In many introductory references, these two windows seem to meet the majority of practical requirements for non-integer frequency k values.. We noted that the domain window sequence multi
Trang 1for the improved attenuation of the side lobes For the Hann the value of the peak response is−38 dB at k ≈ 2.4, for the Hammimg it is −53 dB at
k ≈ 2.2, and for the rectangular it is only −18 dB at k ≈ 2.5 Comparing the main lobe widths in the vicinity of X (k)= 1, the Hann is 1.46 at
−20 dB and the Hamming is 1.36 at −20 dB, which can perhaps be a worthwhile improvement
Comparing the Hamming and the Hann, the Hamming provides deeper attenuation of the Þrst side-lobe (which is one of its main goals) and limits in the neighborhood of 45 to 60 dB at the higher-frequency lobe peaks (another goal) For many applications this is quite satisfactory On the other hand, the Hann is not quite as good up close but is much better
at higher frequencies, and this is often preferred In many introductory references, these two windows seem to meet the majority of practical
requirements for non-integer frequency (k) values.
In the equations for the Hamming and Hann windows we see the sum
of a constant term and a cosine term There are other window types, such
as the Kaiser window and its variations, that have additional cosine terms These may be found in the references at the end of the chapter and are not pursued further in this book These other window types are useful in certain applications, as discussed in the references
We noted that the domain window sequence multiplies a
time-domain signal sequence In the frequency time-domain the spectrum of the
window convolves with the spectrum of the signal These interesting
sub-jects will be explored in Chapter 5
Figure 4-4 is a modiÞcation of Fig 4-3 that illustrates the use of con-volution in the frequency domain Equation (4-3) contains formulas for the spectra of the windows, including frequency translation to 38.0
Rectangle: X1(k)= 1
N
N−1
n=0
(1)
exp
j 2πn
N (38.0 − k)
Hamming: X2(k)= 1
N
N−1
n=0
0.54 − 0.56
cos
2π n
N− 1
×
exp
j 2πn
N (38.0 − k)
(4-3)
Trang 2Hann: X3(k)= 1
N
N−1
n=0
1 2
1−
cos
2π n
N− 1
×
exp
j 2πn
N (38.0 − k)
The two-sided baseband signal is translated up to a center frequency of +38.0, where it shows up as a lower sideband and an upper sideband The way that the Hamming dominates from 38.0 to 41.0 and the Hanning takes over starting at 42 is quite noticeable The performance of the Hamming
−60
−50
−40
−30
−20
−10
0
k
dB
Rectangular
Hamming Hanning
(a)
−60
−50
−40
−30
−20
−10
0
k
dB
Rectangular
Hamming
Hanning
(b)
Figure 4-4 (a) Rectangular, Hanning, and Hamming windows translated
to k = 38.0 (b) Close-up of part (a) showing window behavior between integer k values.
Trang 3from 40 to 41 is also interesting Chapter 8 shows how a single-sideband spectrum (USSB or LSSB) for these windows can be generated
Referring again to Fig 4-3, it is apparent that if we can stay away from
k < 2, the Hann and Hamming are more tolerant of frequency departures
from integer values This should be considered when designing an exper-iment or when processing experexper-imental data or a communication signal
If the number of n and k values can be doubled, the resolution can be improved so that after adjusting the frequency scaling factor, k= 2 repre-sents a smaller actual frequency difference If a certain positive frequency
range 0 to 10 kHz is needed and an N value of 256, or 128 positive fre-quencies, is chosen, the resolution is 78 Hz per bin, and k= 2 corresponds
to 156 Hz, which may not be good enough For N = 1024 (512 positive),
the resolution is 19.5 Hz and k= 2 corresponds to 39 Hz, which is a lot better
Increasing N would also seem to make the close alignment with integer values more desirable But in the Hamming example the sidelobe peaks are better than 43 dB below the k= 0 level, which is often good enough,
and means that alignment with integer (k) values may be completely
unnecessary (compare this with the rectangular window) This reduction
of lobe peaks and the reduced need for integer (k) values is the major goal of window “carpentry.” Note also that the k= 0 value is about 5 dB below the 0-dB reference level, and a gain factor of 5 dB can be included
in the design to compensate
The operations just concluded can be extended to multiple input signals Equation (4-2) can be restated as follows:
y(n) = w(n)(x1 (n) + x2 (n) + · · ·)
= w(n)x1 (n) + w(n)x2 (n)+ · · ·
Y (k) = W(k) ∗ (X1 (k) + X2 (k) · · ·)
= W(k) ∗ X1 (k) + W(k) ∗ X2 (k)· · ·
(4-4)
where ∗ is the convolution operator This means that multiplication of
a window time sequence and the sum of several signal time sequences
is a distributive operation, and the convolution of their spectra is also a distributive operation Any window function performs the same operation
Trang 433 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45
−50
−40
−30
−20
−10
0
10
k
(a)
(b)
dB
Rectangular
Hamming Hanning
−50
−40
−30
−20
−10
0
10
k
dB
Rectangular
Hamming Hanning
Figure 4-5 Two-tone input signal: (a) with 2 units of frequency
separa-tion; (b) with 3 units of frequency separation
on each of the signal functions in the time domain and also in the
fre-quency domain This is mentioned because it may not be immediately obvious
An illustration of this is shown in Fig 4-5a for two signals at 38.0 and 40.0 (poor separation) and in Fig 4-5b for 37.5 and 40.5 (better separation), for each of the three window functions Using the frequency scaling factors as described previously, the resolution can be adjusted as required At certain other non-integer close separations it will be noticed that adjacent lobe peaks interact and deform each other slightly (the reader
is encouraged to try this)
Trang 5The frequency conversions in Figs 4-4 and 4-5 are exactly identi-cal to the idealized “mixer circuit” found in radio textbooks, where a positive-frequency baseband signal and a positive-frequency local oscillator (L.O.) are multiplied together to produce upper and lower side-bands about the L.O frequency with a suppressed L.O frequency content The frequency conversion itself is a second-order nonlinear process, as
Eq (4-3) conÞrms, but the two mixer sideband output amplitudes are each linearly related to the baseband input amplitude if the L.O level
is assumed to be constant, hence the colloquial term “linear mixer.” Actual mixer circuits are not exactly linear in this manner We also men-tioned previously the two-sided baseband spectrum being translated to produce a double-sideband output Both concepts do the same thing in the same way
There are situations where the signal data extend over a long time period The analysis can be performed over a set of smaller windowed
time periods that intersect coherently so that the overall analysis is
cor-rect The article by Harris [1978] is especially excellent for this topic and for the subject of windows in general; see also [Oppenheim and Schafer, 1975]
A frequent problem involves sudden transitions in the amplitude values between the end (or beginning) of one time sequence and the beginning (or end) of the next This causes a degradation of the spectrum due to the introduction of excessive undesired components and also signiÞcant aliasing problems The methods described in the smoothing section of the chapter can take care of this problem using the following guidelines: (1) create a nearly-zero amplitude guardband at each end of the sequence; (2) perform one or more three-point smoothing operations on the time and/or frequency data; (3) use scaling techniques to get the required time and frequency coverage and resolution; and (4) use a window of the type discussed in this segment to reduce the need for exact integer values of time and frequency
We see also that the Hamming and Hanning time-domain windows are zero or almost zero at the edges, which improves protection against aliasing in the time domain Frequency-domain aliasing is also improved, especially with the Hanning window, as the spectrum plots show Other window types, such as the Kaiser, can be compared for these properties