IRC log of audio on 2012-05-02

Timestamps are in UTC.

19:04:48 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #audio
19:04:48 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:04:54 [olivier]
19:05:00 [olivier]
Chair: Alistair
19:05:02 [olivier]
Scribe: Olivier
19:05:08 [olivier]
rrsagent, make logs public
19:05:10 [olivier]
19:05:13 [Zakim]
19:06:09 [olivier]
Topic: new members
19:06:33 [olivier]
Al: Microsoft has joined the working group, new member Tony Ross
19:07:50 [olivier]
zakim, take up agendum 1
19:07:50 [Zakim]
agendum 1. "ISSUE-12: Loop start/stop points" taken up [from olivier]
19:07:59 [olivier]
19:07:59 [trackbot]
ISSUE-12 -- Loop start/stop points -- raised
19:07:59 [trackbot]
19:08:34 [olivier]
Joe: came up at the f2f
19:08:57 [olivier]
… some confusion about what looping meant
19:09:16 [olivier]
Chris: agreed we should meet this requirement
19:09:18 [olivier]
19:09:30 [olivier]
CRogers: not implemented yet, but agree
19:09:35 [olivier]
… could be interesting semantics
19:10:03 [olivier]
… default, for most people, would be between 0 and size of the buffer
19:10:28 [olivier]
… but if not default value, if you have an internal loop point
19:10:54 [olivier]
Joe: the need is different from just a extract, which you can get with notegrainon
19:11:15 [olivier]
CRogers: expected behaviour if using an internal loop?
19:11:28 [olivier]
Joe: would expect to play until end of loop then go to end of buffer
19:11:39 [olivier]
… confusion with notegrainon?
19:11:52 [olivier]
CRogers: notegrainon not used in looping
19:12:24 [olivier]
Joe: depends what you want to do. If you want to play an enveloped sound, notegrainon lets you play a specific length of sample
19:12:34 [olivier]
CRogers: depends if you want to refer to a subsection of a sample
19:13:15 [olivier]
… in DLS and soundfounts (SP?) there is no notion of notegrainon
19:13:34 [olivier]
Joe: you are suggesting that noteoff be the mechanism to end a loop?
19:13:47 [olivier]
CRogers: yes, but that means special-casing a loop if you have an internal loop
19:14:19 [olivier]
… the name noteOn and noteOff are misleading
19:14:30 [olivier]
… would have been prefereable to use stop and start
19:15:07 [olivier]
… but the noteOn and noteOff are out in the wild now, question of how we'd keep supporting them (and what to say in the spec?)
19:15:46 [olivier]
… so we could have several methods - loopExit and (?)
19:18:11 [olivier]
CRogers: almost all loop end points I've seen tend to be at the end of sample data
19:18:31 [olivier]
Alistair: are we looking to merge this into one thing, and remove the grain?
19:18:53 [olivier]
CRogers: my gut reaction at the moment would be that notegrainon should not be used for looping
19:19:19 [olivier]
… we'd add 2 new attributes loopstart and loopend
19:19:42 [olivier]
… which would be set by default to 0 and end of sample
19:19:51 [olivier]
Joe: does that affect statefulness of node?
19:19:57 [olivier]
19:20:14 [olivier]
CRogers: could happen
19:20:33 [olivier]
Joe: this would introduce an ordering requirement
19:20:52 [olivier]
… where you could not set loopstart/loopend before you assign a buffer
19:21:15 [olivier]
CRogers: need to think about it, and we can discuss it on the list
19:21:50 [olivier]
CRogers: on a related subject, should we start deprecating noteon/noteoff?
19:21:57 [olivier]
Joe: I favour a name change.
19:22:06 [olivier]
CRogers: favour start and stop?
