The Best Name for Signal Recovery Matched Filtering

B

Bret Cahill

Guest
I just assumed "matched filtering" included the deconvolution and
other steps to recover the original signal's shape.

In this case it was actually easier to invent a new filter -- I
assumed it already existed -- than to be scholarly and do some
research.

To avoid confusion with the terminology from now on the filter that
takes the convolution of a noisy signal like a conventional matched
filter and then takes the deconvolution to recover the original wave
form should be called "signal recovery matched filtering."

This will distinguish it from the signal detection matched filter
_even if the new filter is used for signal detection_.

I've updated http://www.bretcahill.com to reflect the new terminology.

If anyone can think of a better name, i.e., the "Cahill Filter" please
post.


Bret Cahill
 
if (bretCahillPostedInCompDSP)
{
compDSP.SNR -= 10; /* derate SNR by 10 dB */
}
--
Randy Yates
DSP/Firmware Engineer
919-577-9882 (H)
919-720-2916 (C)
 
Conventional matched filtering should really be understood as a
truncated version of the signal recovery method in the Excel example
at http://www.bretcahill.com.

It sounds counter intuitive but by omitting the signal recovery steps
traditional match filtering has the often desirable additional effect
of low pass filtering. Since noise is often at a higher frequency than
signals few were willing to question a situation where you get 2
filters just by being too lazy to complete what should be considered
the first filtering operation.

Even when signal detection is all that is desired, however, it would
be better to separate what should really be treated two distinct
processes. Recover the original signal by taking the deconvolution of
the match filter output, and then, if any additional frequency
filtering in necessary, tailor it to the situation and to your needs.

And, of course, when it comes to signal recovery this should be the
optimal filter.


Bret Cahill


I just assumed "matched filtering" included the deconvolution and
other steps to recover the original signal's shape.

In this case it was actually easier to invent a new filter -- I
assumed it already existed --  than to be scholarly and do some
research.

To avoid confusion with the terminology from now on the filter that
takes the convolution of a noisy signal like a conventional matched
filter and then takes the deconvolution to recover the original wave
form should be called "signal recovery matched filtering."

This will distinguish it from the signal detection matched filter
_even if the new filter is used for signal detection_.

I've updatedhttp://www.bretcahill.comto reflect the new terminology.

If anyone can think of a better name, i.e., the "Cahill Filter" please
post.
Click to expand...
 
  compDSP.SNR -= 10
Click to expand...
OK, everyone already knows you are floundering.

Here, try again:

Conventional matched filtering should really be understood as a
truncated version of the signal recovery method in the Excel example
at http://www.bretcahill.com.

It sounds counter intuitive but by omitting the signal recovery steps
traditional match filtering has the often desirable additional effect
of low pass filtering. Since noise is often at a higher frequency than
signals few were willing to question a situation where you get 2
filters just by being too lazy to complete what should be considered
the first filtering operation.


Even when signal detection is all that is desired, however, it would
be better to separate what should really be treated two distinct
processes. Recover the original signal by taking the deconvolution of
the match filter output, and then, if any additional frequency
filtering in necessary, tailor it to the situation and to your needs.

And, of course, when it comes to signal recovery this should be the
optimal filter.


Bret Cahill
 
On 22/04/2012 20:00, Randy Yates wrote:
if (bretCahillPostedInCompDSP)
{
compDSP.SNR -= 10; /* derate SNR by 10 dB */
}
Click to expand...
Put the clueless troll in your killfile and be done with it!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:00:16 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:

if (bretCahillPostedInCompDSP)
{
compDSP.SNR -= 10; /* derate SNR by 10 dB */
}
Click to expand...
Please don't feed the troll.

--
My liberal friends think I'm a conservative kook.
My conservative friends think I'm a liberal kook.
Why am I not happy that they have found common ground?

Tim Wescott, Communications, Control, Circuits & Software
http://www.wescottdesign.com
 
One minor off point omission:

Simply clicking in noise as on the Joy of Convolution applet example
doesn't just add noise; It subtracts some of the signal as well.

But even then match filtering works.


Bret Cahill


  compDSP.SNR -= 10

OK, everyone already knows you are floundering.

