On Sat, 2019-01-12 at 22:56 -0200, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote: > Em sex, 11 de jan de 2019 às 19:25, Alexandre Torres Porres < > [email protected]> escreveu: > > So it seems this delay scheme needs to be revised, and maybe that's > > why the minimum window size of 64 gives us some weird artifacts! > > > > Actually, based on another thread I opened here on the list, it seems > the minimum hop size for an overlap needs to be 64, so [block~ 64 2] > wouldn't really work... this means that starting with a window of 64 > samples could raise issues, hence it might be the actual culprit!
I haven't fully grasped your patch illustrating the issue yet, but you seem to have identified the problem. Well done! I'm already totally happy with the partitioned convolutions presented here and with the current minimum delay of 128 samples. I'm curious, though, whether it's possible to maintain correct results with smaller delays by treating smaller block sizes differently. Roman
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
