W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-audio@w3.org > December 2010

Some thoughts

From: Jussi Kalliokoski <jussi.kalliokoski@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:52:52 +0200
To: public-xg-audio@w3.org
Message-ID: <1291384372.3293.32.camel@slk-palvelin>
Hey guys,

Lately I've invested really a lot of time and thought to the research of
our Web Audio Api, and there are some things that are disturbing me, so
I thought I'd bring them up. But first I'd like to say I really really
appreciate the work that's been done here, it's awesome and I actually
hope you'll prove my points to be wrong.

So, I'll just start listing things:

First: Synchronization. Say I have an AudioParam that is being modulated
with an AudioCurve. Cool. What if I want to add a UI that controls it?
According to the specification it would seem to me that it would
actually change the parameter only every time the AudioContext asks for
a buffer, so if I for example move a slider, the value changes get
stacked up to the next buffer change, which would introduce audible
edges in the parameter change, if I change the cutoff parameter slowly,
ie. Am I mistaken? This is also a big concern for midi events, which
brings me to my next point:

MIDI. Yes, we can always create VMKBDs or cool touch interfaces, but if
this is to be used in music production, MIDI is a must. I understand we
cannot achieve support for external MIDI devices, but it's going to come
sooner or later. So I'm saying, let's not make the system crippled from
the beginning, we've seen too many examples of that in the audio area. I
think we want this to be as ready to the future possibilities as is
possible, that, for me, means implementing built-in support for MIDI
events, even though we can't yet receive them. This would help with the
fact that there are in-browser VMKBD implementations and MIDI file
readers, and so that the support would already be there when we have the
actual devices too, not forcing the developers to change the whole
architechture they built on the last time (Like VST and DirectX have
done).

Third thing is that now we have MODULES that are connectible, however
the ideal situation, IMO would be that we don't connect modules, we
connect ports, just like in analog audio. Say there are three port
types, Audio, Midi and Param and these all have outputs and inputs which
can be connected. This for me, is a much more flexible and modular
environment, which I think is something that we should achieve with our
work. You can see what I mean by visiting my Modular Synth project at
http://niiden.com/jstmodular/ (FF4 only).

I know all this seems a little bit late after all the hard and great
work Chris has done and everyone here has agreed upon, but I really
resist the idea of making a system that is already... outdated (sorry)
on it's release.

Best Regards
Jussi Kalliokoski

P.S. Please don't hate me for this, I felt like I had to bring this
up. :/ I would hope this is regarded as constructive criticism, and a
place for further discussion.
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 13:53:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:37:59 UTC