Hello,

Please make sure to check this article:
http://www.amibroker.com/members/traders/01-2007.html
as it presents improvement over Fourier transform.

Best regards,
Tomasz Janeczko
amibroker.com
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: wavemechanic 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:50 PM
  Subject: Re: [amibroker] Re: FFT


  Yes, that's right - handle is the wrong word and should be find, reveal, 
uncover, etc.  This ability is of particular interest to short-term traders.

  Bill

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: <[email protected]>
  Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:04 PM
  Subject: [amibroker] Re: FFT


  > MESA doesn't really have the ability to handle shorter cycles per 
  > se ...
  > 
  > What it does have is the ability to pull cyclical information out of 
  > shorter samples of data.
  > 
  > --- In [email protected], "wavemechanic" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  >>
  >> No, I'm not saying that MESA will give better results than 
  > a "better" FFT (is MESA a "better" FFT?).  That judgment cannot be 
  > made until you leave the hypothetical and have a "better" FFT to 
  > talk about.  Until then statistics help identify valid cycles and 
  > MESA offers some advantages, including noise filtering and ability 
  > to handle shorter cycles.  Good luck in your search.
  >> 
  >> Bill
  >> 
  >> ----- Original Message ----- 
  >>   From: Ton Sieverding 
  >>   To: [email protected] 
  >>   Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:24 AM
  >>   Subject: Re: [amibroker] FFT
  >> 
  >> 
  >>   So what you are saying is - 'Beyond that one can go to MESA' - 
  > that even after I should have found whatever modified version of 
  > FFT, MESA will give me better results. In other words, why playing 
  > with FFT if MESA is the right way to go. Is that your opinion or am 
  > I missing something ?
  >> 
  >>   Ton
  >> 
  >> 
  >>     ----- Original Message ----- 
  >>     From: wavemechanic 
  >>     To: [email protected] 
  >>     Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:42 PM
  >>     Subject: Re: [amibroker] FFT
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >>     The restrictions associated with FFT that Ehlers mentions can 
  > be found in any textbook.  As for better results with FFT, the next 
  > step is to evaluate the cycles statistically (e.g., Bartels, F-
  > ratio, chi-square, etc.).  Beyond that one can go to MESA and such.
  >> 
  >>     Bill
  >>       ----- Original Message ----- 
  >>       From: Ton Sieverding 
  >>       To: [email protected] 
  >>       Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 2:58 AM
  >>       Subject: Re: [amibroker] FFT
  >> 
  >> 
  >>       Frankly for me these are John Ehlers typical arguments to 
  > use his MESA model in stead of FFT and has nothing to do with a 
  > discussion. The question for me still remains if there really is no 
  > way to get better results with FFT than the ones we have got ? If 
  > Fourier analysis is correct and it's possible to simulate whatever 
  > continues timeseries with a bunch of sinewaves and if MESA can give 
  > me the correct harmonics, it should also be possible to obtain the 
  > same results with a modified version of FFT. Question is how ?
  >> 
  >>       Ton Sieverding.
  >> 
  >>         ----- Original Message ----- 
  >>         From: wavemechanic 
  >>         To: AmiBroker, User 
  >>         Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 1:27 AM
  >>         Subject: Re: [amibroker] FFT
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >>         There is a discussion of FFT use and problems on Ehlers 
  > MESA website:
  >> 
  >>         http://www.mesasoftware.com/fftcomparison.htm
  >> 
  >>         Bill
  >> 
  >>         ----- Original Message ----- 
  >>           From: Ara Kaloustian 
  >>           To: AB-Main 
  >>           Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 3:16 PM
  >>           Subject: [amibroker] FFT
  >> 
  >> 
  >>           I was playing with AB's FFT code that TJ provided...
  >> 
  >>           The cycles seem to shift relative to the data, based on 
  > how many data points are analyzed. This is of course expected.
  >> 
  >>           Question:
  >> 
  >>           Has anyone found a way to determine optimum number of 
  > data points to analyze, and then determine the relevance of the 
  > dominant cycle, or find any relevant cycles?
  >> 
  >>           Most of the time the dominant cycle seems to be the 
  > largest one available. 
  >> 
  >>           Has anyone been able to use these cycles succesfully?
  >> 
  >>           Ara 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
  > ---
  >> 
  >> 
  >>           No virus found in this incoming message.
  >>           Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  >>           Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/732 - 
  > Release Date: 3/24/2007 4:36 PM
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> 
  >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
  > -------
  >> 
  >> 
  >>       No virus found in this incoming message.
  >>       Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  >>       Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/733 - Release 
  > Date: 3/25/2007 11:07 AM
  >> 
  >> 
  >>    
  >> 
  >> 
  >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
  > -----------
  >> 
  >> 
  >>   No virus found in this incoming message.
  >>   Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  >>   Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - Release Date: 
  > 3/26/2007 2:31 PM
  >>
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Please note that this group is for discussion between users only.
  > 
  > To get support from AmiBroker please send an e-mail directly to 
  > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com
  > 
  > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG:
  > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/
  > 
  > For other support material please check also:
  > http://www.amibroker.com/support.html
  > 
  > Yahoo! Groups Links
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > -- 
  > No virus found in this incoming message.
  > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
  > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.18/734 - Release Date: 3/26/2007 
2:31 PM
  > 
  >  

Reply via email to