Show me the numbers

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 5:54:56 AM UTC-7, Cedron wrote:
...
On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 1:33:31 AM UTC-7, dbd wrote:
> >Window DFT-even symmetry is desirable for phase linearity and the
> >independence of real and imaginary components of each bin.
> >
> 
> Yes, misspoke a little.  The window I presented is symmetric around
> (N-1)/2.

But your choice of R is inconsistent with that symmetry as is the time direction scaling of the function, but, enough attention to irrelevant misdirection.

>  Coincidentally (or not) that is the center point that Martin
> Vicanek's DFT is rotated about to gain his solutions for his two bin
> formula (see the "Show me some more numbers" thread for a link to his
> paper).  

Coincidentally and irrelevantly.

> Since there is a slight "twist" to the DFT of a real signal as in
> reaches its flattened ends at the DC and Nyquist bins, the linearity and
> separability might not actually be desirable goals.

Now this is stronger cruft than your suggestions on cooking test noise in another thread. But, I am impressed that you can "say that with a straight face". You have the abilities and inclinations to have a powerful future on the net.

> 
> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> If you haven't read my blog article on the formula's derivation, there is
> a section titled "Implicit Windowing" where I explain that the formula
> effectively has a Von Hann like window factored in and how that dampens
> the effects of other tones.
> 
> Ced

I -have- read your blog article and I think that the section on Implicit Windowing is the most powerful part. Except, perhaps when a reader considers the application of "implicit". It is true that there are windows that can be described with 3 parameters and that your formula has a vector of length 3, so there is an implicit sharing of the number 3. Some might seek a stronger tie than that, but fortunately that isn't relevant to the true strength of the section. And about the windowing, your formula does not apply the supposed window coefficients as a convolution to the points used in the algorithm so a windowing is never performed. But that's OK because the fact that your algorithm works for a 10 point DFT, a size too small to satisfy your (incorrect) claim to "approximate" a "window" as N => infinity shows that the accuracy of your algorithm has nothing to do with your algorithm resembling windowing, so you are safe there. But back to the good news, I've always been interested in windows and I don't think there is any better choice of irrelevant jargon to get search engine hits for your blog than "implicit windows". The rest of your blog is yet another piece of the gobbledegook that hides behind the signal processing that actually gets implemented in the world and just won't draw the attention "implicit windows" will. Good choice!

Dale B. Dalrymple