Forums

The Best Name for Signal Recovery Matched Filtering

Started by Bret Cahill April 19, 2012
I just assumed "matched filtering" included the deconvolution and
other steps to recover the original signal's shape.

In this case it was actually easier to invent a new filter -- I
assumed it already existed --  than to be scholarly and do some
research.

To avoid confusion with the terminology from now on the filter that
takes the convolution of a noisy signal like a conventional matched
filter and then takes the deconvolution to recover the original wave
form should be called "signal recovery matched filtering."

This will distinguish it from the signal detection matched filter
_even if the new filter is used for signal detection_.

I've updated http://www.bretcahill.com to reflect the new terminology.

If anyone can think of a better name, i.e., the "Cahill Filter" please
post.


Bret Cahill


On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:43:59 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

>I just assumed "matched filtering" included the deconvolution and >other steps to recover the original signal's shape. > >In this case it was actually easier to invent a new filter -- I >assumed it already existed -- than to be scholarly and do some >research. > >To avoid confusion with the terminology from now on the filter that >takes the convolution of a noisy signal like a conventional matched >filter and then takes the deconvolution to recover the original wave >form should be called "signal recovery matched filtering." > >This will distinguish it from the signal detection matched filter >_even if the new filter is used for signal detection_. > >I've updated http://www.bretcahill.com to reflect the new terminology. > >If anyone can think of a better name, i.e., the "Cahill Filter" please >post. > > >Bret Cahill >
Feed feed feed.... This is the most retarded and endless thread ever. Mr. Cahill, so many people do something similar to what you are talking about every day in test and measurement applications that it doesn't need a name. It is just a method for signal recovery which has been cited in probebly thousands of papers. You just can't use 'Matched Filter' as the search term. And guess what if you properly make the inverse filter you don't need to take the square root! Mark DeArman
Conventional matched filtering should really be understood as a
truncated version of the signal recovery method in the Excel example
at http://www.bretcahill.com.

It sounds counter intuitive but by omitting the signal recovery steps
traditional match filtering has the often desirable additional effect
of low pass filtering. Since noise is often at a higher frequency than
signals few were willing to question a situation where you get 2
filters just by being too lazy to complete what should be considered
the first filtering operation.

Even when signal detection is all that is desired, however, it would
be better to separate what should really be treated two distinct
processes. Recover the original signal by taking the deconvolution of
the match filter output, and then, if any additional frequency
filtering in necessary, tailor it to the situation and to your needs.

And, of course, when it comes to signal recovery this should be the
optimal filter.


Bret Cahill


> I just assumed "matched filtering" included the deconvolution and > other steps to recover the original signal's shape. > > In this case it was actually easier to invent a new filter -- I > assumed it already existed -- =A0than to be scholarly and do some > research. > > To avoid confusion with the terminology from now on the filter that > takes the convolution of a noisy signal like a conventional matched > filter and then takes the deconvolution to recover the original wave > form should be called "signal recovery matched filtering." > > This will distinguish it from the signal detection matched filter > _even if the new filter is used for signal detection_. > > I've updatedhttp://www.bretcahill.comto reflect the new terminology. > > If anyone can think of a better name, i.e., the "Cahill Filter" please > post.
if (bretCahillPostedInCompDSP)
{
  compDSP.SNR -= 10; /* derate SNR by 10 dB */
}
-- 
Randy Yates
DSP/Firmware Engineer
919-577-9882 (H)
919-720-2916 (C)
> =A0 compDSP.SNR -=3D 10
OK, everyone already knows you are floundering. Here, try again: Conventional matched filtering should really be understood as a truncated version of the signal recovery method in the Excel example at http://www.bretcahill.com. It sounds counter intuitive but by omitting the signal recovery steps traditional match filtering has the often desirable additional effect of low pass filtering. Since noise is often at a higher frequency than signals few were willing to question a situation where you get 2 filters just by being too lazy to complete what should be considered the first filtering operation. Even when signal detection is all that is desired, however, it would be better to separate what should really be treated two distinct processes. Recover the original signal by taking the deconvolution of the match filter output, and then, if any additional frequency filtering in necessary, tailor it to the situation and to your needs. And, of course, when it comes to signal recovery this should be the optimal filter. Bret Cahill
On 22/04/2012 20:00, Randy Yates wrote:
> if (bretCahillPostedInCompDSP) > { > compDSP.SNR -= 10; /* derate SNR by 10 dB */ > }
Put the clueless troll in your killfile and be done with it! -- Regards, Martin Brown
One minor off point omission:

Simply clicking in noise as on the Joy of Convolution applet example
doesn't just add noise;  It subtracts some of the signal as well.

But even then match filtering works.


Bret Cahill


> > =A0 compDSP.SNR -=3D 10 > > OK, everyone already knows you are floundering. > > Here, try again: > > Conventional matched filtering should really be understood as a > truncated version of the signal recovery method in the Excel example > athttp://www.bretcahill.com. > > It sounds counter intuitive but by omitting the signal recovery steps > traditional match filtering has the often desirable additional effect > of low pass filtering. Since noise is often at a higher frequency than > signals few were willing to question a situation where you get 2 > filters just by being too lazy to complete what should be considered > the first filtering operation. > > Even when signal detection is all that is desired, however, it would > be better to separate what should really be treated two distinct > processes. Recover the original signal by taking the deconvolution of > the match filter output, and then, if any additional frequency > filtering in necessary, tailor it to the situation and to your needs. > > And, of course, when it comes to signal recovery this should be the > optimal filter. > > Bret Cahill
On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 15:00:16 -0400, Randy Yates wrote:

> if (bretCahillPostedInCompDSP) > { > compDSP.SNR -= 10; /* derate SNR by 10 dB */ > }
Please don't feed the troll. -- 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 Apr 19, 2:43=A0pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> I just assumed "matched filtering" included the deconvolution and > other steps to recover the original signal's shape. > > In this case it was actually easier to invent a new filter -- I > assumed it already existed -- =A0than to be scholarly and do some > research. > > To avoid confusion with the terminology from now on the filter that > takes the convolution of a noisy signal like a conventional matched > filter and then takes the deconvolution to recover the original wave > form should be called "signal recovery matched filtering." > > This will distinguish it from the signal detection matched filter > _even if the new filter is used for signal detection_. > > I've updatedhttp://www.bretcahill.comto reflect the new terminology. > > If anyone can think of a better name, i.e., the "Cahill Filter" please > post. > > Bret Cahill
A Confederacy of Dunces filter.
> I just assumed "matched filtering" included the deconvolution and > other steps to recover the original signal's shape. > > In this case it was actually easier to invent a new filter -- I > assumed it already existed -- &#2013266080;than to be scholarly and do some > research. > > To avoid confusion with the terminology from now on the filter that > takes the convolution of a noisy signal like a conventional matched > filter and then takes the deconvolution to recover the original wave > form should be called "signal recovery matched filtering." > > This will distinguish it from the signal detection matched filter > _even if the new filter is used for signal detection_. > > I've updatedhttp://www.bretcahill.comto reflect the new terminology. > > If anyone can think of a better name, i.e., the "Cahill Filter" please > post.
Deconvolution Match Filtering Specific Match Filtering Integration Free Match Filtering No Low Pass Match Filtering Dedicated Matched Filtering Bret Cahill