I have the latest version of Firefox and Safari and Google is informing me that I need a modern browser to experience it, which actually seems to just be Chrome.
Seems pretty passive aggressive.
I ranted about the <audio> element quite a while ago and many points are still valid. Also, <audio> can't be used for "dynamic" sound at all. Chrome's/Safari's WebAudio is the way to and Mozilla agrees, but hasn't done anything implementation wise.
So it's not just being limited to browsers that are technically capable of running it.
It's the words I'm annoyed by, not the fact that it doesn't work. Chrome is crap in my world (entirely subjective opinion) and branding it as the only 'modern' piece of kit is.. just the same.
And hasn't Mozilla had its own WebAudio implementation since FF4?
It works fine but at the bottom...same message.
I gave my monitor the middle finger.
When I tried opening someone's saved song in Firefox, the Play button did nothing. But it worked in Chrome.
Adding to my previous: it works _and_ there is no upgrade notification.
Also note that this one is being used to market Chrome, even to Firefox users, which is pretty insidious. See this tweet with screenshot from Dave Flanagan:
We have a number of browser vendors on board, including Mozilla, and have recently reached a consensus to push forward with the (webkit-proposed) Web Audio API rather than the Mozilla-proposed MediaStream processing API and Audio Data API.
You can find much more information here:
We'd really welcome input from developers and browser implementers at any stage.
If you don't like the post, downvote, but there's a reason why most techies like these sort of tech demos and we especially like it when we see a big company using them.
They aren't locking other browsers out (my FF 11 on Linux is working adequately). They're going to market regardless, I'd rather see things like this than raw ads.
I assume you never use Google since they just use search to push their ads?
Kudos to Google for fixing this.
Nobody has to agree with everything an employer does (ever), and I certainly don't agree with everything my employers do -- sometimes, that disagreement was public when I posted comments here under my real name. This was always a passing phenomenon, though, something like this:
> I think we could do better at X, and I'm definitely hearing what you're saying.
You, on the other hand, have months upon months of comments that betray a, to steal your word, insidious resentment of the company that you work for. You are semi anonymous, which is good for you but a terrible representation of Google; there is only one comment that I found where you forget to say "their" and you instead say "our".
I'm genuinely not trying to be an asshole, but I've seen you for a long time be negative about Google, and I don't think continuing to work there is going to make it any better for you or the company. There's a legally-questionable comment in your history, too, regarding ongoing litigation, which at my employer would be an immediate termination.
EDIT: I went back far enough to find that you're not anonymous.
If you don't work at Google, your wording is a suspiciously odd mistake, and a misrepresentation.
> OP: <joke about free time>
>> You: I'd rather they do something other than doodles with their time.
>>> Commenter: Oh, but the doodles solve real problems!
>>>> You: Google's doodles perpetuate the image that the CORPORATION I WORK AT is a fun place to be, helping to improve OUR image and attract the right recruits.
Whose image are the doodles improving other than Google's? What is the intended company for recruits that are tickled by a Google Doodle? You say the words "I work at" and "our" in your comment. I resent having to explain this word by word. I now see an alternative explanation, which would be that you're responding to "real problems" instead, but your timing is extraordinarily awkward if that is the case and makes no sense in context.
Obviously, I left that comment with the impression that you work for Google. It was only after I stared at it for fifteen minutes as a result of this discussion that I realized there could be an alternative meaning. You need to be more careful about how you word things.
> More like helping to perpetuate the image that "the corporation where I work is a "fun" place to be".
...where I'm quoting a Googler (not me).
I also love that I'm gray in less than sixty seconds for trying to help you be a little more clear in your comments due to a pretty severe misunderstanding.
The doodle is reminiscent of a Minimoog , but with several simplifications to make programming easier and more musical.
The large knob at the left is overall level (which does not equate to silence at its minimum setting, probably for UI simplicity). The three knobs to the right govern the volume of 3 individual oscillators.
The leftmost 3 knobs define the pitch octave range for each of the three oscillators. LO is a subsonic frequency mainly used for modulation purposes in real life. #2', 16', 8' etc. refer to the length, in feet, of the pipe on a pipe organ that will produce tones of that frequency. A 32 foot long pipe produces a very deep bass tone (about 16 Hz, probably sounds like noise on most speakers), a 16 foot pipe produces a tone exactly one octave higher, and so forth. There are no 64 foot pipes that I know of, hence the LO setting. It's not possible on this little synth, but normally you would use those super-low frequencies as modulation sources for other things. The two knobs in the center allow tuning of the oscillators across a 2-octave range. Really, this ought to be graduated in semitones. If you turn down the center oscillator and put the other two on identical settings, you should, in theory, get the same sound only twice as loud, but the doodle is a little bit buggy and sometimes pegs one oscillator an octave above or below the other. It's easiest to just reload periodically. On a real-life analog synth of that generation, the oscillators would drift out of tune and need to be calibrated periodically; also, the tuning would change as the machine warmed up over the first half-hour or so of operation, so early electronic keyboard players often had difficulty staying in tune with the band. It was this pitch instability that caused everyone to rush towards digital synthesis at the end of the 1970s, although nowadays you can get very stable analog oscillators.
