On 4/6/12 2:03 PM, Bret Cahill wrote: >>>>>> Do you mean matched filtering or is "match" filtering something >>>>>> different? >> >>>>> North filter. >> >>>> Far more commonly known as a "matched filter", >> >>> How long did it take you to figure that out? >> >>>> which requires no >>>> special kind of convolution, only the ordinary, mundane kind. There's >>>> no deconvolution involved. >> >>> How is the original waveform recovered with a North Filter? >> >> Bret, can you stick with the common semantic? before today, i have >> never heard of a "North filter". > > Is anyone still whining about "match filter" or "matched filter", both > of which google up tens of thousands of on point hits in less time > than it takes to play trifling word games. > >> i am assuming from Eric's response and >> yours, that it is synonymous with "matched filter". > >> a matched filter is not about recovering an original waveform. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matched_filter > > Scroll down to the match filter recovery of the binary signal >
it's about detection. if you think that example is about producing a signal, rather than determining if a 0 or 1 had been transmitted, then you're mistaken.
also, Wikipedia should not be taken as authoritative, even though sometimes it can be useful. and that wikipedia article is horrendously written (as well as the article on instantaneous phase/frequency). i might suggest finding a good communications textbook. maybe one by A Bruce Carlson or another by Haykin.
finally, you need to learn to be nice when asking for help. if you know-it-all, then you don't need any advice or insight from me.