Awesome! Thanks Thomas!

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Thomas Lecocq <thomas.lec...@seismology.be>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> so, as explained:
>
> default['analysis_duration'] = ["Duration of the Analysis (total in
> seconds : 3600, [86400])",'86400']
> default['corr_duration'] = ["Data windows to correlate (in seconds)
> [1800.]",'1800.']
> default['overlap'] = ["Amount of overlap between data windows [0:1[
> [0.]",'0.0']
>
> analysis_duration should not be changed. It's there because I originally
> planned to allow support for other job bases, not only the "1day job" (e.g.
> for acoustic kHz data). But to date, it's not implemented. corr_duration is
> the window length, in the loaded day, that is cross-correlated, and they
> step by the overlap. The "chunking" is not for efficiency, it's for quality
> rebuilding of the CCF. In the simplest case of a big event in the middle of
> your 2 daily seismic traces, you'll have the CCF of those full traces will
> look like an autocorrelation, but if you slice the day in chunks, only one
> of the, for example 48 slices, will be autocorr, and thus the daily stack
> of those windows will be less affected by this event. So, msnoise computes
> N CCFS per day and stacks them to a daily CCF (default is linear stack =
> average). Thomas
>
> On 13/10/2016 18:14, Flinders, Ashton wrote:
>
>> Ok, thanks Lukas!
>>
>> I brought up a similar question last week about how the cross-correlation
>> segmenting was done and after talking to Esteban/Thomas my impression was
>> that corr_duration simply split the time segments into chunks, and did the
>> cross correlation in chunks PURELY for efficiency reasons, and then
>> rebuilt
>> the total daily time cross correlation afterwards, and did not stack them.
>> But this seems to not be true then?
>>
>>
>> -ashton
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:09 AM, Lukas Preiswerk <
>> preisw...@vaw.baug.ethz.ch
>>
>>> wrote:
>>> Ashton,
>>>
>>> I think the part that is throwing me off a bit is the "Daily NCFs were
>>>>
>>> then
>>>
>>>> obtained by stacking 30-min NCFs".
>>>> This sound like to be, they took their individual 30 min NCFs and
>>>> stacked
>>>> them, so that each day is represented by the stacked summation of 48
>>>> independent NCFs.
>>>>
>>> Agreed. If you set corr_duration to 1800 and leave analysis_duration
>>> in the standard 86400, this is exactly what you get in the 1-Day
>>> stacks.
>>>
>>> I assumed that meant that both corr_duration and analysis duration were
>>>>
>>> set
>>>
>>>> to 3600, but maybe not.
>>>>
>>> As I mentioned, if you set analysis_duration to 3600,
>>> then you only use 1 hour of data each day and leave the rest
>>> untouched… Try it for yourself with the keep_all option enabled and by
>>> looking at the data in the h5 files.
>>>
>>> Lukas
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2016-10-12 18:08 GMT+02:00 Flinders, Ashton <aflind...@usgs.gov>:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Lukas!
>>>>
>>>> I think the part that is throwing me off a bit is the "Daily NCFs were
>>>>
>>> then
>>>
>>>> obtained by stacking 30-min NCFs".
>>>>
>>>> This sound like to be, they took their individual 30 min NCFs and
>>>> stacked
>>>> them, so that each day is represented by the stacked summation of 48
>>>> independent NCFs.
>>>>
>>>> I assumed that meant that both corr_duration and analysis duration were
>>>>
>>> set
>>>
>>>> to 3600, but maybe not.
>>>>
>>>> I'll probably just send an email out to them to see what parameters they
>>>> used.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Lukas Preiswerk <
>>>> preisw...@vaw.baug.ethz.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ashton,
>>>>>
>>>>> I can partly answer 1) and 3). First, corr_duration would be 30*60 in
>>>>> their paper (corr_duration is in seconds). As far as I understand,
>>>>> analysis_duration should almost always be 86400. Setting the
>>>>> analysis_duration
