Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!en.ecn.purdue.edu!steele@en.ecn.purdue.edu From: steele@en.ecn.purdue.edu@en.ecn.purdue.edu (Richard A. Steele) Newsgroups: comp.dsp Subject: Kaiser Window Design (was Digital Filters) Message-ID: <1990Nov17.210143.20703@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Date: 17 Nov 90 21:01:43 GMT References: <1990Nov15.121559.11290@watserv1.waterloo.edu> <9360014@hplsla.HP.COM> Organization: Purdue University Lines: 31 In article <9360014@hplsla.HP.COM> bryanh@hplsla.HP.COM (Bryan Hoog) writes: > > In a college DSP class (YEARS ago!), we used this method, and, then > (I think; this is where my memory gets hazy) we weighted the resulting > coefficients with a Hamming window. I remember the teacher saying > something like "A Hamming window usually works best", but couldn't explain > what was so "magic" about the Hamming window for FIR filter design. > > -Bryan I've done something similar, except with a Kaiser window instead of the Hamming; the effect is similar, as both methods are quite easy to do. See, for example, Oppenheim and Schafer "Discrete Time Signal Processing" pages 444-462. I believe the Parks-McClellan algorithm is more optimal, but it is more difficult to implement (I think; my memory is fuzzing). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Steele | INTERNET : steele@ecn.purdue.edu Electrical Engineering | BITNET : steele%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm Purdue University | UUCP : {purdue, pur-ee}!ecn.purdue.edu!steele ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Steele | INTERNET : steele@ecn.purdue.edu Electrical Engineering | BITNET : steele%ecn.purdue.edu@purccvm Purdue University | UUCP : {purdue, pur-ee}!ecn.purdue.edu!steele