-
Posts
2 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Helmut Wittek
-
-
I was pointed to this thread about the SuperCMIT latency and I'm happy to comment.
When we designed the SuperCMIT in 2010, we opted for a minimum latency for ch1 at higher frequencies and accepted the compromise that the latency got frequency-dependent. In practice we found no real disadvantage (loudspekers also have a frequency-dependent latency), but nevertheless we told our customers to keep it in mind.
It has always been more a theoretic issue, no practical user identified it as a problem. Actually, there has been one sound engineer that wanted to experiment with the SuperCMIT, ch1, in M/S, where you really need exact phase alignment. For this guy we produced the attached compensation FIR filter.
Remember that the normal CMIT signal on ch2 of the SuperCMIT has a normal, frequency-independent latency. So whenever you need to mix a lav with the Super, simply choose ch2!
When using the SuperCMIT, in my guess 90% of the users use ch1, Preset1, 5% use ch1, Preset2 and 5% ch2. Usually ch2 is only recorded as a backup when the situation makes you doubt the algorithm or when you want to offer an option to post.
Super CMIT and wireless phase issues
in The Post Place
Posted
Yes, it's FIR filter which you use with a FIR convolution plugin.
Yes, this is possible in theory (in future versions) when you accept an overall latency of > 6 ms.