On Sep 19, 10:50 pm, "riz" <rizwan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 19, 4:16 pm, "riz" <rizwan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sep 19, 9:49 am, "riz" <rizwan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Out of convolution operation and inverse filtering operation,which
> >> >> operation is better regarding the stability point of view(minimum
> >> phase
> >> >> system), if i introduce noise into system.
>
> >> >Do you mean "deconvolution" instead? From a practical point of view,
> >> >inverse filtering is not usually advisable when noise is present, as
> >> >the filter will amplify any noise present at frequencies that were
> >> >attenuated by the original filter. In that case, a deconvolution
> >> >algorithm might be more appropriate.
>
> >> No,actually i can get my desired goal by two methods which are
> >> independent.one method involves inverse filtering,other method
> >> convolution.
>
> >Convolution and filtering are the same thing, so what is the
> >distinction you are making?  Are you distinguishing between FFT-based
> >filtering vs. convolution-based filtering?  Or inverse-filtering vs.
> >Wiener-filtering (deconvolution)?
>
> actually,i have two different methods to  achieve same objective.One
> method uses convolution/filtering/fft-based filtering.other uses inverse
> filtering.

That still doesn't make sense.  "Inverse filtering" is still
filtering, so to carry out "inverse filtering", one must use either
convolution or an FFT-based approach.

So I'm afraid I still don't see the distinction you're making here.

--
Oli

>On Sep 19, 4:16 pm, "riz" <rizwan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 19, 9:49 am, "riz" <rizwan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Out of convolution operation and inverse filtering operation,which
>> >> operation is better regarding the stability point of view(minimum
>> phase
>> >> system), if i introduce noise into system.
>>
>> >Do you mean "deconvolution" instead? From a practical point of view,
>> >inverse filtering is not usually advisable when noise is present, as
>> >the filter will amplify any noise present at frequencies that were
>> >attenuated by the original filter. In that case, a deconvolution
>> >algorithm might be more appropriate.
>>
>> No,actually i can get my desired goal by two methods which are
>> independent.one method involves inverse filtering,other method
>> convolution.
>
>Convolution and filtering are the same thing, so what is the
>distinction you are making?  Are you distinguishing between FFT-based
>filtering vs. convolution-based filtering?  Or inverse-filtering vs.
>Wiener-filtering (deconvolution)?
>
>--
>Oli
>
>
actually,i have two different methods to  achieve same objective.One
method uses convolution/filtering/fft-based filtering.other uses inverse
filtering.

On Sep 19, 4:16 pm, "riz" <rizwan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 19, 9:49 am, "riz" <rizwan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Out of convolution operation and inverse filtering operation,which
> >> operation is better regarding the stability point of view(minimum
> phase
> >> system), if i introduce noise into system.
>
> >Do you mean "deconvolution" instead? From a practical point of view,
> >inverse filtering is not usually advisable when noise is present, as
> >the filter will amplify any noise present at frequencies that were
> >attenuated by the original filter. In that case, a deconvolution
> >algorithm might be more appropriate.
>
> No,actually i can get my desired goal by two methods which are
> independent.one method involves inverse filtering,other method
> convolution.

Convolution and filtering are the same thing, so what is the
distinction you are making?  Are you distinguishing between FFT-based
filtering vs. convolution-based filtering?  Or inverse-filtering vs.
Wiener-filtering (deconvolution)?

--
Oli

>On Sep 19, 9:49 am, "riz" <rizwan....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Out of convolution operation and inverse filtering operation,which
>> operation is better regarding the stability point of view(minimum
phase
>> system), if i introduce noise into system.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Riz
>
>Do you mean "deconvolution" instead? From a practical point of view,
>inverse filtering is not usually advisable when noise is present, as
>the filter will amplify any noise present at frequencies that were
>attenuated by the original filter. In that case, a deconvolution
>algorithm might be more appropriate.
>
>Jason
>
>

No,actually i can get my desired goal by two methods which are
independent.one method involves inverse filtering,other method
convolution.

On Sep 19, 9:49 am, "riz" <rizwan....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Out of convolution operation and inverse filtering operation,which
> operation is better regarding the stability point of view(minimum phase
> system), if i introduce noise into system.
>
> Thanks
> Riz

Do you mean "deconvolution" instead? From a practical point of view,
inverse filtering is not usually advisable when noise is present, as
the filter will amplify any noise present at frequencies that were
attenuated by the original filter. In that case, a deconvolution
algorithm might be more appropriate.

Jason