19:22:13 [olivier]
19:22:43 [Alistair]
ack Olivier
19:23:01 [olivier]
CRogers: spec should mention that noteon / noteoff should still be supported
19:23:57 [Alistair]
Olivier: It was not very clear from the usecases. if there is a suggetion on how to work on the use cases w. regards to this ite,
19:24:16 [Alistair]
19:24:52 [olivier]
Olivier: a little uncomfortable with having something deprecated from v1
19:25:00 [Alistair]
Oliver: I have a concern about renaming from NoteOn etc from Start. Saying it's deprecated from version 1 might be less than desirable.
19:26:00 [olivier]
Olivier: would either keep it normatively or have it informatively
19:26:49 [Alistair]
zakim, next agendum
19:26:49 [Zakim]
agendum 2. "ISSUE-6: Audio Param Constructor" taken up [from olivier]
19:26:53 [olivier]
Olivier: a compromise would be to consolidate, recommend the use of start/stop and say that noteon/off may be deprecated in the future
19:27:08 [Alistair]
19:27:35 [olivier]
Al: we had a tentative resolution on ISSUE-6
19:28:09 [olivier]
19:28:43 [Alistair]
Tentative Resolution: keep AudioParam constructor for a future version of the spec
19:29:42 [olivier]
Al: any change since we last looked at it?
19:29:52 [olivier]
CRogers: agree we should consider it for next version of the spec
19:29:53 [olivier]
19:30:01 [Alistair]
ack Olivier
19:31:44 [olivier]
Olivier: suggest to have a section of the spec mentioning the thing(s) we are keeping out of v1
19:32:03 [olivier]
… also agree we should close the issue, as there has been no objection for a month since tentative resolution
19:32:19 [Alistair]
zakim, next agendum
19:32:19 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "ISSUE-9: Channel handling" taken up [from olivier]
19:32:24 [olivier]
ACTION: Olivier to draft section of features "kept out" of v2
19:32:24 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Olivier
19:32:24 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ot, folivier3)
19:32:27 [olivier]
19:32:39 [olivier]
ACTION: livier to draft section of features "kept out" of v1
19:32:39 [trackbot]
Sorry, couldn't find user - livier
19:32:46 [olivier]
ACTION: olivier to draft section of features "kept out" of v1
19:32:46 [trackbot]
Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - olivier
19:32:46 [trackbot]
Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. ot, folivier3)
19:32:56 [olivier]
ACTION: ot to draft section of features "kept out" of v1
19:32:56 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-45 - Draft section of features "kept out" of v1 [on Olivier Thereaux - due 2012-05-09].
19:33:12 [chrislowis]
Zakim, who is noisy?
19:33:23 [Zakim]
chrislowis, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jussi (84%), Alistair (5%), olivier (54%)
19:33:42 [olivier]
zakim, next
19:33:42 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'next', olivier
19:33:47 [olivier]
zakim, next agendum
19:33:47 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "ISSUE-5: Pausing a sub-graph" taken up [from olivier]
19:34:14 [olivier]
zakim, take up agendum 3
19:34:14 [Zakim]
agendum 3. "ISSUE-9: Channel handling" taken up [from olivier]
19:34:25 [olivier]
19:34:25 [trackbot]
ISSUE-9 -- Multi-Channel support in Use Cases & Reqs. -- open
19:34:25 [trackbot]
19:34:28 [Alistair]
19:34:46 [olivier]
zakim, who is noisy?
19:34:59 [Zakim]
olivier, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: CRogers (6%), chrislowis (8%), jussi (11%), Alistair (100%)
19:36:55 [olivier]
19:39:27 [olivier]
Olivier : I think the 4 requirements cover all we need?
19:39:42 [olivier]
Chris: at the very list we want to be able to output to multiple channels
19:39:50 [olivier]
whether they are speakers or discrete channels
19:40:14 [olivier]
… so we need to have a way to query the hardware
19:40:29 [olivier]
… and set the audiocontext to that number of channels
19:40:59 [olivier]
… regardless of speakers and layout
19:41:13 [olivier]
Al: what is the current status of spec/implementation?
