On 14 August 2012 20:59, Carnë Draug <carandraug+...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 14 August 2012 20:02, Mike Miller <mtmil...@ieee.org> wrote: >> Have you done any comparison of the actual resulting filter against >> what Matlab returns? > > Nop. This matlab it's not on my system, and the one where it is > doesn't have Octave, so it's a bit of a bum to go around with saved > files between the two.
Ok. So I did this and they do look a bit different. They are definitely not equal but I wouldn't know how to fix it anyway. I have attached the matlab results if you'd like to have better look. The name of the variable relates to the arguments used, for example, b63_500 is "fir2 (63, f, m, 500)" while b63_def is "fir2 (63, f, m)" (def for default). I have already fixed the smallest problem, that Octave was returning a column or a row depending on the window given. Matlab just ignores it and was always returning a row. I have also replaced some calls to usage which is not recommended anymore (I think it will be deprecated soon). Carnë
matlab-results.mat
Description: Binary data
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
