In article <841d53dc-8023-4c01-bbf9-50aacf6a7606@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, davew <david.wooff@gmail.com> wrote:> I think JOS's book on the discrete > Fourier Transform is also a great book for the same reasons.I don't recognize "JOS".... can you tell me what author and book you are praising? I might buy it. Thanks, rip -- email address is r i p 1 AT c o m c a s t DOT n e t
Rick's 3rd edition is out
Started by ●November 16, 2010
Reply by ●November 17, 20102010-11-17
Reply by ●November 17, 20102010-11-17
richard i pelletier <bitbucket@comcast.net> writes:> In article > <841d53dc-8023-4c01-bbf9-50aacf6a7606@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, > davew <david.wooff@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think JOS's book on the discrete >> Fourier Transform is also a great book for the same reasons. > > I don't recognize "JOS".... can you tell me what author and book you are > praising? I might buy it.Probably Julius O. Smith, of Stanford CCRMA fame. -- Randy Yates % "And all you had to say Digital Signal Labs % was that you were mailto://yates@ieee.org % gonna stay." http://www.digitalsignallabs.com % Getting To The Point', *Balance of Power*, ELO
Reply by ●November 18, 20102010-11-18
On Nov 17, 6:13=A0am, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote:> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:20:44 GMT, Al Clark <acl...@danvillesignal.com> > wrote: > > >I just noticed that Rick Lyon's 3rd edition of Understanding Digital Sig=nal> >Processing is out, so I guess I will have to get a copy to place next to=the> >1st & 2nd editions on my bookshelf. > > >I've always considered Rick's book the definitive DSP primer. > > >There are two kinds of engineers, those who can't write and those who ca=n> >barely write. I strive for the latter. Rick is the clear exception to th=e> >rule. > > =A0 Yep, the 3rd Edition is *FINALLY* finished. > Whew! > > Thanks for the kind words Al.hay Rick, not an unkind word, just a question: does your 3rd edition take a position of the meaning of "Nyquist frequency"? 3 different definitions i have seen: Nyquist frequency =3D a) Fs/2 b) B (bandlimit of signal to be sampled) c) Fs (rarely) d) 2B (usually called the "Nyquist rate") several years ago, when this definition discussion came up, i was appalled to find that O&S themselves had the wrong definition (at least in my 1989 edition). and surprized to see Rick was sorta agnostic about it (maybe that was smart). r b-j
Reply by ●November 18, 20102010-11-18
On Nov 17, 6:13�am, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote:> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:20:44 GMT, Al Clark <acl...@danvillesignal.com> > wrote: > > >I just noticed that Rick Lyon's 3rd edition of Understanding Digital Signal > >Processing is out, so I guess I will have to get a copy to place next to the > >1st & 2nd editions on my bookshelf. > > >I've always considered Rick's book the definitive DSP primer. > > >There are two kinds of engineers, those who can't write and those who can > >barely write. I strive for the latter. Rick is the clear exception to the > >rule. > > � Yep, the 3rd Edition is *FINALLY* finished. > Whew! > > Thanks for the kind words Al.hay Rick, not an unkind word, just a question: does your 3rd edition take a position of the meaning of "Nyquist frequency"? 3 different definitions i have seen: Nyquist frequency = a) Fs/2 b) B (bandlimit of signal to be sampled) c) Fs (rarely) d) 2B (usually called the "Nyquist rate") several years ago, when this definition discussion came up, i was appalled to find that O&S themselves had the wrong definition (at least in my 1989 edition). and surprized to see Rick was sorta agnostic about it (maybe that was smart). r b-j
Reply by ●November 18, 20102010-11-18
On Nov 17, 6:13�am, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote:> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:20:44 GMT, Al Clark <acl...@danvillesignal.com> > wrote: > > >I just noticed that Rick Lyon's 3rd edition of Understanding Digital Signal > >Processing is out, so I guess I will have to get a copy to place next to the > >1st & 2nd editions on my bookshelf. > > >I've always considered Rick's book the definitive DSP primer. > > >There are two kinds of engineers, those who can't write and those who can > >barely write. I strive for the latter. Rick is the clear exception to the > >rule. > > � Yep, the 3rd Edition is *FINALLY* finished. > Whew! > > Thanks for the kind words Al.hay Rick, not an unkind word, just a question: does your 3rd edition take a position of the meaning of "Nyquist frequency"? 3 different definitions i have seen: Nyquist frequency = a) Fs/2 b) B (bandlimit of signal to be sampled) c) Fs (rarely) d) 2B (usually called the "Nyquist rate") several years ago, when this definition discussion came up, i was appalled to find that O&S themselves had the wrong definition (at least in my 1989 edition). and surprized to see Rick was sorta agnostic about it (maybe that was smart). r b-j
Reply by ●November 18, 20102010-11-18
On Nov 17, 6:13=A0am, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote:> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:20:44 GMT, Al Clark <acl...@danvillesignal.com> > wrote: > > >I just noticed that Rick Lyon's 3rd edition of Understanding Digital Sig=nal> >Processing is out, so I guess I will have to get a copy to place next to=the> >1st & 2nd editions on my bookshelf. > > >I've always considered Rick's book the definitive DSP primer. > > >There are two kinds of engineers, those who can't write and those who ca=n> >barely write. I strive for the latter. Rick is the clear exception to th=e> >rule. > > =A0 Yep, the 3rd Edition is *FINALLY* finished. > Whew! > > Thanks for the kind words Al.hay Rick, not an unkind word, just a question: does your 3rd edition take a position of the meaning of "Nyquist frequency"? 3 different definitions i have seen: Nyquist frequency =3D a) Fs/2 b) B (bandlimit of signal to be sampled) c) Fs (rarely) d) 2B (usually called the "Nyquist rate") several years ago, when this definition discussion came up, i was appalled to find that O&S themselves had the wrong definition (at least in my 1989 edition). and surprized to see Rick was sorta agnostic about it (maybe that was smart). r b-j
