Anti-aliasing advice for de-interleaved signals
in [DSP]
|
Prev: Announcing AjarDSP - an open source VLIW DSP
Next: Last Call for Papers Reminder (extended): International Conference on Signal Processing and Imaging Engineering ICSPIE 2010
From: PhilipOrr on 29 Jul 2010 04:39 >Aside from compensating for offsets, why go differential? > >Jerry It allows me to suppress the other signal that is strong and common to both polarisations (happens to be strain in this sensor). Common drifts in the two measurements are removed. Also, there is that [weak] increase in SNR... That's about it I suppose. Are you implying I shouldn't bother? I'm using the lame 'some benefits outweighs no benefits' argument here as you can tell.
From: Jerry Avins on 29 Jul 2010 07:07
On Jul 29, 4:39 am, "PhilipOrr" <philip.orr(a)n_o_s_p_a_m.eee.strath.ac.uk> wrote: > >Aside from compensating for offsets, why go differential? > > >Jerry > > It allows me to suppress the other signal that is strong and common to both > polarisations (happens to be strain in this sensor). Common drifts in the > two measurements are removed. Also, there is that [weak] increase in > SNR... > > That's about it I suppose. > > Are you implying I shouldn't bother? I'm using the lame 'some benefits > outweighs no benefits' argument here as you can tell. It has a cost that is probably justified by the strain and drifts. The cost is forgoing the extra samples you could average. A sharper low- pass filter would likely be better than simple averaging. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ |