blog:2019:0225_fft_scaling_factor

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |||

blog:2019:0225_fft_scaling_factor [2019/02/26 17:04] davek |
blog:2019:0225_fft_scaling_factor [2019/03/08 04:47] (current) davek |
||
---|---|---|---|

Line 10: | Line 10: | ||

- | The answer is yes, sort of. First off, remember what the first "F" in FFT standards for: Fast. Maybe users of standard FFT libraries don't care about the absolute scale, they care about the spectral shape or changes in the spectral shape. If the standard library divided by N, it would be less fast for everyone. The point being, if you want to take the hit caused by dividing N frequency bins by N, you do it. | + | The answer is yes, sort of. First off, remember what the first "F" in FFT stands for: Fast. Maybe users of standard FFT libraries don't care about the absolute scale, they care about the spectral shape or changes in the spectral shape. If the standard library divided by N, it would be less fast for everyone. The point being, if you want to take the hit caused by dividing N frequency bins by N, you do it. |

If you really do care about the absolute power in the frequency-domain bins, you might want to divide by N. Maybe you care about the total energy. Oh wait, you should sum the bins, then divide by N one time! Now it's faster for you, too. Maybe you only care about the energy of the strongest bin. Just divide that one bin by N and ignore the others! | If you really do care about the absolute power in the frequency-domain bins, you might want to divide by N. Maybe you care about the total energy. Oh wait, you should sum the bins, then divide by N one time! Now it's faster for you, too. Maybe you only care about the energy of the strongest bin. Just divide that one bin by N and ignore the others! |

blog/2019/0225_fft_scaling_factor.txt ยท Last modified: 2019/03/08 04:47 by davek