4 ms·

Change the destination output device in Web Audio

33 points by feross 4y ago

spacebeer 4y ago
Or you could make a OS/DE for normal people, with an option to change audio output per program with 2 clicks, like KDE Plasma does.
- goodSteveramos 4y ago
  Agreed. Web apps have no business knowing what my audio config is. Instead of the OS or browser implementing a working sound picker, every single website will have to do it and all but the big ones will do it slightly wrong. Google is positioning the web for them to take over the desktop.
  - echelon 4y ago
    Absolutely they do! This makes it possible to develop and distribute your app on the web, which is much easier than supporting native downloads.
  - zamadatix 4y ago
    It's more easily explained as always wanting your web conference call to use your headset even if normally you want the browser to use something else than as a replacement for changing your OS settings. The web is constantly positioned to takeover the desktop though, has been for many years at this point.
    - dsr_ 4y ago
      IOW, it would be meet and proper for the browser to be able to remember sound settings per site, and bad to offer web pages that ability.
aliqot 4y ago
This is pretty cool, I'm curious if we'll see DAWs start targeting the browser as a platform. I could see Bitwig or Ableton accomplishing this. Curious if Cockos has this in their sites, given that they seem to be most active and forward thinking.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Not sure what the metric for "most active and forward thinking" is, given that Ardour already has support for websocket-based browser control surfaces, and in general releases as often or more often than Reaper. But anyway ... Given that we already have things like Cardinal (a FLOSSier version of VCV Rack) running directly in the browser, I expect that a wasm port of an open source DAW will likely occur within a few years. Whether that would be a good thing is a different question. Browser audio is absolutely not the ideal platform for pro-audio (if indeed it is even possible to get the required performance at all), but for "bedroom producers" and podcasters, it might be sufficient. The problem is that many (not all, but most) DAWs are built on native toolkits (in-house or 3rd party) that assume access to a very large operating system API. Although wasm/browser-land keeps expanding, it is still quite a long way from covering all the things that the (e.g. 86) libraries relied by on a typical native DAW require from the host environment.
  - fleventynine 4y ago
    For collaboration between "bedroom producers", a wasm-based plugin ecosystem would be a huge upgrade from a native DAW. I hate trying to share a project and having to worry about "do they have the right plugins/softsynths installed" and other tedious technical distractions. I'd be happy to give up 50% performance (of a native DAW) for the collaboration benefits alone.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      Collaboration doesn't require a wasm based ecosystem, and in addition a was-based plugin ecosystem is ... well, i don't even know what you're talking about there to be honest. There are plugins you already cannot get on a given platform ... do you think that adding a new platform that is likely less performant and has the same "almost fully portable but not quite" characteristics is going to help or convince plugin developers to support it too? Collaboration requires common file formats above all else. Sharing plugins is the icing on the cake, and frequently not necessary. With sufficient bandwidth, realtime collaboration with everyone using their own preferred DAW is also fairly possible.
justinclift 4y ago
Ugh. Gating on a "microphone" permission sounds wrong. There's no chance at all I'll give a web browser based app permission to use any audio capture device on my systems. Depending on the app though, I might not have the same reservation for playing audio. If it's really gated on "microphone" access though, it's just not going to happen.
IshKebab 4y ago
Ah good, I found it very confusing that Google Meet can choose an input device but not an output. I thought my headphones weren't working or something. Kind of a pain to change it in Gnome too (why is there no output selector in the system tray? Windows has had that for decades)

33 points by feross 4y ago

Or you could make a OS/DE for normal people, with an option to change audio output per program with 2 clicks, like KDE Plasma does.

goodSteveramos 4y ago
Agreed. Web apps have no business knowing what my audio config is. Instead of the OS or browser implementing a working sound picker, every single website will have to do it and all but the big ones will do it slightly wrong. Google is positioning the web for them to take over the desktop.
- echelon 4y ago
  Absolutely they do! This makes it possible to develop and distribute your app on the web, which is much easier than supporting native downloads.
- zamadatix 4y ago
  It's more easily explained as always wanting your web conference call to use your headset even if normally you want the browser to use something else than as a replacement for changing your OS settings. The web is constantly positioned to takeover the desktop though, has been for many years at this point.
  - dsr_ 4y ago
    IOW, it would be meet and proper for the browser to be able to remember sound settings per site, and bad to offer web pages that ability.

aliqot 4y ago

This is pretty cool, I'm curious if we'll see DAWs start targeting the browser as a platform. I could see Bitwig or Ableton accomplishing this. Curious if Cockos has this in their sites, given that they seem to be most active and forward thinking.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
Not sure what the metric for "most active and forward thinking" is, given that Ardour already has support for websocket-based browser control surfaces, and in general releases as often or more often than Reaper. But anyway ... Given that we already have things like Cardinal (a FLOSSier version of VCV Rack) running directly in the browser, I expect that a wasm port of an open source DAW will likely occur within a few years. Whether that would be a good thing is a different question. Browser audio is absolutely not the ideal platform for pro-audio (if indeed it is even possible to get the required performance at all), but for "bedroom producers" and podcasters, it might be sufficient. The problem is that many (not all, but most) DAWs are built on native toolkits (in-house or 3rd party) that assume access to a very large operating system API. Although wasm/browser-land keeps expanding, it is still quite a long way from covering all the things that the (e.g. 86) libraries relied by on a typical native DAW require from the host environment.
- fleventynine 4y ago
  For collaboration between "bedroom producers", a wasm-based plugin ecosystem would be a huge upgrade from a native DAW. I hate trying to share a project and having to worry about "do they have the right plugins/softsynths installed" and other tedious technical distractions. I'd be happy to give up 50% performance (of a native DAW) for the collaboration benefits alone.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    Collaboration doesn't require a wasm based ecosystem, and in addition a was-based plugin ecosystem is ... well, i don't even know what you're talking about there to be honest. There are plugins you already cannot get on a given platform ... do you think that adding a new platform that is likely less performant and has the same "almost fully portable but not quite" characteristics is going to help or convince plugin developers to support it too? Collaboration requires common file formats above all else. Sharing plugins is the icing on the cake, and frequently not necessary. With sufficient bandwidth, realtime collaboration with everyone using their own preferred DAW is also fairly possible.

justinclift 4y ago

Ugh. Gating on a "microphone" permission sounds wrong. There's no chance at all I'll give a web browser based app permission to use any audio capture device on my systems. Depending on the app though, I might not have the same reservation for playing audio. If it's really gated on "microphone" access though, it's just not going to happen.

IshKebab 4y ago

Ah good, I found it very confusing that Google Meet can choose an input device but not an output. I thought my headphones weren't working or something. Kind of a pain to change it in Gnome too (why is there no output selector in the system tray? Windows has had that for decades)