Here, try again:

Conventional matched filtering should really be understood as a
truncated version of the signal recovery method in the Excel example
athttp://www.bretcahill.com.

It sounds counter intuitive but by omitting the signal recovery steps
traditional match filtering has the often desirable additional effect
of low pass filtering. Since noise is often at a higher frequency than
signals few were willing to question a situation where you get 2
filters just by being too lazy to complete what should be considered
the first filtering operation.

Even when signal detection is all that is desired, however, it would
be better to separate what should really be treated two distinct
processes. Recover the original signal by taking the deconvolution of
the match filter output, and then, if any additional frequency
filtering in necessary, tailor it to the situation and to your needs.

And, of course, when it comes to signal recovery this should be the
optimal filter.

Bret Cahill
Click to expand...
 
On Apr 19, 2:43 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
I just assumed "matched filtering" included the deconvolution and
other steps to recover the original signal's shape.

In this case it was actually easier to invent a new filter -- I
assumed it already existed --  than to be scholarly and do some
research.

To avoid confusion with the terminology from now on the filter that
takes the convolution of a noisy signal like a conventional matched
filter and then takes the deconvolution to recover the original wave
form should be called "signal recovery matched filtering."

This will distinguish it from the signal detection matched filter
_even if the new filter is used for signal detection_.

I've updatedhttp://www.bretcahill.comto reflect the new terminology.

If anyone can think of a better name, i.e., the "Cahill Filter" please
post.

Bret Cahill
Click to expand...
A Confederacy of Dunces filter.
 
I just assumed "matched filtering" included the deconvolution and
other steps to recover the original signal's shape.

In this case it was actually easier to invent a new filter -- I
assumed it already existed --  than to be scholarly and do some
research.

To avoid confusion with the terminology from now on the filter that
takes the convolution of a noisy signal like a conventional matched
filter and then takes the deconvolution to recover the original wave
form should be called "signal recovery matched filtering."

This will distinguish it from the signal detection matched filter
_even if the new filter is used for signal detection_.

I've updatedhttp://www.bretcahill.comto reflect the new terminology.

If anyone can think of a better name, i.e., the "Cahill Filter" please
post.
Click to expand...


Deconvolution Match Filtering

Specific Match Filtering

Integration Free Match Filtering

No Low Pass Match Filtering

Dedicated Matched Filtering


Bret Cahill
 
On 4/19/2012 2:43 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
I just assumed "matched filtering" included the deconvolution and
other steps to recover the original signal's shape.

In this case it was actually easier to invent a new filter -- I
assumed it already existed -- than to be scholarly and do some
research.

To avoid confusion with the terminology from now on the filter that
takes the convolution of a noisy signal like a conventional matched
filter and then takes the deconvolution to recover the original wave
form should be called "signal recovery matched filtering."

This will distinguish it from the signal detection matched filter
_even if the new filter is used for signal detection_.

I've updated http://www.bretcahill.com to reflect the new terminology.

If anyone can think of a better name, i.e., the "Cahill Filter" please
post.
Click to expand...

Filtering (convolution) in the time domain is multiplication in the
frequency domain, and is therefore associative. If you apply a filter F
and its inverse F^-1 to a signal G,


F^-1 (F G) = (F^-1 F) G = G.

No free lunch, I'm afraid.

(I once tried something reminiscent of that to improve loop stability of
a PLL. It turned out that I'd made an algebra error, and was in fact
trying to make a time machine. It didn't work.) ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs




--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

160 North State Road #203
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
 
Phil Hobbs wrote:
<snip>
(I once tried something reminiscent of that to improve loop stability of
a PLL. It turned out that I'd made an algebra error, and was in fact
trying to make a time machine. It didn't work.) ;)
Click to expand...

I've been trying to make a time machine* all week. It's damned
difficult, I must say!

*In this case, a filter with alpha of 0.001 with no delay. Er
rather, a filter plus some other furniture. Or, as
it turns out, not. Stupid Second Law!

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
Click to expand...

--
Les Cargill
 
On 06/26/2015 11:08 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
Phil Hobbs wrote:
snip

(I once tried something reminiscent of that to improve loop stability of
a PLL. It turned out that I'd made an algebra error, and was in fact
trying to make a time machine. It didn't work.) ;)


I've been trying to make a time machine* all week. It's damned
difficult, I must say!

