I am trying to design a FIR bandpass filter to reject middle frequencies of a signal using fiterDesigner tool. However I have never used this before so I had some troubles but I know the basic idea of the bandpass filter.
and here is my fftshift(fft(signal)) output (only fs/2 part):
My sampling frequency value is 44100. I need to reject middle frequency. So I set up filter design as above picture. (Filter Order should be minimum order).
When I try to design this filter, I got:
Fpass2 must be less than 22050 (half of sampling frequency).
I could not get why this happened. How can I design a FIR bandpass filter to reject the middle frequency of a signal?
In digital signal processing, the rule of thumb is that any processing frequency must be less than the half of the sampling frequency. Look a the Nyquist criterion somewhere, for example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem.
As you can see, there is a good portion of math involved. In a nutshell, if the frequency is more than the half of the sampling frequency, there will be overlapping of the spectrum around half. The solution is to either increase sampling frequency, which I probably not possible, or to reduce the filter design frequencies.
I have a set of experimental data s(t) which consists of a vector (with 81 points as a function of time t).
From the physics, this is the result of the convolution of the system response e(t) with a probe p(t), which is a Gaussian (actually a laser pulse). In terms of vector, its FWHM covers approximately 15 points in time.
I want to deconvolve this data in Matlab using the convolution theorem: FT{e(t)*p(t)}=FT{e(t)}xFT{p(t)} (where * is the convolution, x the product and FT the Fourier transform).
The procedure itself is no problem, if I suppose a Dirac function as my probe, I recover exactly the initial signal (which makes sense, measuring a system with a Dirac gives its impulse response)
However, the Gaussian case as a probe, as far as I understood turns out to be a critical one. When I divide the signal in the Fourier space by the FT of the probe, the wings of the Gaussian highly amplifies those frequencies and I completely loose my initial signal instead of having a deconvolved one.
From your experience, which method could be used here (like Hamming windows or any windowing technique, or...) ? This looks rather pretty simple but I did not find any easy way to follow in signal processing and this is not my field.
You have noise in your experimental data, do you? The problem is ill-posed then (non-uniquely solvable) and you need regularization.
If the noise is Gaussian the keywords are Tikhonov regularization or Wiener filtering.
Basically, add a positive regularization factor that acts as a lowpass filter. In your notation the estimation of the true curve o(t) then becomes:
o(t) = FT^-1(FT(e)*conj(FT(p))/(abs(FT(p))^2+l))
with a suitable l>0.
You're trying to do Deconvolution process by assuming the Filter Model is Gaussian Blur.
Few notes for doing Deconvolution:
Since your data is real (Not synthetic) data it includes some kind of Noise.
Hence it is better to use the Wiener Filter (Even with the assumption of low variance noise). Otherwise, the "Deconvolution Filter" will increase the noise significantly (As it is an High Pass basically).
When doing the division in the Fourier Domain zero pad the signals to the correct size or better yet create the Gaussian Filter in the time domain with the same number of samples as the signal.
Boundaries will create artifact, Windowing might be useful.
There are many more sophisticated methods for Deconvolution by defining a more sophisticated model on the signal and the noise. If you have more prior data about them, you should look for this kind of framework.
You can always set a threshold on the amplification level for certain frequencies, do that if needed.
Use as much samples as you can.
I hope this will assist you.
I use Matlab to calculate the fft result of a time series data. The signal has an unknown fundamental frequency (~80 MHz in this case), together with several high order harmonics (1-20th order). However, due to finite sampling frequency (500 MHz in this case), I always get the mixing frequencies from high order frequency (7-20), e.g. 7th with a peak at abs(2*500-80*7)=440 MHz, 8th with frequency 360 MHz and 13th with a peak at abs(13*80-2*500)=40 MHz. Does anyone know how to get rid of these artificial mixing frequencies? One possible way is to increase the sampling frequency to sufficient large value. However, my data set has fixed number of data and time range. So the sampling frequency is actually determined by the property of the data set. Any solutions to this problem?
(I have image for this problem but I don't have enough reputation to post a image. Sorry for bring inconvenience for understanding this question)
You are hitting on a fundamental property of sampling - when you sample data at a fixed frequency fs, you cannot tell the difference between two signals with the same amplitude but different frequencies, where one has f1=fs/2 - d and the other has f2=f2/2 + d. This effect is frequently used to advantage - for example in mixers - but at other times, it's an inconvenience.
Unless you are looking for this mixing effect (done, for example, at the digital receiver in a modern MRI scanner), you need to apply a "brick wall filter" with a cutoff frequency of fs/2. It is not uncommon to have filters with a roll-off of 24 dB / octave or higher - in other words, they let "everything through" below the cutoff, and "stop everything" above it.
Data acquisition vendors will often supply filtering solutions with their ADC boards for exactly this reason.
Long way to say: "That's how digitization works". But it's true - that is how digitization works.
Typically, one low-pass filters the signal to below half the sample rate before sampling. Otherwise, after sampling, there is usually no way to separate any aliased high frequency noise (your high order harmonics) from the more useful spectrum below (Nyquist) half the sample rate.
If you don't filter the signal before sampling it, the defect is inherent in the sample vector, not the FFT.
