Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: The Best Name for Signal Recovery Matched Filtering
Posted:
Apr 22, 2012 2:56 PM
|
|
Conventional matched filtering should really be understood as a
truncated version of the signal recovery method in the Excel example
at http://www.bretcahill.com.
It sounds counter intuitive but by omitting the signal recovery steps
traditional match filtering has the often desirable additional effect
of low pass filtering. Since noise is often at a higher frequency than
signals few were willing to question a situation where you get 2
filters just by being too lazy to complete what should be considered
the first filtering operation.
Even when signal detection is all that is desired, however, it would
be better to separate what should really be treated two distinct
processes. Recover the original signal by taking the deconvolution of
the match filter output, and then, if any additional frequency
filtering in necessary, tailor it to the situation and to your needs.
And, of course, when it comes to signal recovery this should be the
optimal filter.
Bret Cahill
> I just assumed "matched filtering" included the deconvolution and
> other steps to recover the original signal's shape.
>
> In this case it was actually easier to invent a new filter -- I
> assumed it already existed -- than to be scholarly and do some
> research.
>
> To avoid confusion with the terminology from now on the filter that
> takes the convolution of a noisy signal like a conventional matched
> filter and then takes the deconvolution to recover the original wave
> form should be called "signal recovery matched filtering."
>
> This will distinguish it from the signal detection matched filter
> _even if the new filter is used for signal detection_.
>
> I've updatedhttp://www.bretcahill.comto reflect the new terminology.
>
> If anyone can think of a better name, i.e., the "Cahill Filter" please
> post.
|
|
|
|
