hi Aaron,
I think this depends on what you use for the filter coefficients. In
theory there are pairs of analysis and synthesis filters that let
you exactly reconstruct the original input signal. In practice I think
errors caused by quantization, overflow, etc are probably the main
source
Hi Ryan,
We'd be interested in learning more about your interleave-fixing technique
as well. If JPL will let you tell us about it that would be great. If
you can't release detailed code/etc, even a high-level description of the
approach would be nice.
Cheers,
Paul
On Mon, 28 May 2012,
Hi Jayanth,
We just (as in, today) installed CUDA 4.0 on several machines here. So we
haven't done anything serious with it yet. But the install went very
smooth and it compiles/runs some of our existing code developed for CUDA
2.x just fine. So far, I haven't seen any big problems, but
Hi Hong and Mark,
Thanks for writing this memo! This topic is important for our pulsar
instruments. I was wondering if you know what the limiting factor is in
how good the adjustment can be. For example, given the available
resolution of the gain/phase adjustments there should be a
Hi Sean,
I've used python code almost identical to yours pretty successfully,
mainly for simple tests/debugging. Whether or not this is the right way
to build a bigger application depends on things like the data rate you
need to support, any additional data processing/formatting that needs
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Nevada Sanchez wrote:
You will not get very high data rates through Python (it's too slow). I
would suggest using similar code, but in C.
I'm not so sure this is always true. Depends on what number very high
corresponds to, what else needs to be done with the data, and
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David MacMahon wrote:
On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:52 , Paul Demorest wrote:
I have to ask.. if all four syncs are the same, why are there four of them?
;)
Just to clarify, they represent the same signal sampled at (i.e. registered
using) four different phases (0/90/180/270
, Paul Demorest wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, David MacMahon wrote:
On Mar 4, 2010, at 11:52 , Paul Demorest wrote:
I have to ask.. if all four syncs are the same, why are there four of
them? ;)
Just to clarify, they represent the same signal sampled at (i.e.
registered using) four different
cluster to do pulsar/transient search. john ford, paul demorest,
scott ransom et al are the experts at using ibob/bee2
to packetize data (800 MHz dual pol) for GPU based pulsar cluster
(see their fantastic GUPPI instrument).
We could have up to 1400 MHz at once, 8200-8600 and 31,500-32,500 MHz but I
Hey guys,
Jumbo frames are already enabled on the switch. The packet loss we're
seeing is about 0.1%, so most of the data is making it through. The weird
thing is that this number seems independent of the data rate. Even at 1
MB/s we still lose 0.1% of the data.
As John already said,
Hi Dave,
I'm interested in hearing about any experience with these features also.
Looking into this stuff has been on the pulsar machine to-do list for a
while, but we haven't quite got to it yet. We do see some image pulses
when looking at bright sources that I think are due to non-optimal
11 matches
Mail list logo
