>>In hardware, you can possibly limit the implementation to 0 and 1,unless you plan to less than half the original rate. a mistake. Change that to 'if you only need interpolation, not decimation'.

Reply by ●August 9, 20122012-08-09

>>In hardware, you can possibly limit the implementation to 0 and 1,unless you plan to less than half the original rate. a mistake. Change that to 'if you only need interpolation, not decimation'.

Reply by ●August 9, 20122012-08-09

Hi, take an accumulator with a sufficient number of fractional bits (to the right side of the decimal point). For each output sample, add an increment that depends on the sample rate: less than one for interpolation, greater than one for decimation. The lower accumulator bits (on the right side of the decimal point) goes into the Lagrange interpolation: A value 0..1 that tells, where to interpolate between samples. And the higher bits tell the position in the input stream: If the value changes by one, load one new input sample. If the value changes by two, shift two new input samples into the delay chain etc. In hardware, you can possibly limit the implementation to 0 and 1, unless you plan to less than half the original rate. BTW, you can read my code exactly as explained above. The only difference is that it doesn't use a for-next loop, similar to hardware, but handles all output samples in parallel.

Reply by ●August 8, 20122012-08-08

I rewrote your new version to work in the time domain (I'd like to implement in hardware at some point), and this time is actually works. http://pastebin.com/TXqgZdpS I have a question about the choice of input samples to use in the calculation of each output sample. It isn't always a linear situation. Depending on the new sampling rate, you might use the input samples in order: 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 or you might skip a step 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 or you might hold a step 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 6 I'm not sure how to implement this in hardware (or Simulink first). I was looking at your diagram in "Polyphase filter / Farrows interpolation" http://www.dsprelated.com/blogimages/MarkusNentwig/dspblog/polyphase/img103.gif There isn't really a mechanism to decide when to hold a set of samples for an extra calculation or when to skip a set. It's easy enough in MATLAB because you can do random access on any of the input samples, but that's not the case in the real world. I was trying to simulate holding a set by doing something like this (for 3rd order) samples = [1 2 3 4]; if xOutFrac > 0.2 samples = circshift(samplearr,[1 -1]); samples(end) = samplearr(end-1)+1; end But the value of the fractional delay which causes a hold appears to be dependent on the new sampling rate (though I'm not sure, I have no theory to back this up). Also thank you for help so far! I'm much closer to getting this to work in Simulink, if only we can figure out the sample selection. A circular buffer is easy to implement, but when to advance it is the trick, I think.

Reply by ●August 3, 20122012-08-03

Hello, again. I put your example into my original code. It works fine, and I get a SNR of 66.94 dB with order = 3. Probably some error happened during the rewrite. The new version can be found here: http://www.dsprelated.com/blogimages/MarkusNentwig/sn_lagrangeResampling/lagrange2.m Cheers Markus

Reply by ●August 3, 20122012-08-03

Hello, The waveforms aren't lined up accurately. Use xr = [0:10/nOut:10-10/nOut]+0.00501; % fsn = 50Hz The 0.00501 is found by trial-and-error and not perfect, but 'close enough' for a good visual match. There is another problem: In addition to the above line, put the following figure() hold on; plot(yr(1:end-4), '+-') plot(outData(5:end), 'k*-') to the end. You'll notice that the interpolation is now in general very accurate, but there are a few major errors. What exactly causes them, I can't say right now.

Reply by ●August 3, 20122012-08-03

Sorry, that was a stupid question. It's obviously just the group delay from the filter. But I am concerned with the quality of the filter after accounting for the group delay. Here is the code from my OP http://pastebin.com/TZaz804c Here is my modification of your code http://pastebin.com/FKghzXk0 The function snr() is defined as function s = snr(y_ref, y) s = 20*log10(norm(y_ref(:))/norm(y_ref(:)-y(:))); end When using my original code (for the signal, order, and sampling rate chosen in the above pasted examples), I get an SNR of 62.9dB. When using this filter method, I get 17.25dB. It looks like it's performing on par with most of the Farrow filter implementations I've seen. If I'm not mistaken, your implementation is just a standard Lagrange Farrow filter? In my experience, Lagrange Farrow filters don't perform nearly as well as the their numerical counterparts. In the code from my OP, a 4x oversampled signal that is interpolated by 9th-order Lagrange has an SNR of over 100dB. I've never seen anything close to same level of accuracy from a Farrow filter operating under similar conditions. I'm hoping that it's possible and I've just been implementing my filters incorrectly.

