On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 04:54:10PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Well, this seems logical, and if so then we've finally stumbled on the > point of the matter. So what's the fix? Is it a simple matter of > extending the "definitions" to other decimations in the file Brian cites? > > thanks Brian and Eric, > > eric
> >> > >>Also- this fix you are proposing- is it a simple scaling of gain that > >>would be independent of decimation? Because as you can see from the > >>following figure, the amplitudes scale directly with the decimation for > >>values above 128 on the 4 rcv rbf. > >> > >>www.nd.edu/~ematlis/z.gnuradio/Amplitude_vs_decimation.jpg > >> > >>Both rbf's produce a flat response below 128 decimation; greater than this > >>is where the change occurs. The standard half-band rbf does have a couple > >>of dips but is basically flat. OK. In the interest of expediency, use the decimation values that work, then complete the decimation in the host. The reason that there's a version that DOESN'T have the halfband is to save space. Making anything bigger (e.g., width of CIC) is contraindicated ;) Eric _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
