From: Rune Allnor on
On 1 Aug, 21:33, spop...(a)speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> Rune Allnor  <all...(a)tele.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
> >On 1 Aug, 20:42, spop...(a)speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> >> Rune wrote,
> >>>This is well-known from statistichal DSP. I can't come up
> >>>with specifc citations, as my library is is storage and
> >>>will remain there for a few weeks to come,
> >> Ha!
> >Send me your credit card info, and I will order a copy of
> >P&M - on your expense - to be delivered overnight. Everything
> >is in there. One only needs to read it.
>
> I just found it a bit amusing that you wanted me to furnish
> a proof of my statements, but for your statements it's okay
> for you to point to a textbook.

The difference is that you have been wrong, while I have discussed
plain, standard textbook material all the time. Asking you to provide
a proof of your statement is another way of stating a semantic
meaning often enough expressed on usenet as "RTFM!"

> >> The OP was designing a sixth-order Butterworth, not a linear
> >> phase FIR, but no matter.
> >That was what the OP talekd about, yes. Somebody else started
> >wining about lattice structures only being explained on a per
> >application basis. There are very good reasons for that - one
> >needs to know *exactly* what they are used for and why.
>
> It was Tim who asked about where this topology was documented
> since it didn't seems to be in the textbooks he had at hand.

I pointed out that lattices are dangerous stuff that needs
to be handled with care.

> It was then that I committed the Evil of pointing to a Mathworks
> document.  I did not give them an unqualified endorsement; I said
> "something like the Mathworks Filter Design Toolbox has a passable
> explanation of this topology."  I then later posted an exact
> link.  I now feel like I'm in a "no good deed goes unpunished"
> situation.  :-)

Your posting of the links does not need punishment; your failing
to comprehend the material does,

Rune
From: Steve Pope on
Rune Allnor <allnor(a)tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

>Your posting of the links does not need punishment; your failing
>to comprehend the material does,

Please cite something I've said in this thread that was not
accurate.

Hint: you won't be able to.

Steve
From: Steve Pope on
Rune Allnor <allnor(a)tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

[lattice filters]

>but I will
>tell you what to look for. I know this is treated in the
>Proakis & Manolakis general DSP text:

It is. I'm back in my office today so I have Proakis &
Manolakis right in front of me.

In the summary at the end of Chapter 9 these authors state:

"Finally we mention that lattice and lattice-ladder filter
structures are known to be robust in fixed-point implementations."

The is what I was attempting to commuicate to the OP for
his filter problem, before the discussion got sidetracked.


Steve
From: Steve Pope on
Rune Allnor <allnor(a)tele.ntnu.no> wrote:

[lattice filters]

>but I will
>tell you what to look for. I know this is treated in the
>Proakis & Manolakis general DSP text:

It is. I'm back in my office today so I have Proakis &
Manolakis right in front of me.

In the summary at the end of Chapter 9 these authors state:

"Finally we mention that lattice and lattice-ladder filter
structures are known to be robust in fixed-point implementations."

This is what I was attempting to commuicate to the OP for
his filter problem, before the discussion got sidetracked.


Steve