Reply by ●August 3, 20122012-08-03

I tried that and it's seems so close to work. But when the number of input samples matches the order+1, my results are 180deg out of phase. Changing the number of input samples also changes the phase. For example: order = 5 inData = sin( [0:1/6:1-1/6] *2*pi ); plot: http://imgur.com/H9oo2 function: http://pastebin.com/fHN7zj39

Reply by ●August 2, 20122012-08-02

>> ...but I can't figure out how to apply this filter to functions otherthan the impulse. Instead of inData = zeros(1, nIn); inData(1) = 1; put the samples into inData.

Reply by ●August 2, 20122012-08-02

I rewrote your implementation (didn't change polyCoeff()) so that it functions as though the data was being streamed through the filter in the time domain (like how a real filter would operate). I believe I have that part working correctly, but I can't figure out how to apply this filter to functions other than the impulse. ----- function lagrangeResamplingDemo() originDefinition = 0; % see comment for LagrangeBasisPolynomial() below % Regarding order: From [1] % "Indeed, it is easy to show that whenever Q is odd, none of the % impulse responses corresponding to Lagrange interpolation can have % linear phase" % Here, order = Q+1 => odd orders are preferable order = 3; % ******************************************************************* % Set up signals % ******************************************************************* nIn = order + 1; nOut = 20*pi; % Reference data: from [1] fig. 8, linear-phase type ref = [-0.032, -0.056, -0.064, -0.048, 0, ... 0.216, 0.448, 0.672, 0.864, 1, ... 0.864, 0.672, 0.448, 0.216, 0, ... -0.048, -0.064, -0.056, -0.032, 0]; tRef = (1:size(ref, 2)) / size(ref, 2); % impulse input to obtain impulse response inData = zeros(1, nIn); inData(1) = 1; % Get Lagrange polynomial coefficients c0 = lagrangeBasisPolynomial(order, 0, originDefinition); c1 = lagrangeBasisPolynomial(order, 1, originDefinition); c2 = lagrangeBasisPolynomial(order, 2, originDefinition); c3 = lagrangeBasisPolynomial(order, 3, originDefinition); % ******************************************************************* % Plot % ******************************************************************* figure(2), clf, hold on stem(tRef, ref, 'r'); % ******************************************************************* % Apply Lagrange interpolation to input data % ******************************************************************* for i=0:nOut-1 % outTimeAtInputInteger temp = floor( (i/nOut)*nIn ); % the value of the input sample that appears at FIR tap 'ixTap' d0 = inData( mod(temp + 0 - order, nIn) + 1 ); d1 = inData( mod(temp + 1 - order, nIn) + 1 ); d2 = inData( mod(temp + 2 - order, nIn) + 1 ); d3 = inData( mod(temp + 3 - order, nIn) + 1 ); % Evaluate the Lagrange polynomials, resulting in the time-varying FIR tap weight evalFracTime = -0.5 + mod(i,nOut/nIn) * (nIn/nOut); cTap0 = polyval(c0, evalFracTime); cTap1 = polyval(c1, evalFracTime); cTap2 = polyval(c2, evalFracTime); cTap3 = polyval(c3, evalFracTime); % FIR operation: multiply FIR tap weight with input sample outData = d0*cTap0 + d1*cTap1 + d2*cTap2 + d3*cTap3; plot( i/nOut, outData, 'b.'); pause(0.01) end legend('impulse response', 'reference result'); title('Lagrange interpolation, impulse response'); end

Reply by ●August 2, 20122012-08-02

Hello, For a given order, you can write out the equation for each coefficient ('barycentric weights' in your code). Each is a polynomial with the fractional position of an output sample in the input stream as variable. This allows to map it to a generic Farrow resampler. My implementation is here http://www.dsprelated.com/showcode/208.php but it should do more or less the same as the one you've posted. BTW, whether or not it really is the best solution depends very much on the bandwidth of the signal. For any specific bandwidth, you should get even better results by using coefficients from the function gPulseCoefs() here: http://www.dsprelated.com/showcode/236.php but their calculation is more involved.