*In this case, a filter with alpha of 0.001 with no delay. Er
rather, a filter plus some other furniture. Or, as
it turns out, not. Stupid Second Law!
Click to expand...

Gummint has time machines. But they don't much understand how they work.
They ship things off into time but they don't come back until much
later. They have no idea where they went.



--

___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
 
On 6/27/2015 1:53 AM, benj wrote:
Gummint has time machines. But they don't much understand how they work.
They ship things off into time but they don't come back until much
later. They have no idea where they went.
Click to expand...

Bert, there is no time machine.



--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
 
On 06/27/2015 05:35 AM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/27/2015 1:53 AM, benj wrote:

Gummint has time machines. But they don't much understand how they work.
They ship things off into time but they don't come back until much
later. They have no idea where they went.


Bert, there is no time machine.
Click to expand...
Montauk. It's HVAC's job to "debunk" all gumming black projects.
It's what GOPers love to do.



--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
 
On 6/27/2015 11:12 AM, benj wrote:
On 06/27/2015 05:35 AM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/27/2015 1:53 AM, benj wrote:

Gummint has time machines. But they don't much understand how they work.
They ship things off into time but they don't come back until much
later. They have no idea where they went.


Bert, there is no time machine.

Montauk. It's HVAC's job to "debunk" all gumming black projects.
It's what GOPers love to do.
Click to expand...

BJ as a renowned scientist, you obviously realize that time travel to
the past is impossible.


--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
 
On 06/27/2015 12:07 PM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/27/2015 11:12 AM, benj wrote:
On 06/27/2015 05:35 AM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/27/2015 1:53 AM, benj wrote:

Gummint has time machines. But they don't much understand how they
work.
They ship things off into time but they don't come back until much
later. They have no idea where they went.


Bert, there is no time machine.

Montauk. It's HVAC's job to "debunk" all gumming black projects.
It's what GOPers love to do.


BJ as a renowned scientist, you obviously realize that time travel to
the past is impossible.
Click to expand...
Harlow, the past is over and fixed. Hence it is possible to "travel"
there as an observer. But being fixed means it can't be changed (because
it's already over) so all that Hollywood (strategic writer) bullshit
about killing your own grandfather is just entertaining... well, ...
bullshit.

The future on the the other hand has not happened yet. So if you attempt
to travel there you can change things, but it doesn't matter because
causality says the present is not determined by future events. And for
that reason where you "travel" is not the actual future but just the
"most probable" future which because of free will is the best you can do.

Got it?

Your welcome.

--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
 
On 6/27/2015 6:17 PM, benj wrote:
BJ as a renowned scientist, you obviously realize that time travel to
the past is impossible.

Harlow, the past is over and fixed. Hence it is possible to "travel"
there as an observer.
Click to expand...

So you can travel to the past by looking at old pictures? Good point.


The future on the the other hand has not happened yet. So if you attempt
to travel there you can change things, but it doesn't matter because
causality says the present is not determined by future events. And for
that reason where you "travel" is not the actual future but just the
"most probable" future which because of free will is the best you can do.
Click to expand...

Got it. So in a sense I am changing the future simply by writing this
post. Spooky shit man.


--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224
 
On 06/28/2015 05:46 AM, HVAC wrote:
On 6/27/2015 6:17 PM, benj wrote:

BJ as a renowned scientist, you obviously realize that time travel to
the past is impossible.

Harlow, the past is over and fixed. Hence it is possible to "travel"
there as an observer.


So you can travel to the past by looking at old pictures? Good point.


The future on the the other hand has not happened yet. So if you attempt
to travel there you can change things, but it doesn't matter because
causality says the present is not determined by future events. And for
that reason where you "travel" is not the actual future but just the
"most probable" future which because of free will is the best you can
do.


Got it. So in a sense I am changing the future simply by writing this
post. Spooky shit man.
Click to expand...

Actually no. To really change the future you'd have to be exercising
your free will and be making real choices. You never do that so the
future just keeps grinding on like some massive machine doing what it
was set to do. Rolf will explain.

--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top