Since an image is word ten thousand words, here's what sums up what i'm trying to do http://www.geocities.com/michel0528/correlation.jpg As you can see, I'm trying to correlate the first signal by the second by correlation. The problem is, I didn't really expect the result you can see on the picture, I expected more something looking like from not too close like a delta function right in the middle. So what's wrong, is it that my convolution function is broken, or is there something I did wrong/something I didn't understand right about cross-correlation by convolution?

# Cross-correlation by convolution (unexpected results)

Started by ●January 28, 2006

Reply by ●January 29, 20062006-01-29

Michel Rouzic wrote:> Since an image is word ten thousand words, here's what sums up what i'm > trying to do http://www.geocities.com/michel0528/correlation.jpg > > As you can see, I'm trying to correlate the first signal by the second > by correlation. The problem is, I didn't really expect the result you > can see on the picture, I expected more something looking like from not > too close like a delta function right in the middle. > > So what's wrong, is it that my convolution function is broken, or is > there something I did wrong/something I didn't understand right about > cross-correlation by convolution?First, these are images, right? The lines in the two first images did resemble graphs of linear functions at first. If these are images, use a simpler signal to check the implementation. For instance, use two images that are all black, except for, say, a 25 x 25 block of white pixels. The corelation between those images ought to form a pyramid in spatial domain. Once you get that result, you try to distort one of the images and see if the resulting distortion in correlation domain is as expected. Rune

Reply by ●January 29, 20062006-01-29

"Michel Rouzic" <Michel0528@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:1138502806.658790.269740@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> Since an image is word ten thousand words, here's what sums up what i'm > trying to do http://www.geocities.com/michel0528/correlation.jpg > > As you can see, I'm trying to correlate the first signal by the second > by correlation.O.K. starting from the left : 1) is this a spectrogram of a complex chirp return so that across the page is increasing time, up the page is increasing frequency and the (log?) magnitude of the response is indicated by the colour of the pixels ? Looks like it as I can see what looks like a second harmonic at the start of a linear fm chirp then a pair of sidebands appear later (one of which is aliased back in at the top right hand corner). 2) You then want to convolve your return echo with a time reversed version of the original chirp? This looks like a clean spectrogram of your original chirp with the time axis reversed and I assume from your text that * is convolution and not element by element multiplication - is that right? 3) and you get something like the far right picture - is this a spectrogram too? I don't see why it would be if you are looking for an impulse response - perhaps you will describe a bit more what the axes mean? Best of luck - Mike

Reply by ●January 29, 20062006-01-29

Rune Allnor wrote:> Michel Rouzic wrote: > > Since an image is word ten thousand words, here's what sums up what i'm > > trying to do http://www.geocities.com/michel0528/correlation.jpg > > > > As you can see, I'm trying to correlate the first signal by the second > > by correlation. The problem is, I didn't really expect the result you > > can see on the picture, I expected more something looking like from not > > too close like a delta function right in the middle. > > > > So what's wrong, is it that my convolution function is broken, or is > > there something I did wrong/something I didn't understand right about > > cross-correlation by convolution? > > First, these are images, right? The lines in the two first images did > resemble graphs of linear functions at first. > > If these are images, use a simpler signal to check the implementation. > For instance, use two images that are all black, except for, say, a > 25 x 25 block of white pixels. The corelation between those images > ought to form a pyramid in spatial domain. Once you get that result, > you try to distort one of the images and see if the resulting > distortion > in correlation domain is as expected. > > RuneOh sorry I forgot to tell, those are spectrographs of sounds. I thought it would seem obvious. And anyways, I made sure my implementation of convolution was working with windowed-sinc functions, that's pretty much all.

