Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Phil Graham" data-source="post: 39250" data-attributes="member: 430">Re: Virtual SMAART training: Tell the crossover frequency and typeThe delays are the reference delays. Since a transfer function compares the input and the output, the input must be shifted in time to line up with the output.The delays are indeed exceedingly long, and there is some funny business going on with how my laptop uses the new internal reference generator loop back in SMAART 7.3. I&#039;ve got a DSP set up to investigate this today. The actual time values don&#039;t matter, though. All that matters is the alignment between input and output.Because I have experience to know approximately what the phase response of the loudspeaker and DSP should look like natively, I am able to find the correct reference delay time, regardless of how long it appears to be, and how unphysical that value might seem.I&#039;ll eventually unpack part 1. As for your other two assertions: the first makes no physical sense, and the second is incorrect.<a href="http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm" target="_blank">http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm</a>I know that&#039;s brief, but I&#039;ve got a full day.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Phil Graham, post: 39250, member: 430"] Re: Virtual SMAART training: Tell the crossover frequency and type The delays are the reference delays. Since a transfer function compares the input and the output, the input must be shifted in time to line up with the output. The delays are indeed exceedingly long, and there is some funny business going on with how my laptop uses the new internal reference generator loop back in SMAART 7.3. I've got a DSP set up to investigate this today. The actual time values don't matter, though. All that matters is the alignment between input and output. Because I have experience to know approximately what the phase response of the loudspeaker and DSP should look like natively, I am able to find the correct reference delay time, regardless of how long it appears to be, and how unphysical that value might seem. I'll eventually unpack part 1. As for your other two assertions: the first makes no physical sense, and the second is incorrect. [URL]http://www.linkwitzlab.com/crossovers.htm[/URL] I know that's brief, but I've got a full day. [/QUOTE]

Verification