17:01:28 RRSAgent has joined #audio 17:01:29 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-audio-irc 17:01:30 RRSAgent, make logs world 17:01:32 Zakim, this will be 28346 17:01:32 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 17:01:33 Meeting: Audio Working Group Teleconference 17:01:33 Date: 10 March 2016 17:01:37 agenda? 17:01:48 zakim, bye 17:01:48 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been padenot, ChrisL, joe, hongchan, rtoyg_m, jdsmith, cwilso, mdjp 17:01:49 Zakim has left #audio 17:01:54 trackbot, start meeting 17:01:56 RRSAgent, make logs world 17:01:56 Zakim has joined #audio 17:01:58 Zakim, this will be 28346 17:01:58 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 17:01:59 Meeting: Audio Working Group Teleconference 17:01:59 Date: 10 March 2016 17:02:02 agenda? 17:02:18 Agenda+ Audioworker update 17:02:28 Agenda+ New and Uncommitted issues https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+no%3Amilestone 17:02:32 present+ rtoyg_m 17:02:44 Agenda+ F2F 17:02:49 Agenda+ Next Meeting 17:02:56 present+ mdjp 17:03:42 I have some internet issues here, struggling to connect to webex 17:04:06 Same here. Doesn't seem to accept the meeting code. 17:04:18 BillHofmann has joined #audio 17:04:19 ah - I'm not even getting that far 17:04:55 ChrisL_ has joined #audio 17:04:56 hongchan has joined #audio 17:04:58 hongchan has left #audio 17:04:59 I'm guessing it still needs the host to join 17:05:06 I'm on webex. It shows joe and Matt as well. 17:05:08 hongchan has joined #audio 17:05:18 No audio though. 17:05:39 Has the meeting code changed? It won't accept it. 17:05:41 WebEX says 'the meeting can't be found' 17:06:20 I just ran this link: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m95d805e15fcae1a4b63eb595f048ec35 17:06:30 ChrisL_ are you joiing webex? 17:06:38 I think it will spring into life once he does 17:06:41 jdsmith: I'm trying that now. 17:07:05 POTS dialin doesn't work because host hasn't joined the meeting. 17:07:15 therefore, no audio. 17:07:19 curious 17:07:42 well, the chairs need to have the host code, that's clear. 17:07:42 I see folks talking, but don't hear audio. Is it just me? 17:08:16 joe has joined #audio 17:08:38 jdsmith: I can hear some folks here 17:08:51 yes, we are live now 17:08:58 I might afk for 5min in 5min 17:09:04 the chairs do have the host code, but it sems they need an MIT kerberos authentication key too 17:09:10 Fabulous. 17:09:18 zakim, take up agendum 1 17:09:19 agendum 1. "Audioworker update" taken up [from mdjp] 17:09:36 who is scribing? 17:09:43 Looks like my local audio is broken. I'll leave and rejoin shortly. 17:10:10 We're in! 17:10:19 present+ BillHofmann 17:10:36 present+ hongchan 17:10:36 present+ ChrisL_ 17:10:38 scribenick: joe 17:11:09 padenot: we've made progress on proxy model. lots of comments, thanks everyone. All comments have been addressed. 17:11:40 padenot: we're almost there. 10 patches on worklets text since last looked at it. ready to start on audioworker. 17:11:55 padenot: will be working in the alps on audioworker next week w/ no distractions. 17:12:06 mdjp: we've moved a long way in the last couple of weeks 17:12:20 mdjp: anthing blocking this? 17:12:29 padenot: it's all clear now. we just need to do the work 17:12:46 mdjp: we'll keep this at top of the agenda for the next few meetings. any other comments? 17:12:47 zakim, take up agendum 2 17:12:47 agendum 2. "New and Uncommitted issues https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+no%3Amilestone" taken up [from mdjp] 17:13:05 mdjp: we have the usual bunch of issues to go through. 17:13:50 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/756 17:14:22 rtoy: this is a broad editorial thing. 17:14:28 mdjp: let's drop this right into v1 17:14:36 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/749 17:15:08 jdsmith has joined #audio 17:15:18 rtoy: this is a comment from Philip re SpatialPannerNode. Could we just merge the new spatial features into the existing PannerNode? 17:15:52 mdjp: so we'd no longer have SpatialPannerNode 17:16:07 clilley: I thought we wanted to separate out the "normal" L/R panning from other features 17:16:31 rtoy: That's the StereoPannerNode. This is about SpatialPannerNode. 17:16:43 I'm back 17:17:11 BillHofmann: the defaults were wrong and confusing in the old PannerNode 17:17:22 present+ jdsmith 17:17:33 rtoy: the fact that the X/Y/Z coords of everything are now AudioParams in the new node are significant 17:18:01 BillHofmann: maybe this is archaeology but if we thought that the PannerNode was hard to use, did we also make a mistake in SpatialPannerNode? 17:18:19 rtoy: I don't remember why we broke SpatialPannerNode out. But there were no AudioParams in PannerNode 17:18:35 rtoy: I don't remember why we made this change except that automation is now possible. 17:19:05 rtoy: we changed the deafult to eq power a long time ago 17:19:25 BillHofmann: so does PN still have the nonautomatable parameters? 17:19:45 rtoy: I think for backwards compatibility we would need to keep the old position setting methods 17:20:03 BillHofmann: it seems like we decided to deprecate PN, now are we asking whether to un-deprecate? 17:20:05 rtoy: yes 17:20:21 BillHofmann: we're not required to keep compatibiliy right now. Do we think this is a major impact? 17:20:25 rtoy: to do what? 17:20:37 BillHofmann: to deprecate PN. It's not marked as deprecated yet 17:21:58 rtoy: we could do that but because they're so similar, do we really have to break compatibility? 