Recent content by Stewix

Thanks for the umpteenth time!... :)

Of course, I agree regarding the level... But what should I imply from this, that the "Tukey form" would then be somewhat "useless", because with a very low level also the artefacts would be practically non-existent, or that the reverb tail should be so low that the "Tukey form" wouldn't "harm"...

Ok, thanks... I think then that, regarding the example of the reverb tail that stops at 3000 ms, having a right window of 3000 ms is the right thing to do... But if I use the "Tukey 0.25" form, shouldn't I let just a bit more ms, so that that "form" does not "alter" the end of the tail?...

Yes, thanks, but I was not asking this... I was asking if there is some reason, regarding the audio quality, to let some more "space" on the right... Let's say that a "reverb tail" stops completely at 3000 ms; is there a "resolution benefit" in letting 500 ms more, setting the right width to...

I've done some more tests regarding using REW for downsampling external impulses, and I've seen that REW seems to do a better job if I apply a window when exporting/converting... So, let's say I import a church impulse, for example, that has a tail that lasts 3 seconds (3000 ms)... What is the...

Ok, thanks... I'm not worried about the differences between the channels, but the difference between the "normal" channels (L-R), and the "crosstalk" channels (R-L), is that the "crosstalk" measurements have a considerably poorer sound to noise ratio (it was inevitable); but, also in that case...

PS: moreover, impulses "derived" from the same system (like in my specific case: 4 impulses of the same stereo gear piece), would have the same system bandwidth and, therefore, peaks aligned would also mean impulses time aligned, right?...

Ok, I think you are referring to the fact that, for example, a subwoofer impulse, having only low frequency, would have a "larger peak"... But when two IRs can be considered "time aligned" then, when their starting points (where they start to raise from noise floor) are aligned?...

Oh, ok... So I was right in saying that one way to export impulses so that they are aligned is to apply to them the same left width, while keeping their respective ref time unchanged... Good to know!... You have been awesome as always!... Many many thanks!... :T

Thank you again!... To conclude: what can make REW not put the window ref time at the impulse peak? Maybe a measurement with a poor sound to noise ratio?... Or what else?...

Ok, you're clarifying that the "timing reference" (contained in the measurements) and the "reference time for windows" are actually two different things... Ok, I think I get it: that's for the fact that it can vary that it is not necessarily true that, to align different impulses, is enough to...

Ok, I've done some tests applying some arbitrarily chosen delay time with a plugin in my DAW, and I've come to the conclusion that I was still misunderstanding the way that Time Ref actually works... For example, if I record two impulses responses of a room with a speaker and two mics (or two...

Ok, good: as I was thinking using them shouldn't generate an "acausal" response, just like when mixing and using a minimum phase EQ... If I'm not wrong the second method is more "precise", right? Anyway, I used the same sweep, which contained also a Time ref... But the measurement went as...

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...