On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:44:44 -0500, Tim Wescott wrote:> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:35:18 -0500, Greg Berchin wrote: > >> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:40:35 +0000 (UTC), "Benjamin S." >> <niacin89@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>>[...] My matlab >>>skills are OK but I've never done any practical DSP in matlab. There is >>>a book called "Digital Signal Processing using Matlab" by Ingle and >>>Proakis. [...] I >>>wonder whether it's the best way to learn how to process some signals. >> >> "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." >> >> Matlab can be an amazing tool for mathematics. For signal processing it >> leaves a few things to be desired. (I'll leave it to others to be >> specific about this.) >> >> For LEARNING signal processing, it's like learning to drive in a car >> with an automatic transmission -- you'll do okay, but you won't >> understand the fundamental relationships between torque, RPM, gearing, >> etc. And unless you specifically set out to learn them, you'll be >> limited to driving cars with automatic transmissions for your whole >> life. > > It would depend on how it is written -- if the book is "if you want to > solve this problem, then type in this function into Matlab", then yes. > If the book is "here is the theory, here is the math, problem 3.14 shows > you how to do the calculation in Matlab" then maybe not. > > But yes, I don't think the world needs any more "I need to understand > convolution, what Matlab function do I call" sorts of people. "How do I > make Matlab compute the convolution that I know and love" is a much more > productive attitude.I often write my own functions but then I thought why spend time to write functions which someone else has already written and tested for bugs. It's like writing your own functions instead of using the C (or C++) standard library. On a note, I was doing some time series analysis the other day and I wrote my own convolution. I think when I used Matlab's convolution it introduced oscillatory effects. Mine didn't.
From theory to practice - DSP with matlab book?
Started by ●June 2, 2012
Reply by ●June 7, 20122012-06-07
Reply by ●June 7, 20122012-06-07
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:25:15 +0000, Benjamin S. wrote:> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 11:44:44 -0500, Tim Wescott wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:35:18 -0500, Greg Berchin wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 08:40:35 +0000 (UTC), "Benjamin S." >>> <niacin89@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>>>[...] My matlab >>>>skills are OK but I've never done any practical DSP in matlab. There >>>>is a book called "Digital Signal Processing using Matlab" by Ingle and >>>>Proakis. [...] I >>>>wonder whether it's the best way to learn how to process some signals. >>> >>> "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a >>> nail." >>> >>> Matlab can be an amazing tool for mathematics. For signal processing >>> it leaves a few things to be desired. (I'll leave it to others to be >>> specific about this.) >>> >>> For LEARNING signal processing, it's like learning to drive in a car >>> with an automatic transmission -- you'll do okay, but you won't >>> understand the fundamental relationships between torque, RPM, gearing, >>> etc. And unless you specifically set out to learn them, you'll be >>> limited to driving cars with automatic transmissions for your whole >>> life. >> >> It would depend on how it is written -- if the book is "if you want to >> solve this problem, then type in this function into Matlab", then yes. >> If the book is "here is the theory, here is the math, problem 3.14 >> shows you how to do the calculation in Matlab" then maybe not. >> >> But yes, I don't think the world needs any more "I need to understand >> convolution, what Matlab function do I call" sorts of people. "How do >> I make Matlab compute the convolution that I know and love" is a much >> more productive attitude. > > I often write my own functions but then I thought why spend time to > write functions which someone else has already written and tested for > bugs. It's like writing your own functions instead of using the C (or > C++) standard library. > > On a note, I was doing some time series analysis the other day and I > wrote my own convolution. I think when I used Matlab's convolution it > introduced oscillatory effects. Mine didn't.If Matlab is like Scilab there's a "convolution" function that really does a circular convolution, using the FFT to speed things up drastically. That could be the problem. -- 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
Reply by ●June 10, 20122012-06-10
"Benjamin S." wrote in message news:jqcji3$4kh$1@dont-email.me... I'm familiar with stationary (FIR/IIR) and adaptive filtering. My matlab skills are OK but I've never done any practical DSP in matlab. There is a book called "Digital Signal Processing using Matlab" by Ingle and Proakis. It starts with very simple things which I find extremely boring so I wonder whether it's the best way to learn how to process some signals. Any useful tutorials or advice would be welcome. =================== I don't know about slow or boring. It might be just that I'm wired different and don't have the authors' innate grasp of mathematical expression. Their "x(n) = u(n) - u(n-10)" is my "unit pulse from 0 to 10." The entire book is like that. The related textbook is like that. They take common, understandable concepts, throw some funny words around it, and then express it in an equation that has no recognizable relationship to that being discussed, or anything that might outwardly resemble anything that might have any value to anyone at all. (In other words, Proakis's didn't work for me. Lyons's is something I can keep in the "reading room", and come off the throne smarter everyday. But it doesn't do matlab.)
Reply by ●June 11, 20122012-06-11
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 01:43:25 -0500, "Mikewhy" <boat042-spam@yahoo.com> wrote: [Snipped by Lyons]> >=================== >I don't know about slow or boring. It might be just that I'm wired different >and don't have the authors' innate grasp of mathematical expression. Their >"x(n) = u(n) - u(n-10)" is my "unit pulse from 0 to 10." The entire book is >like that. The related textbook is like that. They take common, >understandable concepts, throw some funny words around it, and then express >it in an equation that has no recognizable relationship to that being >discussed, or anything that might outwardly resemble anything that might >have any value to anyone at all. > >(In other words, Proakis's didn't work for me. Lyons's is something I can >keep in the "reading room", and come off the throne smarter everyday. But it >doesn't do matlab.)Hell0 mikewhy, If you send me a private E-mail, I'll send you the errata to my DSP book. [-Rick Lyons-]
