Re: Intent to implement and ship: IIRFilterNode

Thanks for the replies, Dan and Roy. A first order filter node with AudioParam inputs seems a likely future addition AFAIK. Even with that though, having a way to apply a custom biquad without needing to decompose into multiple textbook filters is useful I think. And I agree that implementing

Re: Intent to implement and ship: IIRFilterNode

On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Karl Tomlinson wrote: > Daniel Minor writes: > > > Summary: This provides an alternative to using BiquadFilterNode when > > odd-order filters are required or automation is not needed. It is part of > > the Web Audio spec and is already

Re: Intent to implement and ship: IIRFilterNode

Daniel Minor writes: > Summary: This provides an alternative to using BiquadFilterNode when > odd-order filters are required or automation is not needed. It is part of > the Web Audio spec and is already implemented in Blink. Thanks for looking at this, Daniel. I fear that high order filters

Intent to implement and ship: IIRFilterNode

Summary: This provides an alternative to using BiquadFilterNode when odd-order filters are required or automation is not needed. It is part of the Web Audio spec and is already implemented in Blink. Bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1265408 Link to standard: