You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As shown in In https://arlpy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/_static/bellhop.html , it seems like arrivals_to_impulse_response gives an incorrect time scale. According to the preceding table and graph, the final arrival is recorded at 0.721796 seconds, but the plot of arrivals_to_impulse_response shows the final arrival at ~0.055 seconds. Likewise, the output of arrivals_to_impulse_response (ir) only contains 5293 elements, but given a total time of 0.721796 seconds and a rate of 96000 Hz, I'd have instead expected ~69292 elements.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Oh, no wait; I was wrong - I didn't notice that the first graph X starts at around 0.665, making the whole thing ~0.055 seconds wide. arrivals_to_impulse_response just shifts everything over such that the first arrival starts at t = 0, I think; sorry.
@Erhannisarrivals_to_impulse_response() takes a keyword argument abs_time, which defaults to False. If you pass True, it'll give you in absolute time, according to the expectations you outlined in your original message.
As shown in In https://arlpy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/_static/bellhop.html , it seems like arrivals_to_impulse_response gives an incorrect time scale. According to the preceding table and graph, the final arrival is recorded at 0.721796 seconds, but the plot of
arrivals_to_impulse_response
shows the final arrival at ~0.055 seconds. Likewise, the output ofarrivals_to_impulse_response
(ir
) only contains 5293 elements, but given a total time of 0.721796 seconds and a rate of 96000 Hz, I'd have instead expected ~69292 elements.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: