
There are 3 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 0 to 3.
Given a stationary discrete-time stochastic process x(n) with
discrete-time Fourier transform X(e^jw) and spectrum Sx(w). If x(n) is
downsampled by two to give y(n) it is well known that
Y(e^jw) = 0.5 [X(e^jw/2) + X(e^j(pi+w/2))]. (A)
My question is, what is the resulting spectrum, not just the Fourier
Transform. I know that Sx(w) = E[X(e^jw)X*(e^jw)] and Sy(w) =
E[Y(e^jw)Y*(e^jw)]. From (A), this gives
Sy(w) = 0.25[ Sx(w/2) + Sx(pi+w/2)
+ E[X(e^jw)X*(e^j(pi+w/2))
+ E[X*(e^jw)X(e^j(pi+w/2))] ]
I understand the first two terms which are the original spectrum in
the first half band and the aliasing from the second half band. Do the
second two terms disappear or are they also contributing to aliasing?
______________________________p...@yahoo.com (porterboy) writes: > Given a stationary discrete-time stochastic process x(n) with > discrete-time Fourier transform X(e^jw) Wait right here - a discrete-time stochastic process is neither absolutely summable nor finite-energy, thus the DTFT may not converge for such a sequence (re: "Signals and Systems", Oppenheim and Willsky). All the work I've done and seen on these uses the autocorrelation function, i.e., Wiener and Khinchine say that the power spectrum of such a signal is Fourier transform of the autocorrelation. > and spectrum Sx(w). If x(n) is > downsampled by two to give y(n) it is well known that > > Y(e^jw) = 0.5 [X(e^jw/2) + X(e^j(pi+w/2))]. (A) For the following, I'm assuming X(e^jw) exists. I suppose you mean downsampling without the usual pre-filtering? If so, then I don't know about the "0.5" factor in front - that would make Parseval a liar I think. I also think, since this is the DTFT and not the DFT, that the "pi" should be "pi*Fs". Otherwise I think this is right. > My question is, what is the resulting spectrum, not just the Fourier > Transform. > I know that Sx(w) = E[X(e^jw)X*(e^jw)] Really? I've never seen this expression used for a stochastic process, probably due to the convergence issue above. Got a reference? > and Sy(w) = > E[Y(e^jw)Y*(e^jw)]. From (A), this gives > > Sy(w) = 0.25[ Sx(w/2) + Sx(pi+w/2) > + E[X(e^jw)X*(e^j(pi+w/2)) > + E[X*(e^jw)X(e^j(pi+w/2))] ] > > I understand the first two terms which are the original spectrum in > the first half band and the aliasing from the second half band. Do the > second two terms disappear or are they also contributing to aliasing? Since I don't the relationship on which you are basing this derivation, I can't answer your question. I think you're essentially asking this: If you downsample a signal that has been oversampled without pre-filtering it, have you reduced the quantization noise (I think you posted this under another subject yesterday). The answer is no. Intuitively, that noise in the upper half of the original spectrum will fold down into the new downsampled spectrum. -- Randy Yates Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Research Triangle Park, NC, USA r...@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124______________________________
Randy Yates <r...@sonyericsson.com> writes: > [...] > Wait right here [...] Is this thing on? -- Randy Yates Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Research Triangle Park, NC, USA r...@sonyericsson.com, 919-472-1124______________________________