|
From: | Doug Stewart |
Subject: | Re: discuss [bug #43305] Hamming etc. windows are wrong |
Date: | Mon, 5 Jan 2015 11:13:46 -0500 |
I just moments ago wrote a response to Doug Stewart's note in a related thread, "Ltfat tria window", in which he gets a window (triangle in his case) which is rotated from what might be expected. That is, the triangle window is high at the ends and low in the middle. Of course this is convenient if one wants to apply it to a normally-indexed DFT result (0 .. N - 1) whereby the high frequencies are attenuated more than the low frequencies. As I note there, both types of windows are applicable, typically unrotated windows for applying to time series and rotated windows for applying to (unrotated) frequency series.On Dec 30, 2014, at 10:48 AM, Doug Stewart <address@hidden> wrote:Rik asked me to start a discussion here about how to fix this bug.The real question is: Should we do as Matlab did or should we make the defaultbe the more mathematically correct method.I am arguing for the mathematically correct method as the default.( I will be happy even if I loose the argument)I will post my argument in the next chapter :-)Comment are welcome.So while we are attending to fixing up Octave's window functions I think we should add another option to return a rotated version.I suppose it's obvious but by rotated I mean circularly shifted by N / 2 or N / 2 - 1 depending on the direction of the shift.JerryP.S. Here's a clarification on my name(s). Sorry for any confusion.I am the OP on the Hamming etc. window bug; my login name is Oscar Ruitt which is an alias. (It's a joke in English if you say it quickly.) My list e-mail address usually includes lanceboyle which is another joke. My real name is Jerry Bauck and I normally just sign as Jerry so as to avoid polluting my internet namespace.
windows_for_Octave_ch2.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |