> What this does is make it so you can put any grain next to any other grain, and they should fit together pretty decently. This gives you C0 continuity by the way, but higher order discontinuities still affect the quality of the result. So, while this method is fast, it isn’t the highest quality. I didn’t try it personally, so am unsure how it affects the quality in practice.<p>It's not just about continuity. It also removes an entire set of concerns from the process.<p>For example-- suppose someone analyzes an audio recording, splits it into grains, then does some fancy re-organization based on the timbral content of the recording/grains.<p>Now suppose they are subjectively unhappy with the result. Perhaps it sounds "wimpy," "fluttery," or some other such vague complaint. Is that sound due to a) their process of re-organizing the grains, b) the quality of the original recording, c) the envelopes they used, or d) something else entirely?<p>If instead one uses grains which begin and end at zero, the answer can't be C because it doesn't exist. I can say that the quality sounds fine in the few examples I've heard that use this technique.<p>I'd imagine the reason the latter isn't used as often is because it's simply more difficult to program if each grain can be an arbitrary size (or at least not quantized).