19:41:22 [olivier]
CRogers: there are notions of upmixing
19:41:39 [olivier]
… the destination node has a number of channels, currently hardcoded to 2
19:41:54 [olivier]
… we need to have a way to find out that a device supports more than stereo
19:42:26 [olivier]
q+ to ask if this is a requirement from us to dap?
19:42:41 [olivier]
Al: does this bring us to device enumeration, etc?
19:42:55 [Alistair]
ack Olivier
19:42:55 [Zakim]
olivier, you wanted to ask if this is a requirement from us to dap?
19:42:57 [olivier]
CRogers: at least we should know, given the default device, what is the number of channels
19:44:35 [chris]
19:44:38 [olivier]
Olivier: this should be on a group's roadmap - if not ours, maybe DAP?
19:45:18 [olivier]
CRogers: could have a read only attribute in the AudioDestinationNode reporting the max number of channels supported
19:45:38 [olivier]
Olivier: sounds reasonable
19:45:55 [olivier]
Crogers: would be a simple approach, I think it would work
19:46:15 [olivier]
Al: should we contact the DAP group, offer support?
19:47:41 [olivier]
Olivier: would be a good idea to ask DAP anyway, see what they think about us having it in web audio API
19:48:21 [olivier]
CRogers: there is the potential issue of fingerprinting
19:49:31 [olivier]
Olivier: does not seem to be in the same order of privacy risk as a case where you list all devices and their APIs
19:50:03 [Alistair]
zakim, who is noisy
19:50:03 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is noisy', Alistair
19:50:05 [Alistair]
zakim, who is noisy?
19:50:16 [Zakim]
Alistair, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: jussi (15%), Alistair (40%), olivier (20%)
19:50:27 [olivier]
zakim, take up agendum 4
19:50:27 [Zakim]
agendum 4. "ISSUE-5: Pausing a sub-graph" taken up [from olivier]
19:50:40 [olivier]
19:50:40 [trackbot]
ISSUE-5 -- Pausing a subgraph -- pending review
19:50:40 [trackbot]
19:50:55 [olivier]
Al: ROC not here today, best to pass over this?
19:51:01 [olivier]
(no objection)
19:51:13 [olivier]
Al: will add it to next week's agenda
19:52:33 [olivier]
Agenda: spec roadmap
19:52:40 [olivier]
Joe: wondering what is the status
19:52:51 [olivier]
Al: there seems to be increasing buy-in for web audio spec
19:55:55 [olivier]
Olivier: I get that sense too. I would like the group to resolve on this in the month to come
19:56:38 [olivier]
… if the group is to decide to go ahead with just the web audio API, which seems to be the trend, I'd like it to be a recorded decision by the group before we go to LC
19:57:02 [olivier]
… but we haven't had ROC on the call lately, so would want to hear his thought too
19:58:11 [olivier]
19:58:14 [Zakim]
19:58:16 [Zakim]
19:58:16 [Zakim]
19:58:17 [Zakim]
19:58:17 [Zakim]
19:58:18 [Zakim]
19:58:19 [Zakim]
19:58:22 [Zakim]
19:58:22 [olivier]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:58:22 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate olivier
19:58:23 [Zakim]
RWC_Audio()3:00PM has ended
19:58:24 [Zakim]
Attendees were jernoble, chrislowis, olivier, Alistair, Joe, mdjp, jussi, CRogers
19:59:20 [chrislowis]
Night all!
19:59:27 [olivier]
Topic: Spec Roadmap
19:59:44 [olivier]
rrsagent, draft minutes
19:59:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate olivier
20:01:35 [F1LT3R]
F1LT3R has joined #audio
20:12:40 [jernoble]
jernoble has left #audio
21:08:42 [colinbdclark]
colinbdclark has joined #audio
23:04:26 [automata]
automata has joined #audio
23:24:56 [colinbdclark]
colinbdclark has joined #audio