See also: IRC log
<mdjp> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Audio Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 10 March 2016
<mdjp> I have some internet issues here, struggling to connect to webex
<rtoyg_m> Same here. Doesn't seem to accept the meeting code.
<mdjp> ah - I'm not even getting that far
<mdjp> I'm guessing it still needs the host to join
<jdsmith> I'm on webex. It shows joe and Matt as well.
<jdsmith> No audio though.
<rtoyg_m> Has the meeting code changed? It won't accept it.
<hongchan> WebEX says 'the meeting can't be found'
<jdsmith> I just ran this link: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m95d805e15fcae1a4b63eb595f048ec35
<mdjp> ChrisL_ are you joiing webex?
<mdjp> I think it will spring into life once he does
<rtoyg_m> jdsmith: I'm trying that now.
<BillHofmann> POTS dialin doesn't work because host hasn't joined the meeting.
<BillHofmann> therefore, no audio.
<padenot> curious
<BillHofmann> well, the chairs need to have the host code, that's clear.
<jdsmith> I see folks talking, but don't hear audio. Is it just me?
<padenot> jdsmith: I can hear some folks here
yes, we are live now
<padenot> I might afk for 5min in 5min
<ChrisL_> the chairs do have the host code, but it sems they need an MIT kerberos authentication key too
<BillHofmann> Fabulous.
<BillHofmann> who is scribing?
<jdsmith> Looks like my local audio is broken. I'll leave and rejoin shortly.
<rtoyg_m> We're in!
<scribe> scribenick: joe
padenot: we've made progress on
proxy model. lots of comments, thanks everyone. All comments
have been addressed.
... we're almost there. 10 patches on worklets text since last
looked at it. ready to start on audioworker.
... will be working in the alps on audioworker next week w/ no
distractions.
mdjp: we've moved a long way in
the last couple of weeks
... anthing blocking this?
padenot: it's all clear now. we just need to do the work
mdjp: we'll keep this at top of the agenda for the next few meetings. any other comments?
mdjp: we have the usual bunch of issues to go through.
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/756
rtoy: this is a broad editorial thing.
mdjp: let's drop this right into v1
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/749
rtoy: this is a comment from Philip re SpatialPannerNode. Could we just merge the new spatial features into the existing PannerNode?
mdjp: so we'd no longer have SpatialPannerNode
clilley: I thought we wanted to separate out the "normal" L/R panning from other features
rtoy: That's the StereoPannerNode. This is about SpatialPannerNode.
<padenot> I'm back
BillHofmann: the defaults were wrong and confusing in the old PannerNode
rtoy: the fact that the X/Y/Z coords of everything are now AudioParams in the new node are significant
BillHofmann: maybe this is archaeology but if we thought that the PannerNode was hard to use, did we also make a mistake in SpatialPannerNode?
rtoy: I don't remember why we
broke SpatialPannerNode out. But there were no AudioParams in
PannerNode
... I don't remember why we made this change except that
automation is now possible.
... we changed the deafult to eq power a long time ago
BillHofmann: so does PN still have the nonautomatable parameters?
rtoy: I think for backwards compatibility we would need to keep the old position setting methods
BillHofmann: it seems like we decided to deprecate PN, now are we asking whether to un-deprecate?
rtoy: yes
BillHofmann: we're not required to keep compatibiliy right now. Do we think this is a major impact?
rtoy: to do what?
BillHofmann: to deprecate PN. It's not marked as deprecated yet
rtoy: we could do that but because they're so similar, do we really have to break compatibility?
BillHofmann: if we meant to deprecate and didn't that sounds like a mistake. Did we strongly feel we should do that?
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
joe: if we didn't realize taht SpatialPN was an enhancement of PN, why not reverse a bad decision
mdjp: this buys us some
compatiblity by not deprecating something
... I don't see an issue with this and I think I'm in favor
BillHofmann: what happens if people use old-school setPosition() in conjunctoin with AudioParams
padenot: we could define setPosition() in terms of actions on AudioParams to unify the definitions
BillHofmann: yes, that does seem a bit clunky
rtoy: we could add a deprecation
msg to the console
... how about everyone post their comments to the bug
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/748
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/741
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
... so using spherical coordinates makes this much easier
BillHofmann: at Dolby we think
about this in terms of whether you're doing user-based changes
or environment-centric
... so there's no single way to do this that makes "the most
sense"
rtoy: I'm fine with closing this as just an idea. One can make things reasonably smooth by piecewise automation of Cartesian coords
mdjp: how does this work in other common libraries? do they mostly use Cartesian?
rtoy: yes they do
... we can close this w/ no action
mdjp: that would be my feeling
_1
+1
<BillHofmann> ChrisL - I can never remember it :)
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/740
mdjp: makes sense to do this simple ed. change
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/739
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
BillHofmann: I love the idea of being able to load one's own
mdjp: there were a few requests
on this. some came from my team a long time ago.
... we need to do a bit of digging to see if there's a ticket
anywhere
... 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
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/737
rtoy: this basic term isn't defined anywhere
joe: isn't "block size" actually defined?
padenot: we can link to some text I added in the Processing Model
rtoy: I'll wait for the Proc Model to land and we can take it from there
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/730
ok this sounds like something that just needs to be done. what are the compatibiliy issues here?
padenot: it's got a patch, I'll have a look in gecko
mdjp: shall I just assign this to you Paul?
padenot: yes thanks
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/729
padenot: this is not like a state
that is stable.
... if you are in the same ... wait I think I got confused
...
... I'll follow up on this
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/713
rtoy: this is about scheduling param automation events in the past
mdjp: didn't we discuss this last call?
rtoy: I don't remember that
joe: I dno't remember discussing
this
... for congruence w/ rest of API, clamping to currentTime
feels like the right thing to do
rtoy: yeah, we could do that
mdjp: that just leaves the many "property bag" issues
joe: I've held off on my ctor PR because of all of these dangling questions about ctor signatures and property bags
mdjp: I think that's it for item 2
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/673
rtoy: we need to look at nominal ranges for all the AudioParams to expose the min/max r/o attributes
<mdjp> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/667
rtoy: one other item from last week was the playback latency category-or-number issue
<rtoyg_m> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/348
mdjp: question still seems to be about numbers vs categories
rtoy: original proposal used categories, some wanted more fine grained control
joe: is there a precedent in Web APIs for signatures that allow String or numbers?
rtoy: I don't know but WebIDL does let you allow this sort of thing
<rtoyg_m> https://github.com/WebAudio/web-audio-api/issues/348#issuecomment-190341633
joe: nice to be able to specify both but need to be able to introspect what the UA actually gave you
padenot: don't we have this on the dest node
joe: that is proposed to be latency in ms not the batch size
mdjp: we need to come back to this
rtoy: I'll propose something on the bug and folks can comment
mdjp: we're out of time. one more meeting before F2F
mdjp: next call is 24 March
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found ScribeNick: joe Inferring Scribes: joe Default Present: padenot, ChrisL, joe, hongchan, rtoyg_m, jdsmith, cwilso, mdjp Present: padenot ChrisL joe hongchan rtoyg_m jdsmith cwilso mdjp BillHofmann ChrisL_ WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 10 Mar 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/03/10-audio-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]