Jim Audiomisc
pfm Member
It would be good if someone can see if they can replicate this to pick up any error I've made. Details...
The gross time offset between the 88k full-content files is about 1.667 sec. That should get you to within a couple of dozen samples (88k rate) of alignment. (It looks like 18 in what I got.) I grabbed sections with that initial time offset which last about 15 sec, targetted on including the noise burst. The xc was over about 11 sec span of samples/file.
The process noise seems 'randomised' enough to be dispatched by the xc process over that span. At least, sufficient to show the filter pattern remains dispersive and familiar. Looks like the waiter adds the same ketchup, though.
The peaks are lower because the process noise alters the normalisation. It is part of the unfolded signal power which is rejected by the xc, so you only get the fraction in the 'common' pattern in both input and output.
BTW The plot shows both channels... well it would if one didn't neatly overlay the other!. So in a sense it is two scans.
I'll now get back to what I was supposed to be doing today. But couldn't resist trying the above, and said "Bingo!" when the result popped up. So worth a try.
The gross time offset between the 88k full-content files is about 1.667 sec. That should get you to within a couple of dozen samples (88k rate) of alignment. (It looks like 18 in what I got.) I grabbed sections with that initial time offset which last about 15 sec, targetted on including the noise burst. The xc was over about 11 sec span of samples/file.
The process noise seems 'randomised' enough to be dispatched by the xc process over that span. At least, sufficient to show the filter pattern remains dispersive and familiar. Looks like the waiter adds the same ketchup, though.
The peaks are lower because the process noise alters the normalisation. It is part of the unfolded signal power which is rejected by the xc, so you only get the fraction in the 'common' pattern in both input and output.
BTW The plot shows both channels... well it would if one didn't neatly overlay the other!. So in a sense it is two scans.
I'll now get back to what I was supposed to be doing today. But couldn't resist trying the above, and said "Bingo!" when the result popped up. So worth a try.