Nope, single-threaded.Partitioned convolution?
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/marc...ful-test-of-activity-6830536446332542976-6pBc
I remember you writing (and showing graphs of) about early reflections with long IR's, but I seem to recall you not liking them.
Why are you cutting them at 512? That's going to drop a bunch of the bass response out of the IR. Which is going to only make things sound thinner, colder.fun to have this now that I am cuting them at 512
length not filter?Why are you cutting them at 512? That's going to drop a bunch of the bass response out of the IR. Which is going to only make things sound thinner, colder.
Low frequency characteristics are better defined in the higher order samples of the IR.length not filter?
Bass response isn’t cut, but rather “smeared”Why are you cutting them at 512? That's going to drop a bunch of the bass response out of the IR. Which is going to only make things sound thinner, colder.
I have found a combinaison of irs that work very well in 512 and then I had a graphic eq to built the rest of the sound . It sound better than my previous preset . I experiment this after fractal said that some irs sound better cut, he was right . But not all the irs . I think I ve spent a day just for itWhy are you cutting them at 512? That's going to drop a bunch of the bass response out of the IR. Which is going to only make things sound thinner, colder.
Right. Smeared. But if you're wondering why it's not right in the low end, less samples isn't likely to help here.Bass response isn’t cut, but rather “smeared”
That means the IR is that long, it also includes the room reflections that come after some 50ms or so?Nope, single-threaded.