- From: Chris Rogers <crogers@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:55:12 -0700
- To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
- Cc: public-xg-audio@w3.org, Corban Brook <corbanbrook@gmail.com>
Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 21:55:43 UTC
> > > Very nice. Overhead on my machine is very low (20%) and I think at least > half that overhead is WebGL rendering. It would be nice to duplicate the > functionality of the Realtime Ananyzer demo so we can understand the > difference in overhead between doing FFT's in JS vs native code. > > > > ----- > > ~Chris > > cmarrin@apple.com > > > > Sure, I can do that. I know that the Mozilla folks have already done > this and found the JS FFT performance to be acceptable for realtime > analysis. Where the FFT overhead gets quite a lot heavier is in > panning/spatialization and convolution where there are hundreds of larger > sized FFTs per second. > > It would be useful to have an apples-to-apples comparison. What sample rate > does the Realtime Analyzer demo use? It would be nice to do a test of 48KHz > stereo, just to see how much we can stress it in JS. > > ----- > ~Chris > cmarrin@apple.com It normally runs at 44.1KHz. I think they were getting results like 0.4ms per size 1024 FFT, which is not very heavy for doing a fairly standard real-time analysis. When I get some time, I can try to see what results we get for JSC and V8 in WebKit. I imagine we'll see something similar. Chris
Received on Friday, 6 August 2010 21:55:43 UTC