Started by March 7, 2008
```Suppose I have a sequence of n samples where n is not a power of 2 and
sequence up to the next power of 2 number of samples before computing
the FFT of the

If I want to apply windowing (e.g. Hamming) before computing the FFT,
should the window
width used to compute the windowing weights be n (the original number
of samples) or
should it be the next power of 2 (i.e. padded) number of samples?

-Michael
```
```On Mar 7, 11:16&#2013266080;am, M.Aram...@verizon.net wrote:
> Suppose I have a sequence of n samples where n is not a power of 2 and
> sequence up to the next power of 2 number of samples before computing
> the FFT of the
>
> If I want to apply windowing (e.g. Hamming) before computing the FFT,
> should the window
> width used to compute the windowing weights be n (the original number
> of samples) or
> should it be the next power of 2 (i.e. padded) number of samples?
>
> -Michael

Michael,

The window should be the same length as the data, not rounded up to
the next power of 2.

Also, you want to use the definition of the window where the 1st and
last point are the same.  For 'n' data points, and an 'n' point FFT,
the 2nd point and the last point are usually the same. The first
window is symmetric, the second is implied symmetric when you consider
the implied periodicity of the data being FFT'ed.

Dirk
```
```M.Aramini@verizon.net wrote in news:dde1bcd3-767e-4d52-a511-

> Suppose I have a sequence of n samples where n is not a power of 2 and
> sequence up to the next power of 2 number of samples before computing
> the FFT of the
>
> If I want to apply windowing (e.g. Hamming) before computing the FFT,
> should the window
> width used to compute the windowing weights be n (the original number
> of samples) or
> should it be the next power of 2 (i.e. padded) number of samples?
>
> -Michael

For many FFT alogrithms, a power of 2 is no longer necessary.

--
Scott
```
```The sequence of operations is:

Step 1 : First multiply data with window coefficients.

Step 2 : Zero pad to next power of 2.

Step 3 : Perform FFT.

Regards
Bharat Pathak

Arithos Designs
www.Arithos.com

```
```On Mar 7, 8:44 am, dbell <bellda2...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> ...
> Also, you want to use the definition of the window where the 1st and
> last point are the same.  For 'n' data points, and an 'n' point FFT,
> the 2nd point and the last point are usually the same. The first
> window is symmetric, the second is implied symmetric when you consider
> the implied periodicity of the data being FFT'ed.
>
> Dirk

Actually, with the FFT you want to use the window symmetry where the
first point and the point after the last point are the same, and
sometimes zero. (Yes, this makes the second and last the same, but the
explanation makes more sense with the first and next after last.) This
is sometimes refered to  as 'FFT-even' symmetry where 'even' means
that real input produces real transform output.
See the explanation in section II of:
which is a portion of fred harris proceedings paper on windows.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com
```
```On Mar 7, 12:24&#2013266080;pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 8:44 am, dbell <bellda2...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ...
> > Also, you want to use the definition of the window where the 1st and
> > last point are the same. &#2013266080;For 'n' data points, and an 'n' point FFT,
> > the 2nd point and the last point are usually the same. The first
> > window is symmetric, the second is implied symmetric when you consider
> > the implied periodicity of the data being FFT'ed.
>
> > Dirk
>
> Actually, with the FFT you want to use the window symmetry where the
> first point and the point after the last point are the same, and
> sometimes zero. (Yes, this makes the second and last the same, but the
> explanation makes more sense with the first and next after last.) This
> is sometimes refered to &#2013266080;as 'FFT-even' symmetry where 'even' means
> that real input produces real transform output.
> which is a portion of fred harris proceedings paper on windows.
>
> Dale B. Dalrymplehttp://dbdimages.com

I like "next after last"; technically the point after the last point
would then be the last point. :-)

Seriously, the point after the last point, would be an implied
definition.  I didn't think the OP would get it.  If he is using
equations to define the windows (I am reasonably sure he is) my
description would let him know if he had the right definition or not.

Dirk
```
```On Mar 7, 9:35 am, dbell <bellda2...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 7, 12:24 pm, dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 8:44 am, dbell <bellda2...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > ...
> > > Also, you want to use the definition of the window where the 1st and
> > > last point are the same.  For 'n' data points, and an 'n' point FFT,
> > > the 2nd point and the last point are usually the same. The first
> > > window is symmetric, the second is implied symmetric when you consider
> > > the implied periodicity of the data being FFT'ed.
>
> > > Dirk
>
> > Actually, with the FFT you want to use the window symmetry where the
> > first point and the point after the last point are the same, and
> > sometimes zero. (Yes, this makes the second and last the same, but the
> > explanation makes more sense with the first and next after last.) This
> > is sometimes refered to  as 'FFT-even' symmetry where 'even' means
> > that real input produces real transform output.
> > which is a portion of fred harris proceedings paper on windows.
>
> > Dale B. Dalrymplehttp://dbdimages.com

>
> I like "next after last"; technically the point after the last point
> would then be the last point. :-)

I should have added 'in the window'.

>
> Seriously, the point after the last point, would be an implied
> definition.  I didn't think the OP would get it.  If he is using
> equations to define the windows (I am reasonably sure he is) my
> description would let him know if he had the right definition or not.
>
> Just trying to be helpful.
>
> Dirk

We agree, your version is a good 'how' for the OP; mine is directed to
a 'why' if the OP wants to know that, too.

Dale B. Dalrymple

```
```On Mar 7, 5:16&#2013266080;pm, M.Aram...@verizon.net wrote:
> Suppose I have a sequence of n samples where n is not a power of 2 and
> sequence up to the next power of 2 number of samples before computing
> the FFT of the
>
> If I want to apply windowing (e.g. Hamming) before computing the FFT,
> should the window
> width used to compute the windowing weights be n (the original number
> of samples) or
> should it be the next power of 2 (i.e. padded) number of samples?

I am not sure I understand.

You zero-pad this 'unwindowed' sequence to some length M > N?
If you want to apply a window to this zero padded sequence,
should the window be length N or length M?

If this is the question, I would suggest to use an N-length
window first and then zero-pad, if for no other reason than
to avoid various issues about symmetry: How do you match
an M-length window with an N-length data sequence?

Should you center the original data series before applying
the M-length window in order to preserve a symmetrical scaling
of the (original) data? Or should you accept the zero-paddes
sequence as is and apply an unsymmetrical window to the
(original) data?

I am sure arguments can be presented to support either
approach; it is still easiest to use the N-length window and
avoid the whole issue.

Rune
```
```Rune Allnor wrote:

...

> I am sure arguments can be presented to support either
> approach; ...

I can't imagine how. What would be the sense od applying a window to the
padded zeros? The edges of the real data would remain abrupt.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;
```
```On Mar 7, 8:16 am, M.Aram...@verizon.net wrote:
> Suppose I have a sequence of n samples where n is not a power of 2 and
> sequence up to the next power of 2 number of samples before computing
> the FFT of the
>
> If I want to apply windowing (e.g. Hamming) before computing the FFT,
> should the window
> width used to compute the windowing weights be n (the original number
> of samples) or
> should it be the next power of 2 (i.e. padded) number of samples?

Zero padding is equivalent to applying a rectangular window.
A rectangular window may introduce artifacts which cannot be
removed by later windowing.  However, if a window of the same
or shorter extent is applied before (and inside) the
rectangular window, then the rectangular window will have no
additional effect.  So one would generally want the extent of
the Hamming/etc. window to be the original n or smaller in
extent to stay completely inside the rectangular window