Andor wrote:> julius <juli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sep 12, 12:29 pm, "mnentwig" <mnent...@elisanet.fi> wrote: >> >>> How about this? >>> http://www.signumconcepts.com/IP_center/paper018.pdf >>> -mn >> It's ironic how the author misspelled the name of the >> inventor who inspired the entire paper [1]. >> >> [1] C. W. Barrow, "A continuously variable digital delay >> element," ICAS-88. > > That's odd. Here on comp.dsp, everybody talks about the Farrow filter. > In the title, the author also calls it the Farrow filter, and in the > reference it is attributed to Barrow. That seems to be strange > misspelling ...Try this: A secretary did the bilbiography. He used a spell checker. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Farrow resampling filter
Started by ●September 12, 2007
Reply by ●September 13, 20072007-09-13
Reply by ●September 13, 20072007-09-13
On Sep 13, 3:22 am, Andor <andor.bari...@gmail.com> wrote:> julius <juli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 12, 12:29 pm, "mnentwig" <mnent...@elisanet.fi> wrote: > > > > How about this? > > > >http://www.signumconcepts.com/IP_center/paper018.pdf > > > > -mn > > > It's ironic how the author misspelled the name of the > > inventor who inspired the entire paper [1]. > > > [1] C. W. Barrow, "A continuously variable digital delay > > element," ICAS-88. > > That's odd. Here on comp.dsp, everybody talks about the Farrow filter. > In the title, the author also calls it the Farrow filter, and in the > reference it is attributed to Barrow. That seems to be strange > misspelling ...A single letter typo - The original paper is by C.W. Farrow of AT&T June 1988. Harris in his conference paper has the author's name properly spelled in the 1st reference. The mistake showed up in his regular paper a few months later. However, "Farrow" is the correct term. Clay
Reply by ●September 13, 20072007-09-13
hi now it works quasi properly under simulink but i have at the ouput of the farrow filter (the input interpoled) a magnitude of +/- 1.5 and the input of this filter is +/-1 (before fixed sampling) i don't think that is because when the loop is locked, u = 0.5 do you have idea ?
Reply by ●September 13, 20072007-09-13
On Sep 13, 10:26 am, Clay <phys...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Sep 13, 3:22 am, Andor <andor.bari...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > julius <juli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 12, 12:29 pm, "mnentwig" <mnent...@elisanet.fi> wrote: > > > > > How about this? > > > > >http://www.signumconcepts.com/IP_center/paper018.pdf > > > > > -mn > > > > It's ironic how the author misspelled the name of the > > > inventor who inspired the entire paper [1]. > > > > [1] C. W. Barrow, "A continuously variable digital delay > > > element," ICAS-88. > > > That's odd. Here on comp.dsp, everybody talks about the Farrow filter. > > In the title, the author also calls it the Farrow filter, and in the > > reference it is attributed to Barrow. That seems to be strange > > misspelling ... > > A single letter typo - The original paper is by C.W. Farrow of AT&T > June 1988. Harris in his conference paper has the author's name > properly spelled in the 1st reference. The mistake showed up in his > regular paper a few months later. However, "Farrow" is the correct > term. > > ClayAs in the actress, not the Alaskan town. I've heard both are cold though. John
Reply by ●September 13, 20072007-09-13
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:31:26 -0700, fpga.vhdl.designer@gmail.com wrote:>hi > >now it works quasi properly under simulink > >but i have at the ouput of the farrow filter (the input interpoled) a >magnitude of +/- 1.5 and the input of this filter is +/-1 (before >fixed sampling) > >i don't think that is because when the loop is locked, u = 0.5 > >do you have idea ?Just a comment not an answer: From your comment, you're testing the case for no frequency difference; with frequency difference between the two sides, loop locked case will have a constant speed u change, not a fixed u, to accomodate the drift.