Reply by ●January 29, 20062006-01-29

Mike Yarwood wrote:> "Michel Rouzic" <Michel0528@yahoo.fr> wrote in message > news:1138502806.658790.269740@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > Since an image is word ten thousand words, here's what sums up what i'm > > trying to do http://www.geocities.com/michel0528/correlation.jpg > > > > As you can see, I'm trying to correlate the first signal by the second > > by correlation. > O.K. starting from the left : > 1) is this a spectrogram of a complex chirp return so that across the page > is increasing time, up the page is increasing frequency and the (log?) > magnitude of the response is indicated by the colour of the pixels ? Looks > like it as I can see what looks like a second harmonic at the start of a > linear fm chirp then a pair of sidebands appear later (one of which is > aliased back in at the top right hand corner).Um.. This is the spectrogram of two chirps and their result. Nothing complex, all real data. Spectrograms made with Adobe Audition aka CoolEdit> 2) You then want to convolve your return echo with a time reversed version > of the original chirp? This looks like a clean spectrogram of your original > chirp with the time axis reversed and I assume from your text that * is > convolution and not element by element multiplication - is that right?Yup that's perfectly right.> 3) and you get something like the far right picture - is this a spectrogram > too? I don't see why it would be if you are looking for an impulse > response - perhaps you will describe a bit more what the axes mean?Yes this is the spectrogram of the result. What's not obvious is that it's twice as long as the two first signals. The X axis means time, the Y axis means frequency, the colors mean magnitude. What I expected as an impulse response was a rather black/blueish background with a yellowish vertical stripe right in the middle.

Reply by ●January 29, 20062006-01-29

"Michel Rouzic" <Michel0528@yahoo.fr> wrote in message news:1138557715.831008.238690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> > Mike Yarwood wrote: >> "Michel Rouzic" <Michel0528@yahoo.fr> wrote in message >> news:1138502806.658790.269740@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... >> > Since an image is word ten thousand words, here's what sums up what i'm >> > trying to do http://www.geocities.com/michel0528/correlation.jpg >> > >> > As you can see, I'm trying to correlate the first signal by the second >> > by correlation. >> O.K. starting from the left : >> 1) is this a spectrogram of a complex chirp return so that across the >> page >> is increasing time, up the page is increasing frequency and the (log?) >> magnitude of the response is indicated by the colour of the pixels ? >> Looks >> like it as I can see what looks like a second harmonic at the start of a >> linear fm chirp then a pair of sidebands appear later (one of which is >> aliased back in at the top right hand corner). > > Um.. This is the spectrogram of two chirps and their result. Nothing > complex, all real data. Spectrograms made with Adobe Audition aka > CoolEdit > >> 2) You then want to convolve your return echo with a time reversed >> version >> of the original chirp? This looks like a clean spectrogram of your >> original >> chirp with the time axis reversed and I assume from your text that * is >> convolution and not element by element multiplication - is that right? > > Yup that's perfectly right. >O.k. then , apart from a few ripply bits you should be fine.>> 3) and you get something like the far right picture - is this a >> spectrogram >> too? I don't see why it would be if you are looking for an impulse >> response - perhaps you will describe a bit more what the axes mean? > > Yes this is the spectrogram of the result. What's not obvious is that > it's twice as long as the two first signals. The X axis means time, the > Y axis means frequency, the colors mean magnitude. What I expected as > an impulse response was a rather black/blueish background with a > yellowish vertical stripe right in the middle.Right. I'm puzzled too , X axis is time o.k. colors mean magnitude o.k.- but you only have one value per unit time lag as the result of your convolution - so what's frequency? Best of luck - Mike

Reply by ●January 29, 20062006-01-29

Michel Rouzic schrieb:> Since an image is word ten thousand words, here's what sums up what i'm > trying to do http://www.geocities.com/michel0528/correlation.jpg > > As you can see, I'm trying to correlate the first signal by the second > by correlation. The problem is, I didn't really expect the result you > can see on the picture, I expected more something looking like from not > too close like a delta function right in the middle.Take a look at the result in the time domain, and you will see a delta function. It looks that way in a spectrogram, your convolution function is working correctly.

