On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 01:43:25 -0500, "Mikewhy" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com>
wrote:

   [Snipped by Lyons]
>
>===================
>I don't know about slow or boring. It might be just that I'm wired different 
>and don't have the authors' innate grasp of mathematical expression. Their 
>"x(n) = u(n) - u(n-10)" is my "unit pulse from 0 to 10." The entire book is 
>like that. The related textbook is like that. They take common, 
>understandable concepts, throw some funny words around it, and then express 
>it in an equation that has no recognizable relationship to that being 
>discussed, or anything that might outwardly resemble anything that might 
>have any value to anyone at all.
>
>(In other words, Proakis's didn't work for me.  Lyons's is something I can 
>keep in the "reading room", and come off the throne smarter everyday. But it 
>doesn't do matlab.)

Hell0 mikewhy,
  If you send me a private E-mail, I'll 
send you the errata to my DSP book.

[-Rick Lyons-]

"Benjamin S."  wrote in message news:jqcji3$4kh$1@dont-email.me...

I'm familiar with stationary (FIR/IIR) and adaptive filtering. My matlab
skills are OK but I've never done any practical DSP in matlab. There is a
book called "Digital Signal Processing using Matlab" by Ingle and Proakis.
It starts with very simple things which I find extremely boring so I
wonder whether it's the best way to learn how to process some signals.

Any useful tutorials or advice would be welcome.

===================
I don't know about slow or boring. It might be just that I'm wired different 
and don't have the authors' innate grasp of mathematical expression. Their 
"x(n) = u(n) - u(n-10)" is my "unit pulse from 0 to 10." The entire book is 
like that. The related textbook is like that. They take common, 
understandable concepts, throw some funny words around it, and then express 
it in an equation that has no recognizable relationship to that being 
discussed, or anything that might outwardly resemble anything that might 
have any value to anyone at all.

(In other words, Proakis's didn't work for me.  Lyons's is something I can 
keep in the "reading room", and come off the throne smarter everyday. But it 
doesn't do matlab.)

On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:25:15 +0000, Benjamin S. wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:44:44 -0500, Tim Wescott wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:35:18 -0500, Greg Berchin wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:40:35 +0000 (UTC), "Benjamin S."
>>> <niacin89@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>[...] My matlab
>>>>skills are OK but I've never done any practical DSP in matlab. There
>>>>is a book called "Digital Signal Processing using Matlab" by Ingle and
>>>>Proakis. [...] I
>>>>wonder whether it's the best way to learn how to process some signals.
>>> 
>>> "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a
>>> nail."
>>> 
>>> Matlab can be an amazing tool for mathematics. For signal processing
>>> it leaves a few things to be desired. (I'll leave it to others to be
>>> specific about this.)
>>> 
>>> For LEARNING signal processing, it's like learning to drive in a car
>>> with an automatic transmission -- you'll do okay, but you won't
>>> understand the fundamental relationships between torque, RPM, gearing,
>>> etc. And unless you specifically set out to learn them, you'll be
>>> limited to driving cars with automatic transmissions for your whole
>>> life.
>> 
>> It would depend on how it is written -- if the book is "if you want to
>> solve this problem, then type in this function into Matlab", then yes.
>> If the book is "here is the theory, here is the math, problem 3.14
>> shows you how to do the calculation in Matlab" then maybe not.
>> 
>> But yes, I don't think the world needs any more "I need to understand
>> convolution, what Matlab function do I call" sorts of people.  "How do
>> I make Matlab compute the convolution that I know and love" is a much
>> more productive attitude.
> 
> I often write my own functions but then I thought why spend time to
> write functions which someone else has already written and tested for
> bugs. It's like writing your own functions instead of using the C (or
> C++) standard library.
> 
> On a note, I was doing some time series analysis the other day and I
> wrote my own convolution. I think when I used Matlab's convolution it
> introduced oscillatory effects. Mine didn't.

If Matlab is like Scilab there's a "convolution" function that really  
does a circular convolution, using the FFT to speed things up drastically.

That could be the problem.

-- 
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

On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:44:44 -0500, Tim Wescott wrote:

> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:35:18 -0500, Greg Berchin wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:40:35 +0000 (UTC), "Benjamin S."
>> <niacin89@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>[...] My matlab
>>>skills are OK but I've never done any practical DSP in matlab. There is
>>>a book called "Digital Signal Processing using Matlab" by Ingle and
>>>Proakis. [...] I
>>>wonder whether it's the best way to learn how to process some signals.
>> 
>> "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."
>> 
>> Matlab can be an amazing tool for mathematics. For signal processing it
>> leaves a few things to be desired. (I'll leave it to others to be
>> specific about this.)
>> 
>> For LEARNING signal processing, it's like learning to drive in a car
>> with an automatic transmission -- you'll do okay, but you won't
>> understand the fundamental relationships between torque, RPM, gearing,
>> etc. And unless you specifically set out to learn them, you'll be
>> limited to driving cars with automatic transmissions for your whole
>> life.
> 
> It would depend on how it is written -- if the book is "if you want to
> solve this problem, then type in this function into Matlab", then yes.
> If the book is "here is the theory, here is the math, problem 3.14 shows
> you how to do the calculation in Matlab" then maybe not.
> 
> But yes, I don't think the world needs any more "I need to understand
> convolution, what Matlab function do I call" sorts of people.  "How do I
> make Matlab compute the convolution that I know and love" is a much more
> productive attitude.

I often write my own functions but then I thought why spend time to write 
functions which someone else has already written and tested for bugs. 
It's like writing your own functions instead of using the C (or C++) 
standard library.

On a note, I was doing some time series analysis the other day and I 
wrote my own convolution. I think when I used Matlab's convolution it 
introduced oscillatory effects. Mine didn't.