The rightmost 3 knobs set the shape for each oscillator; triangle, saw, inverse saw, and pulse waves with 10%, 25% and 50% duty cycles respectively. I think there is something amiss with the display of the saw waves on oscillators 1 & 2. Saw vs. inverse saw makes no difference on a single oscillator but where you have 2 or 3 choosing different directions for the wave can lead to interesting textures. The shape of the oscillator affects the harmonic content thereof. A triangle wave sounds very close to a sine wave - a piercing pure tone - while being computationally inexpensive. (Stable sine waves are surprisingly hard to generate on the fly unless you have a lot of DSP power, and even digital synthesizer manufacturers often cheat by using lookup tables for sine waves rather than generating them.) A saw waves contains all possible harmonics and is a good basis for brassy sounds like those of trumpets. Square waves (pulse waves with a 50% duty cycle) sound 'hollow' because they only have odd harmonics, and are a good basis for synthesizing woodwind sounds, where the absorbent nature of the material dulls the sound somewhat. Combining pulse waves of different duty cycle can lead to texturally interesting effects, although this is much more noticeable when the length of the duty cycle can be modulated, as opposed to merely switched.
Something has gone terribly terribly wrong here, because this does not behave like any Moog synthesizer I have ever used. The top left knob controls the filter cutoff of a low pass filter, ie the frequency above which higher harmonics will be cut off. This is sort of like the effect you get if you sing a continuous AAAAAH tone with your mouth open and then gradually close your lips. Normally the knob tot he immediate right could control resonance, which boosts the signal around the cutoff frequency and produces an intense whistling/shrieking sound as it is turned up to maximum. High resonance and low cutoff settings act like a spotlight upon the timbral complexity of the oscillator output and are a staple of electronic music.
I am not sure what the rest of the knobs are supposed to do. They seem to allow oscillators 2 and 3 to be individually filtered, but unfortunately when I hold down a key and tweak the filter knobs the sound tends to break up. This is probably because the adjustment of filter and resonance controls in DSP require constant recalibration of filter coefficients, which is computationally expensive and not well implemented here. It is not normal to filter individual oscillators on an analog synthesizer. Normally one wants to apply a single filter to the mixed sound of the oscillators and modulate that with an envelope or low-frequency-oscillator - which is what I believe is supposed to be happening here, but it's too inconsistent for me to be sure. . Visually, this looks (slightly) reminiscent of a Moog Ladder filter , but that's usually a 4-stage transistor ladder, not a front panel set of controls.
This is the simplest part; the envelope defines the volume behavior when you press a key. The topmost knob is attack, or how fast the sound fades in; very fast for a plucked instrument like a bass guitar, slow for a string sound. The sound swells to maximum over the duration of the attack time, then falls back to the sustain level, adjusted by the middle knob. The last knob governs release, how fast the sound fades away after the envelope completes its cycle. If you set this very short the sound will die even if you hold a key down. Due to some oddities in the input processing event queue, as with the oscillators, the envelope's behavior is rather less than consistent.
As for the switch and the modulation wheel, I'm not clear on what is connected to what, for the reasons described above. I'm guessing there is an invisible low frequency oscillator for vibrato/tremolo purposes (modulation either the base frequency or the amplitude slightly to give a sound some extra texture), but the lack of tooltips and inconsistent behavior make them difficult to use in any predictable way.
If you are fascinated by this tool but frustrated, as I was, by the implementation problems, then you might like Morningstar (http://bitterspring.net/ms/morningstar/) - a basic html5 emulation of a popular Korg synthesizer/groovebox. Or Audiotool (http://www.audiotool.com/app) - a fully fledged html5 electronic music tool that sounds quite good considering it runs in the browser, but which may be overly complex for the novice.
"moog-osc2-rg" "moog-osc2-pb" "moog-osc2-wf"
"moog-osc3-rg" "moog-osc3-pb" "moog-osc3-wf"
If anything, maybe this will prompt Apple and Mozilla to get on the ball and support it.
Not a single one works for me, Chrome or not.
edit: actually, in Firefox (latest, non-nightly) it looks like it could work (knobs can be activated but don't do anything). Likewise in a recent Webkit nightly. But Chrome 17 is unresponsive, the doodle just links to a search.
GSU has been banned from my machine (since their GSU/Google Earth shenanigans), and Chrome has no built-in ability to update without GSU (or even say that there's an update available). So it gets updated when I think about updating it.
Not that I care much about it, my primary (if not only, due to tech demos like this one) use for Chrome is as a flash player.
(Love the four track recorder.)
- an arrow pointing to keyboard if you didn't pressed it
- a flash of light going through the mixer panel if you haven't used it
And also you can play by using keys from 1 to 0.
Steep learning curve as you'd expect from a full modular synth, but lots of samples and demos, and works with MIDI so you can play it with a real keyboard.
A lot of fun if you have a Windows installation knocking about. Free VST host, if you need one:
Not quite the same thing, but it has the same level of accessibility in the interface - a testament to the engineers who put the Minimoog together.
I liked this brief history of the Minimoog:
Similar (cross-platform) fun is to be had with the Bristol project's Mini:
I imagine a simular API for sound would surfice.
Really? I guess 6% of it's net sales isn't a huge amount i guess, but when that equates to £6.3 billion I wouldn't regard that as small fish.