Audio synthesis / processing in JavaScript(audiolibjs.org)
audiolibjs.org
Audio synthesis / processing in JavaScript
http://audiolibjs.org
4 comments
fft.js supports as large buffers as JS can handle, that depends a bit on the browser, but 256k samples will probably work, you might have some trouble in Chrome, if you have too much other stuff in memory as well. Would be cool to see a demo of PADsynth on the web, especially with audiolib.js!!!
Paulstretch would be a perfect addition to the library, it would open whole new doors for example for samplers (whoa, the sample is sustained forever!), of course with some limitations in regards of real time. Send me a message on GitHub, if you decide to take up on the task, I'd be glad to give you a hand with it! :)
Paulstretch would be a perfect addition to the library, it would open whole new doors for example for samplers (whoa, the sample is sustained forever!), of course with some limitations in regards of real time. Send me a message on GitHub, if you decide to take up on the task, I'd be glad to give you a hand with it! :)
Unfortunately, in this period of time I am quite busy porting Paulstretch to Android. I have rewritten a (C++) fixed point implementation of Paulstretch and now I have to write the GUI for Android. After I will release it, I hope that I will have some time to port it to JS. Anyway, feel free to add the task for me (my user is 'paulnasca').
If you want to look at the algorithm of Paulstretch you can have a look to a simple Python implementation: https://github.com/paulnasca/paulstretch_python/blob/master/... The algorithm is pretty fast, the most time consuming operations are the FFTs and IFFTs. That's why I think that it might work on real-time JS.
If you want to look at the algorithm of Paulstretch you can have a look to a simple Python implementation: https://github.com/paulnasca/paulstretch_python/blob/master/... The algorithm is pretty fast, the most time consuming operations are the FFTs and IFFTs. That's why I think that it might work on real-time JS.
I wrote an interactive demo to create sound waves (FM Synthesis) using JavaScript. Now I will try this audiolibjs to make it better and add effects. I was creating effects from the scratch (using rand to produce white noise, etc):
http://js.do/sound-waves-with-javascript/
(Click each "Interesting Sound and Waves" to see each effect. Graphics/waves are created using Processing.JS)
Wow, that's very cool! I think you could make a great learning resource for FM synthesis from there, especially if you'd explain how each of those examples are put together!
Ooh. This might be the beginning of JS/web-based synths. I'm curious what kinds of cool synths musicians might dream up and how the having synths on the web could make it different than anything before. Are browser-makers considering an API that allows me to plug my MIDI keyboard into a webpage?
One of the earlier demos (about a year old and unfinished) : http://niiden.com/orbisyn/ :) has a virtual MIDI keyboard, to which you can connect a MIDI synth if you have Java. It isn't exactly native support, and it's very unpredictable, but it's something that can be used meanwhile.
However, the Device API should allow access to external inputs, such as microphones and MIDI controllers, so it's coming along!
However, the Device API should allow access to external inputs, such as microphones and MIDI controllers, so it's coming along!
This is interesting, but it seems like they are processing/producing a single sample at a time (though some effects seem to be buffer-based.) While convenient, it is a very, very inefficient way of doing things.
Actually, the API allows for both, whichever suits your needs. When doing buffer based processing, you can even add advanced automation, etc.
I've looked at all of the examples in the src/generators, and the amplitude processor and I don't see the buffer-based generate() -- maybe I am just missing something?
Ah yes, looking at the source code makes it a bit obscure, because the inheritance patterns are described in the wrappers. But for generators, you can do, for example osc.append(buffer, channelCount);, because generators are by nature multi-channel, but for effects you have to create a multi-channel instance, like flt = audioLib.LP12Filter.createBufferBased(channelCount, sampleRate, cutoff); and then you can use the append function similarily to generators.
This is a design choice to make implementing new effects simple, and the framework providing this extra functionality for you.
This is a design choice to make implementing new effects simple, and the framework providing this extra functionality for you.
I see that you have layered a Buffer-style API on top of your per-sample code (api-buffer-effects.js), and I could still be missing something, but it looks like that just automates the call to process each sample individually --
Of course, without profiling this is just speculation.
//api-buffer-effect
self.effects[n].pushSample(buffer[i + n], 0);
//api-generator
out[i + n] = this.getMix(n) * this.mix + buffer[i + n];
Of course, without profiling this is just speculation.
Yep, I definitely see where you're coming from with this. It was my initial take as well, but as crazy as it is, after some time spent comparing different approaches, turned out that this is the fastest way to do it in JavaScript world, and that is true even up to older browsers such as IE8 (I haven't bothered measuring anything related in browsers older than that, because IE8 is the oldest browser with some way to output generated sound), but especially true with the latest optimizations such as CrankShaft.
However, I should probably set up some public performance tests and compare the instructions these things compile to have some hard data back my claims, I wouldn't exactly trust me just saying it is so, as I have just tested these things on the fly.
But, however, this approach is more modular, and fits more use cases, and that matters even more for me right now, but trust me, I've spent my time optimizing every operation to the point that it doesn't make things harder to use. :)
However, I should probably set up some public performance tests and compare the instructions these things compile to have some hard data back my claims, I wouldn't exactly trust me just saying it is so, as I have just tested these things on the fly.
But, however, this approach is more modular, and fits more use cases, and that matters even more for me right now, but trust me, I've spent my time optimizing every operation to the point that it doesn't make things harder to use. :)
Very cool! It is so exciting to see jit technology improve so much. In C, it is definitely faster to go in batches -- having things in batches in C also makes it easy tO plug in vector libraries if available on the current platform.
I would love to see your performance benchmarks.
I would love to see your performance benchmarks.
Also, from the API, it seems that I could implement Paulstretch algorithm ( http://hypermammut.sourceforge.net/paulstretch/ ) easily. When I'll have some free time, I'll try it. EDIT: I looked a bit closer on interface EFFECT and Paulstretch cannot be implemented as an effect, but as a generator. Needs to be studied more :)