Re: Some comments on the Web Audio API Spec

On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Steven Yi <stevenyi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Wow, ScriptProcessorNodes capable of missing blocks really makes the
> current state of things a bit fragile!

Exactly. We tried (in Firefox) to have a buffer queue instead of
double buffering, and this does make things a bit better for the
output side, in terms of glitch resilience, but it adds latency, so
it's a different tradeoff than other implementations. It's terribly
broken in any case.

> For AudioWorkers, does this part of the spec (from 2.11.2):
>
> "The AudioWorkerGlobalScope has an audioprocess event that is
> dispatched synchronously to process audio frames."
>
> then mean that it will not miss any blocks?  (I guess this is what I
> was assuming of the ScriptProcessorNodes originally.)

Yes, this is one of the property we want the AudioWorkerNode to have.
The other main properties are:
- No additional latency induced by the AudioWorkerNode
- Arbitrary schedulable parameters (AudioParams), accessible from the
main thread

Paul.

Received on Monday, 2 February 2015 21:12:16 UTC