>>>>> smaller could be used to prevent loading a full day of data for
>>>>> specific cases, like super high frequency data (8kHz or more). The
>>>>> remaining processing still works on days and not multiples of
>>>>> analysis_duration. For examplem if you set analysis_duration to 3600,
>>>>> then you only use 1 hour of data each day…
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope that helps!
>>>>>
>>>>> Lukas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2016-10-11 18:57 GMT+02:00 Flinders, Ashton <aflind...@usgs.gov>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all, I was just reading through Taka'aki and Forents new paper
>>>>>>
>>>>> using
>>>
>>>> MSNoise, and was hoping just for a wee bit more clarification on the
>>>>>> MSnoise processing scheme (wasnt quite clear in the docs).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The paper says;
>>>>>> "We first removed the instrument response from 1-day-long waveform to
>>>>>> obtain ground motion in displacement. Daily displacement data were
>>>>>> bandpassed between 0.08 and 2.0 Hz, down-sampled into 10  Hz, and
>>>>>>
>>>>> split
>>>
>>>> into 30-min-long data. Those 30-min-long data were spectral whitened
>>>>>>
>>>>> in a
>>>
>>>> frequency range of 0.1–0.9  Hz and then one-bit normalized. With those
>>>>>> one-bit normalized data, the NCFs were computed for all possible
>>>>>> combinations of components. Daily NCFs were then obtained by stacking
>>>>>> 30-min NCFs."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Q1) So just in terms of implementation in msnoise admin, the
>>>>>>
>>>>> 30-min-long
>>>
>>>> duration would be controlled by "analysis_duration" correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Q2) If you remove the instrument response, is it always removed from
>>>>>>
>>>>> a 1
>>>
>>>> day chunk, or is it removed from a chunk equal in size to
>>>>>> "analysis_duration"? (the docs say 1 day, but I wasnt sure if this was
>>>>>>
>>>>> just
>>>>>
>>>>>> referencing the default "analysis_duration" time).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Q3) This probably isnt the intended usage, but if you used
>>>>>> "analysis_duration" longer than a day, would you expect things to
>>>>>>
>>>>> behave?
>>>
>>>> Thanks as always!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -ashton
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p.s. paper;
>>>>>> http://earth-planets-space.springeropen.com/articles/10.
>>>>>>
>>>>> 1186/s40623-016-0538-6
>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Ashton F. Flinders, Ph.D
>>>>>> U.S. Geological Survey
>>>>>> 345 Middlefield Road
>>>>>> Menlo Park, CA 94025
>>>>>> (650) 329-5050
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> MSNoise mailing list
>>>>>> MSNoise@mailman-as.oma.be
>>>>>> http://mailman-as.oma.be/mailman/listinfo/msnoise
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> MSNoise mailing list
>>>>> MSNoise@mailman-as.oma.be
>>>>> http://mailman-as.oma.be/mailman/listinfo/msnoise
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ashton F. Flinders, Ph.D
>>>> U.S. Geological Survey
>>>> 345 Middlefield Road
>>>> Menlo Park, CA 94025
>>>> (650) 329-5050
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> MSNoise mailing list
>>>> MSNoise@mailman-as.oma.be
>>>> http://mailman-as.oma.be/mailman/listinfo/msnoise
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MSNoise mailing list
>>> MSNoise@mailman-as.oma.be
>>> http://mailman-as.oma.be/mailman/listinfo/msnoise
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> MSNoise mailing list
> MSNoise@mailman-as.oma.be
> http://mailman-as.oma.be/mailman/listinfo/msnoise
>



-- 
Ashton F. Flinders, Ph.D
U.S. Geological Survey
345 Middlefield Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
(650) 329-5050
_______________________________________________
MSNoise mailing list
MSNoise@mailman-as.oma.be
http://mailman-as.oma.be/mailman/listinfo/msnoise

Reply via email to