Attempt to correct novelty object latency reporting #154
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Contributor
Author
|
This relates to #151 . |
This was referenced Jun 1, 2022
fearn-e
pushed a commit
to fearn-e/flucoma-core
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is my attempt to correct latency reporting for novelty. My assumptions are:
The previous state was that these were the same in both cases, neither compensating for the FFT window and BOTH correcting for an additional hop that I assume is the hop for the peak finder (which needs to lookahead by one).
I can probably provide audio and a test file to demonstrate why I think this is better if needed, but I'd need some time to put it together.