Your poor reading skills notwithstanding, you are completely correct.
This was corrected MONTHS ago, is a regression, and is a clear example
of why we desperately need a source control mechanism. No wonder the
Image rejection autocalibration does not work properly. Phil's version
is the correct one.
Dale to the rescue!:
Dale has agreed to host the SVN server (subversion source control
mechanism) and we will host both the Windows and Linux stuff there.
This can never happen again after that without it being flagged and
questioned.
The sharing of zip files back and forth is a HORRIBLE way to do development.
Bob
Jeff Anderson wrote:
Pardon my poor c-reading skills, but isn't the equation for the gain
correction in this new set of equations significantly different from
the gain equation in DoIQCorrection?
Also (this is probably similar to Jim Lux's reply) - I would have
thought that phase correction would affect both Real and Imaginary
terms, and ditto for Gain correction (e.g. picture the phase at 45
degrees - a small change in phase should affect both real and
imaginary terms fairly equally, and a small change in gain will affect
both terms by the same amount). Do the equations, as shown, presume
that we're correcting around a phase-angle of 0 degrees, and, if
so, is this a reasonable assumption?
Just wondering, while trying to brush away the 30-year old cobwebs
obscuring the recollection of my classwork...
- Jeff, WA6AHL
*/Philip Covington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote:
Or in DttSP:
*void*
*correctIQ*(CXB sigbuf, IQ iq) {
*int* i;
*for
* (i = 0; i < CXBhave(sigbuf); i++) {
CXBimag(sigbuf, i) += iq->phase * CXBreal(sigbuf, i);
CXBreal(sigbuf, i) *= iq->gain;
}
}
--
Laziness is the number one inspiration for ingenuity. Guilty as charged!
