Recent content by Stewix

Ok, thank you!... But... 1) How do I know the exact time required to align C with A? Do I have to look at "Cumulative shift", in the "Offset t=0" controls, and make them identical (of course taking care to move also D by the same amount)?... 2) After that, can I simply apply the same windows...

Ok, I'll try that then... :T Perfect, thanks. Which leads to my last question (finally)... Let's say I've got 4 measurements/impulses: let's call them A, B, C, and D... Let's say that I want to preserve the relative timing between A and B; and that I want to do the same between C and D...

I've compared it to the convolution plugin that I use while mixing, and also to a free/demo (considered good) program... Now, it is possible that my test was flawed in some way (I don't think so, as far as I can tell), but the point is: it gave me always the "highest null"; sometimes just a...

Hi!... Sorry to bother again, but this time I'd really like to do everything in the "right way"... I've still got a pair of merely "practical questions" on the matter... As has already been said, the impulse which is the most "faithful" to the hardware is the one measured (and not altered)...

Many many thanks again!... You have been awesomely helpful as per usual!... :T

Ok, thanks again!... So, just to see if I got you correctly: the problem has to do with the anti-alias filters of the ad/da converters (and/or the SRC algorithm used), and not with the way the impulse response is "calculated" when imported... I ask also because I still have the sweep...

Ok, I was curious to see if the 48k to 96k to 48k conversions were causing this, so I've done a test and I've created an impulse of an 1176 compressor directly at 96k (no conversions at all)... As you can see the look is still similar to an "acausal" response: What is going on?... Oh man, I...

PS: if the sweep (which was a 48k file) has been recorded throught a system working at 96k (which, of course, has applied a high quality sample rate conversion, both before and after the actual recording), do you think that is possible that these impulses are "exhibiting" this "acausal" look due...

Being a tape machine it is surely noisy (and we're not even talking about the crosstalk measurement!)... Here is another (a lot cleaner) measurement: the left channel of an Api Eq (again, not crosstalk, that could be so low to cause some "strangeness"): Again, it is somewhat similar to an...

Ok, this is how it looks the actual measured (and not modified) R impulse of a Telefunken-M15, for example... It looks more like an "acausal" one, but it is measured (real and not modified); so...why does it looks in this way?... Only because it is not minimum phase?... But this would bring...

Thanks... Sorry, where are these graphs in REW?... I ask because "mine" Impulse tab is looking different...

First of all, thanks! You are helpful as usual... Oh, and by the way, I ended up following your "suggestion" regarding the tape machine impulses: I avoided to use the smoothed (non minimum phase) impulses, and used the actual measured (non smoothed) impulse responses instead... Ok, I think I...

Hi John!... I hope you don't mind if I "resurrect" this thread, but I've got three brief questions which are strictly related to the topic, in fact I came up with them while creating again (crosstalk) responses of other gear... 1) In the manual is stated that when, for example, one is doing a...

Well, what can I say... You have been awesome!... Thanks for the "guidance" and for all the clarifications!...

Great!... Thanks!... Ok, sorry to bother you further, just one last thing (I promise): what if I want to use, for example, the "minimum phase" (smoothed) responses for the "normal signal channels", and the "measured phase" (not smoothed) responses for the "crosstalk channels"?... How can I be...