[Cuki79]

I agree with James.

In my own IR experiments, I usually do one recording with one mic position and then spend a lot of time in signal processing (a recipe including, number of samples, IR size, EQ, shaping the tail, multiband blending...).

It can be very tricky and it does not seem to give better results that what people have come to with Tonedexter just playing with the mic position.

I think everyone is trying to achieve a certain sound.

Cuki

PS: However I really wished Tonedexter enabled to export/import the wavmaps as wav or aif files and let people apply whatever plugins to their IR files. But I understand the DIY audio tweaker is not a valuable market target for Tonedexter.

PS2: The main advantage you have in tweaking yourself is the FFT windowing which seems to be quite strong in Tonedexter (from the samples I heard: I don't have a Tonedexter)... Making the IR a bit dark with a high end loss (to my taste).

Originally Posted by James May

No drawback and no latency problem, it's just more complicated that's all.

You can run the mic through a mixer/EQ if you want to sculpt the tonal balance and ToneDexter will make it sound like that when it trains. Just make sure whatever device you use has it's output reduced to mic level and can tolerate 48V phantom power.