It is typically used in acoustics, say when an hammer hits a surface very hard.
The initial peak is so much louder than the rest that any stuff that shows up later isn't really relevant anymore.
Basically down in the background noise, so to speak.
As for which window.
ARTA only uses Hann, but these days one could pick whatever suits in VituixCAD.
So it is actually very easy to import any impulse responses into VituixCAD.
I don't think it's splitting hairs.
@napilopez
That's also not the point I am getting frustrated with, I am getting frustrated when people get pedantic about things that don't matter.
But missing the bigger picture of it all.
A good scientist is smart with the way he's measuring stuff.
One doesn't need a 100k Klippel system to get accurate, consistent and repeatable data.
Those systems are nice to have, no discussion about it, but clearly aimed for companies who have the funds for it to back-up the time an engineer has to spend on measurements.
Back in the day when I was doing my study of applied physics, we had the crappiest gear one could think of.
Yet we were able to measure things extremely precise, consistent and accurate.
It didn't look pretty, but it got the job done.
The whole magic in the stitching method, is that de lower part with bafflestep is
VERY predictable.
Only when this goes into diffraction problems, simulations go very wrong.
Mostly because that part is close to non-linear acoustics (well, kind of , but let's not get to silly about details).
So basically one only needs decent data up to 2-3 times the lowest window frequency (time), and you're fine.
The lower part can be done and corrected with simulations.
The biggest reason why "weighted" time-windows are useful, is in less optimal rooms.
It just gives you that extra couple of tens-hundred Hz that can be useful to fit the data well enough.
The reason why I said what I said, is because I don't follow at all the "frequency resolution" argument at all.
For the reasons I already described, and to summarize than again; there are a lot of methods to find any disturbances around that frequency range.
In the end, maybe people think I sound grumpy.
That is not at all my intention with all of this.
(second, it is just the way I sometimes type and come across, my apologies, it's a non-stop work in progress.....)
But what I see a lot is basically see to many parrot stories about things that can't be done.
My message is just to be smart with the tools you have, and you can get VERY far.
Maybe not to 0.5dB accuracy, but who needs that anyway?
I have created very good sounding speakers with a ton of reflections in the measurements.
Just because at that time, or on that specific location there simply wasn't anything better.
As long as you know what to look for, they don't matter.
Nothing a normal human being could pick up anyway.
Not for creating speakers but also not for
comparing speakers.
Some say that "measuring is knowing" but that only counts for when you know (have a idea, or feeling) what you're measuring.
Otherwise it is still meaningless ans useless.
biggest trap for young ,as well as old, players.
Above all, I am mostly hoping that people get engaged, get involved, fact check certain things, look into more articles etc.
I am the first one to change his mind if somebody can find a better method or explanation etc.
Mostly, try things out themselves !!!!