Reply by ●January 29, 20062006-01-29

Mike Yarwood wrote:> "Michel Rouzic" <Michel0528@yahoo.fr> wrote in message > news:1138557715.831008.238690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > Mike Yarwood wrote: > >> "Michel Rouzic" <Michel0528@yahoo.fr> wrote in message > >> news:1138502806.658790.269740@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >> > Since an image is word ten thousand words, here's what sums up what i'm > >> > trying to do http://www.geocities.com/michel0528/correlation.jpg > >> > > >> > As you can see, I'm trying to correlate the first signal by the second > >> > by correlation. > >> O.K. starting from the left : > >> 1) is this a spectrogram of a complex chirp return so that across the > >> page > >> is increasing time, up the page is increasing frequency and the (log?) > >> magnitude of the response is indicated by the colour of the pixels ? > >> Looks > >> like it as I can see what looks like a second harmonic at the start of a > >> linear fm chirp then a pair of sidebands appear later (one of which is > >> aliased back in at the top right hand corner). > > > > Um.. This is the spectrogram of two chirps and their result. Nothing > > complex, all real data. Spectrograms made with Adobe Audition aka > > CoolEdit > > > >> 2) You then want to convolve your return echo with a time reversed > >> version > >> of the original chirp? This looks like a clean spectrogram of your > >> original > >> chirp with the time axis reversed and I assume from your text that * is > >> convolution and not element by element multiplication - is that right? > > > > Yup that's perfectly right. > > > O.k. then , apart from a few ripply bits you should be fine. > > >> 3) and you get something like the far right picture - is this a > >> spectrogram > >> too? I don't see why it would be if you are looking for an impulse > >> response - perhaps you will describe a bit more what the axes mean? > > > > Yes this is the spectrogram of the result. What's not obvious is that > > it's twice as long as the two first signals. The X axis means time, the > > Y axis means frequency, the colors mean magnitude. What I expected as > > an impulse response was a rather black/blueish background with a > > yellowish vertical stripe right in the middle. > > Right. I'm puzzled too , X axis is time o.k. colors mean magnitude o.k.- > but you only have one value per unit time lag as the result of your > convolution - so what's frequency?I'm not sure I got what you meant... Frequency is axis Y. Just like for any other spectrogram.

Reply by ●January 29, 20062006-01-29

Andreas Schwarz wrote:> Michel Rouzic schrieb: > > Since an image is word ten thousand words, here's what sums up what i'm > > trying to do http://www.geocities.com/michel0528/correlation.jpg > > > > As you can see, I'm trying to correlate the first signal by the second > > by correlation. The problem is, I didn't really expect the result you > > can see on the picture, I expected more something looking like from not > > too close like a delta function right in the middle. > > Take a look at the result in the time domain, and you will see a delta > function. It looks that way in a spectrogram, your convolution function > is working correctly.Oh yeah damn, i'm feeling dumb for not having noticed that. My result is stored on floats and as you can see by the magnitude it was too big for me to see that. However, what do I do with my result? The "delta function" I got isn't even really a delta function, but a 6400 bins chirp, surrounded by all the noise you can see. Do I keep only the 6400 bins of interest? Do I convolve that one little chirp with another to make it at last straight? Why isn't it even straight in the first place?? Does it mean that the recorded chirp lasted about 0.066% longer that the original one for some reason?

Reply by ●January 29, 20062006-01-29

Michel Rouzic schrieb:> Andreas Schwarz wrote: > >>Michel Rouzic schrieb: >> >>>Since an image is word ten thousand words, here's what sums up what i'm >>>trying to do http://www.geocities.com/michel0528/correlation.jpg >>> >>>As you can see, I'm trying to correlate the first signal by the second >>>by correlation. The problem is, I didn't really expect the result you >>>can see on the picture, I expected more something looking like from not >>>too close like a delta function right in the middle. >> >>Take a look at the result in the time domain, and you will see a delta >>function. It looks that way in a spectrogram, your convolution function >>is working correctly. > > > Oh yeah damn, i'm feeling dumb for not having noticed that. My result > is stored on floats and as you can see by the magnitude it was too big > for me to see that. > > However, what do I do with my result?Depends on what you *want* to do. > The "delta function" I got isn't> even really a delta function, but a 6400 bins chirp, surrounded by all > the noise you can see.As I wrote above, forget the spectrogram, it's making things much more complicated than they are. Take a look at your convolution result in the time domain. I'm sure you will see a pretty sharp peak at the center. Try to shift one of the input signals and look at the result again, you will see the peak shifted too, etc. > Do I keep only the 6400 bins of interest? Do I> convolve that one little chirp with another to make it at last > straight? Why isn't it even straight in the first place?? Does it mean > that the recorded chirp lasted about 0.066% longer that the original > one for some reason?Sorry, I don't understand. Why don't you post a more detailed description of what you are trying to accomplish and what you have tried so far? Andreas