Hi,

Or my FFT routine available from my homepage.

Best regards,
Jens J. Nielsen
http:/home.get2net.dk/jjn

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:41:43 +0900, Julian Stoev <stoev@deadspam.com>
wrote:

>Jerry Avins wrote:
>> Tony wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, I know, that's not the way to learn about FFT. But there's only a
>>> small probability that the resampler + FFT solution I have in mind
>>> will actually do what I need anyway, so I was hoping to get a ballpark
>>> feeling before getting in too deep (time constraint).
>>>
>>> TIA, Tony
>>> Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
>> 
>> 
>> Why pseudocode? try http://fftw.org/ and Chapter 12? at 
>> http://www.dspguide.com/
>
>Also "Numerical Recipes in C"
>http://library.lanl.gov/numerical/bookcpdf.html
>
>The book is avalable also for Fortran 77, 90 and C++ (not online).
>
>--JS

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Tony wrote:
> 
>> Yes, I know, that's not the way to learn about FFT. But there's only a
>> small probability that the resampler + FFT solution I have in mind
>> will actually do what I need anyway, so I was hoping to get a ballpark
>> feeling before getting in too deep (time constraint).
>>
>> TIA, Tony
>> Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)
> 
> 
> Why pseudocode? try http://fftw.org/ and Chapter 12? at 
> http://www.dspguide.com/

Also "Numerical Recipes in C"
http://library.lanl.gov/numerical/bookcpdf.html

The book is avalable also for Fortran 77, 90 and C++ (not online).

--JS

Tony wrote:
> Yes, I know, that's not the way to learn about FFT. But there's only a
> small probability that the resampler + FFT solution I have in mind
> will actually do what I need anyway, so I was hoping to get a ballpark
> feeling before getting in too deep (time constraint).
> 
> TIA, Tony
> Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)

Why pseudocode? try http://fftw.org/ and Chapter 12? at 
http://www.dspguide.com/

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;&#4294967295;

Yes, I know, that's not the way to learn about FFT. But there's only a
small probability that the resampler + FFT solution I have in mind
will actually do what I need anyway, so I was hoping to get a ballpark
feeling before getting in too deep (time constraint).

TIA, Tony
Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)