17:23:06 BillHofmann: if we meant to deprecate and didn't that sounds like a mistake. Did we strongly feel we should do that? 17:23:37 rtoy: yes we did want to deprecate. but we forgot to mark PN as deprecated. Now that we look at SpatialPN though it's really just become an "enhanced" PN 17:24:28 joe: if we didn't realize taht SpatialPN was an enhancement of PN, why not reverse a bad decision 17:24:54 mdjp: this buys us some compatiblity by not deprecating something 17:25:07 mdjp: I don't see an issue with this and I think I'm in favor 17:25:29 BillHofmann: what happens if people use old-school setPosition() in conjunctoin with AudioParams 17:26:07 padenot: we could define setPosition() in terms of actions on AudioParams to unify the definitions 17:26:25 BillHofmann: yes, that does seem a bit clunky 17:26:47 rtoyg_m_ has joined #audio 17:27:01 rtoy: we could add a deprecation msg to the console 17:29:19 rtoy: how about everyone post their comments to the bug 17:29:46 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/748 17:30:52 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/741 17:31:39 rtoy: because we're automating SpatialPN now, you would need to break up automation into X/Y/Z changes to do something like spin around 17:31:58 rtoy: so using spherical coordinates makes this much easier 17:32:48 BillHofmann: at Dolby we think about this in terms of whether you're doing user-based changes or environment-centric 17:33:12 BillHofmann: so there's no single way to do this that makes "the most sense" 17:33:36 rtoy: I'm fine with closing this as just an idea. One can make things reasonably smooth by piecewise automation of Cartesian coords 17:33:53 mdjp: how does this work in other common libraries? do they mostly use Cartesian? 17:34:03 rtoy: yes they do 17:34:17 rtoy: we can close this w/ no action 17:34:25 mdjp: that would be my feeling 17:34:26 _1 17:34:27 +1 17:34:46 ChrisL - I can never remember it :) 17:34:53 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/740 17:35:19 mdjp: makes sense to do this simple ed. change 17:35:31 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/739 17:36:22 rtoy: not sure what to do here. ChrisW was concerned that on mobile in particular the delay in loading HRTF database was pretty noticeable an dbad 17:36:32 BillHofmann: I love the idea of being able to load one's own 17:36:48 mdjp: there were a few requests on this. some came from my team a long time ago. 17:37:00 mdjp: we need to do a bit of digging to see if there's a ticket anywhere 17:37:21 mdjp: what I would suggest for this is bring it up again with Chris and I'll look and see if I can find any reference to our agreeing to do this 17:38:08 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/737 17:38:29 rtoy: this basic term isn't defined anywhere 17:38:53 joe: isn't "block size" actually defined? 17:39:20 padenot: we can link to some text I added in the Processing Model 17:39:33 rtoy: I'll wait for the Proc Model to land and we can take it from there 17:40:02 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/730 17:40:55 ok this sounds like something that just needs to be done. what are the compatibiliy issues here? 17:41:10 padenot: it's got a patch, I'll have a look in gecko 17:41:20 mdjp: shall I just assign this to you Paul? 17:41:28 padenot: yes thanks 17:41:42 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/729 17:42:37 padenot: this is not like a state that is stable. 17:42:53 padenot: if you are in the same ... wait I think I got confused ... 17:43:00 padenot: I'll follow up on this 17:44:20 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/713 17:45:06 rtoy: this is about scheduling param automation events in the past 17:45:16 mdjp: didn't we discuss this last call? 17:45:20 rtoy: I don't remember that 17:45:50 joe: I dno't remember discussing this 17:46:19 joe: for congruence w/ rest of API, clamping to currentTime feels like the right thing to do 17:46:29 rtoy: yeah, we could do that 17:48:21 mdjp: that just leaves the many "property bag" issues 17:49:37 joe: I've held off on my ctor PR because of all of these dangling questions about ctor signatures and property bags 17:49:52 mdjp: I think that's it for item 2 17:50:22 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/673 17:51:23 rtoy: we need to look at nominal ranges for all the AudioParams to expose the min/max r/o attributes 17:51:33 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/667 17:52:31 rtoy: one other item from last week was the playback latency category-or-number issue 17:53:29 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/348 17:54:46 mdjp: question still seems to be about numbers vs categories 17:55:02 rtoy: original proposal used categories, some wanted more fine grained control 17:55:32 joe: is there a precedent in Web APIs for signatures that allow String or numbers? 17:56:24 rtoy: I don't know but WebIDL does let you allow this sort of thing 17:56:36 https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/348#issuecomment-190341633 17:57:17 joe: nice to be able to specify both but need to be able to introspect what the UA actually gave you 17:57:49 padenot: don't we have this on the dest node 17:57:59 joe: that is proposed to be latency in ms not the batch size 17:58:22 mdjp: we need to come back to this 17:58:31 rtoy: I'll propose something on the bug and folks can comment 17:58:40 mdjp: we're out of time. one more meeting before F2F 17:58:56 zakim, take up agendum 4 17:58:56 agendum 4. "Next Meeting" taken up [from mdjp] 17:59:18 mdjp: next call is 24 March 17:59:42 rrsagent, make minutes 17:59:42 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-audio-minutes.html joe 18:44:35 rtoyg_m has joined #audio 19:42:40 ChrisL has joined #audio 21:04:26 hongchan has joined #audio 21:10:53 padenot has joined #audio