|
This topic was last updated 180 days ago, and thus it can be considered old. Replying is disabled for this topic.
|
mike_mccue
on Jun 2, 2009, 2:35am:
Hi, I'm working thru some tests to audition the way each parameter in I.M. works.
I have tried the Window Type setting as Cos2>, Blackman, and Hamming all with a Window Size of 600.
I don't see any difference when I zoom in in a wave form editor.
What should I expect?
thanks,
mike
I have tried the Window Type setting as Cos2>, Blackman, and Hamming all with a Window Size of 600.
I don't see any difference when I zoom in in a wave form editor.
What should I expect?
thanks,
mike
Aleksey Vaneev
on Jun 2, 2009, 4:56am, edited 1 time(s), last modified on Jun 2, 2009, 12:58am:
Well, the Window type setting is very technical (which I could easily remove from user selection) - there is difference, but it's probably not worth a note for general use. Window size is more obvious.
mike_mccue
on Jun 2, 2009, 12:32pm, edited 1 time(s), last modified on Jun 2, 2009, 8:35am:
Thank you for the reply,
Is there any circumstance where selecting one window type creates a noticeable difference in character?
I haven't done a null test yet but it seems that a test like that is the only way to discern a difference in the files I have prepared.
I am testing all the parameters of I.M. to gain familiarity .. I appreciate the tip about the window size.
best regards,
mike
edit spelling
Is there any circumstance where selecting one window type creates a noticeable difference in character?
I haven't done a null test yet but it seems that a test like that is the only way to discern a difference in the files I have prepared.
I am testing all the parameters of I.M. to gain familiarity .. I appreciate the tip about the window size.
best regards,
mike
edit spelling
Aleksey Vaneev
on Jun 2, 2009, 3:35pm:
Window size does change the precision of frequency-specific damping. Window type does not really have any major significance.
mike_mccue
on Jun 2, 2009, 5:21pm, edited 1 time(s), last modified on Jun 2, 2009, 1:23pm:
Thanks for the further explanation.
I took some impulses I made in I.M. with different window types and tried a null test. The original impulse files peaked at -3dBFS. After the null test I found activity below 1000kHz peaking at -73dBFS but peak RMS was at -133dBFS. I surely can not hear a difference. :-)
thanks again,
mike
I took some impulses I made in I.M. with different window types and tried a null test. The original impulse files peaked at -3dBFS. After the null test I found activity below 1000kHz peaking at -73dBFS but peak RMS was at -133dBFS. I surely can not hear a difference. :-)
thanks again,
mike
Aleksey Vaneev
on Jun 2, 2009, 5:30pm:
Yes, that's to be expected.
|
This topic was last updated 180 days ago, and thus it can be considered old. Replying is disabled for this topic.
|
Copyright © 2002-2012 Aleksey Vaneev - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - About Voxengo - Questions & Answers