W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > May 2015

Re: Specifying the audio buffer size

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 06:49:54 +0200
Message-ID: <55557AF2.5060106@alvestrand.no>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 05/15/2015 01:26 AM, Charlie Kehoe wrote:
> Perhaps the most practical thing to do is to notate this as a lower
> bound on latency. The purpose is to allow less latency-sensitive
> applications to express their tolerance for higher latency. It will be
> pretty tricky to guarantee a latency upper bound when running a
> complex audio stack on arbitrary hardware.

Yes, it is pretty tricky. Which is why I think it would be most useful
(most likely to succeed) as an "ideal" constraint - "here's what I want,
but I can live with not getting it".

But I don't get what a "lower bound on latency" would mean. Would it
mean that the application wouldn't tolerate the browser sending it audio
sooner than this time? That would seem a bit bizarre.

>
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:32 PM Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com
> <mailto:jib@mozilla.com>> wrote:
>
>     I meant the latency attributed to the audio buffer only.
>

to Jan-Ivar's comment: I have no idea what part of the delay can be
attributed to "the audio buffer" - real implementations usually are more
complex than this.
Let's specify constraints in a way that relates to what the user wants,
not how it's implemented.
Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 04:50:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:33 UTC