Reply by ●November 18, 20102010-11-18
On Nov 17, 6:13=A0am, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote:> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:20:44 GMT, Al Clark <acl...@danvillesignal.com> > wrote: > > >I just noticed that Rick Lyon's 3rd edition of Understanding Digital Sig=nal> >Processing is out, so I guess I will have to get a copy to place next to=the> >1st & 2nd editions on my bookshelf. > > >I've always considered Rick's book the definitive DSP primer. > > >There are two kinds of engineers, those who can't write and those who ca=n> >barely write. I strive for the latter. Rick is the clear exception to th=e> >rule. > > =A0 Yep, the 3rd Edition is *FINALLY* finished. > Whew! > > Thanks for the kind words Al.hay Rick, not an unkind word, just a question: does your 3rd edition take a position of the meaning of "Nyquist frequency"? 3 different definitions i have seen: Nyquist frequency =3D a) Fs/2 b) B (bandlimit of signal to be sampled) c) Fs (rarely) d) 2B (usually called the "Nyquist rate") several years ago, when this definition discussion came up, i was appalled to find that O&S themselves had the wrong definition (at least in my 1989 edition). and surprized to see Rick was sorta agnostic about it (maybe that was smart). r b-j
Reply by ●November 18, 20102010-11-18
On Nov 17, 6:13=A0am, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote:> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 06:20:44 GMT, Al Clark <acl...@danvillesignal.com> > wrote: > > >I just noticed that Rick Lyon's 3rd edition of Understanding Digital Sig=nal> >Processing is out, so I guess I will have to get a copy to place next to=the> >1st & 2nd editions on my bookshelf. > > >I've always considered Rick's book the definitive DSP primer. > > >There are two kinds of engineers, those who can't write and those who ca=n> >barely write. I strive for the latter. Rick is the clear exception to th=e> >rule. > > =A0 Yep, the 3rd Edition is *FINALLY* finished. > Whew! > > Thanks for the kind words Al.hay Rick, not an unkind word, just a question: does your 3rd edition take a position of the meaning of "Nyquist frequency"? 3 different definitions i have seen: Nyquist frequency =3D a) Fs/2 b) B (bandlimit of signal to be sampled) c) Fs (rarely) d) 2B (usually called the "Nyquist rate") several years ago, when this definition discussion came up, i was appalled to find that O&S themselves had the wrong definition (at least in my 1989 edition). and surprized to see Rick was sorta agnostic about it (maybe that was smart). r b-j
Reply by ●November 18, 20102010-11-18
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:34:49 -0800 (PST), robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:>hay Rick, not an unkind word, just a question: does your 3rd edition >take a position of the meaning of "Nyquist frequency"? 3 different >definitions i have seen: > > > Nyquist frequency = a) Fs/2 > b) B (bandlimit of signal to be sampled) > c) Fs (rarely) > d) 2B (usually called the "Nyquist rate")That's four.>several years ago, when this definition discussion came up, i was >appalled to find that O&S themselves had the wrong definition (at >least in my 1989 edition).How can it be wrong if the right definition is still open to debate? I'm still an advocate of the Nyquist Frequency defined as the two-sided bandwidth, because it generalizes to bandpass or modulated signals without having to change the definition. Greg
Reply by ●November 18, 20102010-11-18
On Nov 18, 3:23�pm, Greg Berchin <gjberc...@chatter.net.invalid> wrote:> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:34:49 -0800 (PST), robert bristow-johnson > > <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote: > >hay Rick, not an unkind word, just a question: �does your 3rd edition > >take a position of the meaning of "Nyquist frequency"? �3 different > >definitions i have seen: > > > Nyquist frequency = � a) �Fs/2 > > � � � � � � � � � � � b) �B (bandlimit of signal to be sampled) > > � � � � � � � � � � � c) �Fs (rarely) > > � � � � � � � � � � � d) �2B (usually called the "Nyquist rate") > > That's four.He said "3 different definitions". So one is the definition and the other three are 'different'.> >several years ago, when this definition discussion came up, i was > >appalled to find that O&S themselves had the wrong definition (at > >least in my 1989 edition). � > > How can it be wrong if the right definition is still open to debate? > > I'm still an advocate of the Nyquist Frequency defined as the two-sided > bandwidth, because it generalizes to bandpass or modulated signals without > having to change the definition.Why not let Nyquist decide...? ;^) Personally, I use this term as the max bandwidth that can be represented by a given sample rate, in other words Fs/2. But then I also use it as the minimum sample rate you need to cover a given bandwidth signal. If "Nyquist Frequency" is used for one, what should the other be called? I suggest if a standard is to be adopted, "Nyquest Frequency" be used for the max bandwidth accurately represented by a given sample rate (Fs/2) and "Nyquist Rate" be used for the minimum sample rate that will represent a given bandwidth (BW*2). Rick
