > generative music in games, simply because it is the most natural thing to > do. "Just loading a sound track" is inherently linear, cause the soundtrack > has a beginning and an end, while many games are really not linear, and > generative music feels much more natural. > > > >
Received on Thursday, 14 November 2013 19:22:36 UTC