On 12/03/14 20:25, Hal Murray wrote:
mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org said:
Exponential averger takes much less memory. Consider this code:
x_avg = x_avg + (x - x_avg) * a_avg;
Where a_avg is the time-constant control parameter.
Also note that if a_avg is a power of 2, you can do it all with shifts rather
than multiplies.
Indeed. For many purposes it suffice with that kind of resolution for it.
Note that the shift is to the right which drops bits. That suggests that you
might want to work with x scaled relative to the raw data samples. Consider
a_avg to be 1/8, or a shift right 3 bits. Suppose x_avg is 0 and you get a
string of x samples of 2. The shift throws away the 2 so x_avg never changes.
Indeed. The form I wrote it above makes it easy to understand this
consequence.
It is always good to consider the consequence of bitwidth, and scaling
factors for filters makes you require more. Some problems you solve by
just throwing more bits of resolution/headroom onto it.
Cheers,
Magnus
_______________________________________________
time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts@febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
and follow the instructions there.