I completely agree with Rick, I learnt a lot about DSP from the C. 
Sidney Burrus book.

Doesn't seem like 18 years ago since it was published :-(

John

On 04/06/2012 19:02, Rick Lyons wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:40:35 +0000 (UTC), "Benjamin S."
> <niacin89@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>
>> I'm familiar with stationary (FIR/IIR) and adaptive filtering. My matlab
>> skills are OK but I've never done any practical DSP in matlab. There is a
>> book called "Digital Signal Processing using Matlab" by Ingle and Proakis.
>> It starts with very simple things which I find extremely boring so I
>> wonder whether it's the best way to learn how to process some signals.
>>
>> Any useful tutorials or advice would be welcome.
>
> Hello Benjamin,
>    You might take a look at the book:
>
> "Computer-Based Exercises for Signal Processing
> Using Matlab" by C. Sidney Burrus, et al.
> (Prentice Hall Publishing, 1994.
>
> I promise you won't be bored with that book.
>
> Whereas the Ingle Proakis book
> provides Matlab code (where the rumor is that much of
> their code must be debugged for use with later versions
> of Matlab), the C. Sidney Burrus does not provide much
> Matlab code to help you solve the book's problems.
> In any case, the C. Sidney Burrus book is, in
> my opinion, a terrific book.
>
> [-Rick-]
>

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:40:35 +0000 (UTC), "Benjamin S."
<niacin89@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I'm familiar with stationary (FIR/IIR) and adaptive filtering. My matlab 
>skills are OK but I've never done any practical DSP in matlab. There is a 
>book called "Digital Signal Processing using Matlab" by Ingle and Proakis. 
>It starts with very simple things which I find extremely boring so I 
>wonder whether it's the best way to learn how to process some signals.
>
>Any useful tutorials or advice would be welcome.

Hello Benjamin,
  You might take a look at the book:

"Computer-Based Exercises for Signal Processing 
Using Matlab" by C. Sidney Burrus, et al.  
(Prentice Hall Publishing, 1994.

I promise you won't be bored with that book.

Whereas the Ingle Proakis book
provides Matlab code (where the rumor is that much of 
their code must be debugged for use with later versions 
of Matlab), the C. Sidney Burrus does not provide much 
Matlab code to help you solve the book's problems.
In any case, the C. Sidney Burrus book is, in 
my opinion, a terrific book.

[-Rick-]

On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:40:35 +0000 (UTC), "Benjamin S."
<niacin89@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I'm familiar with stationary (FIR/IIR) and adaptive filtering. My matlab 
>skills are OK but I've never done any practical DSP in matlab. There is a 
>book called "Digital Signal Processing using Matlab" by Ingle and Proakis. 
>It starts with very simple things which I find extremely boring so I 
>wonder whether it's the best way to learn how to process some signals.
>
>Any useful tutorials or advice would be welcome.

I use MATLAB to prototype lots of core algorithms.  Typically I go
from paper into Mathematica, if there is any hard symbolic work to be
done, then from Mathematica to a MATLAB prototype.  I like the ability
in MATLAB to quickly work on the algorithm and its output like a
whiteboard.  I'll usually generate some sort of numerical test at that
point which I will compare with the C implementation later on to
verify they are operating correctly.  A lot of what I'm working on is
ending up on Intel instead of Analog Devices now and the newer Intel
compilers support syntax (Cilk+) which is very close to MATLABs vector
notation.
I almost never do any actual "Signal Processing" with MATLAB.  I will
always slap a GUI front end on a C library for Windows (this is really
easy with all the COTS framework solutions you can buy for Microsoft
.NET)  or implement a real-time solution on SHARC.

Mark DeArman

On Jun 2, 12:39&#4294967295;pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
wrote:

> they should have a berchin() function along with prony() to design IIRs
> in the signal processing toolbox.

Berchin function: A nonlinear function with complex coefficients that
only returns irrational values.

In the MATLAB example code for FDLS I specifically disallow commercial
use.

Greg

On 6/2/12 4:40 AM, Benjamin S. wrote:
> I'm familiar with stationary (FIR/IIR) and adaptive filtering. My matlab
> skills are OK but I've never done any practical DSP in matlab. There is a
> book called "Digital Signal Processing using Matlab" by Ingle and Proakis.
> It starts with very simple things which I find extremely boring so I
> wonder whether it's the best way to learn how to process some signals.
>
> Any useful tutorials or advice would be welcome.
...
On 6/2/12 1:18 PM, Fred Marshall wrote:
> I find the signal processing tools in Matlab to be hard to understand
> and, thus, use. Part of that's because I would so rarely use them and so
> I rarely use them. Positive feedback! ... or is that being negative??
>
> So, I just write my own functions. It's not that hard and then you know
> what you've got.
>
> For filter design, I use other tools and transfer the coefficients into
> Matlab.

i found that for FIR filters, both firpm() (used to be called remez()) 
and firls() work pretty good for design.  and also the Kaiser window 
(together with fft()) works pretty good for the "windowing method" of 
FIR design.

they should have a berchin() function along with prony() to design IIRs 
in the signal processing toolbox.

i wonder what Ingle and Proakis would say about the STUPID FUCKING 
requirement that all indices are positive (not ever zero, not ever 
negative).  how do they integrate that inflexible indexing convention 
into the accepted and concise convention we use in DSP that has negative 
and zero indices, both for samples and for FFT bins?  and about the 
latter, *what* do they tell the reader about the DC bin in the FFT?  is 
it X(1)?  totally stupid, and you would think these authors would start 
rattling Cleve's telephone and tell him how that unfixable indexing 
convention makes it harder to integrate MATLAB with their DSP book.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj@audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."