- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 12:33:38 +0200
- To: public-media-capture@w3.org
Interesting - I'd completely forgotten about sampleRate and sampleSize. sampleSize is in bits and defined only on linear-sampling devices, so it's likely to be 8, 16 or 24. sampleRate is usually 8000, 16000, 44100 or 48000 (192000 at the extreme). So both these refer to a single audio sample; latency and sampleCount would be completely equivalent: latency = sampleCount / sampleRate sampleCount = latency * sampleRate But if the user specifies sampleCount without specifying sampleRate, he might get a completely different latency from what he wanted; it seems unlikely that the user's tolerance for latency would increase with worse sound quality. What does the user care about? Den 14. mai 2015 03:41, skrev Jonathan Raoult: > Sorry guys I just jumped in this thread. > > I'm very interested in this discussion specially on the low latency > side. I recently hit the "optimum buffer size for everyone" wall with > getUserMedia and I would need something to adjust latency on capable > platform at least. > > What I noticed in music creation softwares (and other audio API as well) > is the use of frame count as input to adjust latency. Then the result in > ms calculated but only for display purposes. It would fit well with > sampleRate and sampleSize from MediaTrackSettings which are already low > level enough for the user to infer the latency in ms. It also have the > advantage of being precise, there not rounding or calculation to make > for the implementation. > > So to come back to the example, something like that is another solution: > > { sampleCount: { max: 20 } } > > Jonathan > > >
Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 10:34:09 UTC