For a homework assignment I have to design a simple bandpass filter in Matlab that filters out everything between 250Hz and 1000 Hz. What I did so far:
- using the 'enframe' function to create half overlapping windows with 512 samples each. On the windows I apply the hann window function.
- On each window I apply an fft. After this I reconstruct the original signal with the function ifft, that all goes well.
But the problem is how I have to interpret the result of the fft function and how to filter out a frequency band.
Unless I'm mistaken, it sounds like you're taking the wrong approach to this.
If your assignment is to manipulate a signal specifically by manipulating its FFT then ignore me. Otherwise.. read on.
The FFT is normally used to analyse a signal in the frequency domain. If you start fiddling with the complex coefficients that an FFT returns then you're getting into a complicated mathematical situation. This is particularly the case since your cut-off frequencies aren't going to lie nicely on FFT bin frequencies. Also, remember that the FFT is not a perfect transform of the signal you're analysing. It will always introduce artefacts of its own due to scalloping error, and convolution with your hann window.
So.. let's leave the FFT for analysis, and build a filter.
If you're doing band-pass design in your class I'm going to assume you understand what they do. There's a number of functions in Matlab to generate the coefficients for different types of filter i.e. butter, kaiser cheby1. Look up their help pages in Matlab for loads more info. The values you plug in to these functions will be dependent on your filter specification, i.e. you want "X"dB rolloff and "Y"dB passband ripple. You'll need some idea of the how these filters work, and knowledge of their transfer functions to understand how their filter order relates to your specification.
Once you have your coefficients, it's just a case of running them through the filter function (again.. check the help page if you're not sure how this works).
The mighty JOS has a great walkthrough of bandpass filter design here.
One other little niggle.. in your question you mentioned that you want your filter to "filter out" everything between 250Hz and 1000Hz. This is a bit ambiguous. If you're designing a bandpass filter you would want to "pass" everything between 250Hz and 1000Hz. If you do in fact want to "filter out" everything in this range you want a band-stop filter instead.
It all depends on the sampling rate you use.
If you sample right according to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem then you can try and interpret the samples of your fft using the definition of the DFT.
For understanding which frequencies correspond with which samples in the dft results, I think it's best to look at the inverse transformation. You multiply coefficient k with
exp(i*2*pi*k/N*n)
which can be interpreted to be a cosine with Euler's Formula. So each coefficient gets multiplied by a sine of a certain frequency.
Good luck ;)
Does anyone know how to use filters in MATLAB?
I am not an aficionado, so I'm not concerned with roll-off characteristics etc — I have a 1 dimensional signal vector x sampled at 100 kHz, and I want to perform a high pass filtering on it (say, rejecting anything below 10Hz) to remove the baseline drift.
There are Butterworth, Elliptical, and Chebychev filters described in the help, but no simple explanation as to how to implement.
There are several filters that can be used, and the actual choice of the filter will depend on what you're trying to achieve. Since you mentioned Butterworth, Chebyschev and Elliptical filters, I'm assuming you're looking for IIR filters in general.
Wikipedia is a good place to start reading up on the different filters and what they do. For example, Butterworth is maximally flat in the passband and the response rolls off in the stop band. In Chebyschev, you have a smooth response in either the passband (type 2) or the stop band (type 1) and larger, irregular ripples in the other and lastly, in Elliptical filters, there's ripples in both the bands. The following image is taken from wikipedia.
So in all three cases, you have to trade something for something else. In Butterworth, you get no ripples, but the frequency response roll off is slower. In the above figure, it takes from 0.4 to about 0.55 to get to half power. In Chebyschev, you get steeper roll off, but you have to allow for irregular and larger ripples in one of the bands, and in Elliptical, you get near-instant cut off, but you have ripples in both bands.
The choice of filter will depend entirely on your application. Are you trying to get a clean signal with little to no losses? Then you need something that gives you a smooth response in the passband (Butterworth/Cheby2). Are you trying to kill frequencies in the stopband, and you won't mind a minor loss in the response in the passband? Then you will need something that's smooth in the stop band (Cheby1). Do you need extremely sharp cut-off corners, i.e., anything a little beyond the passband is detrimental to your analysis? If so, you should use Elliptical filters.
The thing to remember about IIR filters is that they've got poles. Unlike FIR filters where you can increase the order of the filter with the only ramification being the filter delay, increasing the order of IIR filters will make the filter unstable. By unstable, I mean you will have poles that lie outside the unit circle. To see why this is so, you can read the wiki articles on IIR filters, especially the part on stability.
To further illustrate my point, consider the following band pass filter.
fpass=[0.05 0.2];%# passband
fstop=[0.045 0.205]; %# frequency where it rolls off to half power
Rpass=1;%# max permissible ripples in stopband (dB)
Astop=40;%# min 40dB attenuation
n=cheb2ord(fpass,fstop,Rpass,Astop);%# calculate minimum filter order to achieve these design requirements
[b,a]=cheby2(n,Astop,fstop);
Now if you look at the zero-pole diagram using zplane(b,a), you'll see that there are several poles (x) lying outside the unit circle, which makes this approach unstable.
and this is evident from the fact that the frequency response is all haywire. Use freqz(b,a) to get the following
To get a more stable filter with your exact design requirements, you'll need to use second order filters using the z-p-k method instead of b-a, in MATLAB. Here's how for the same filter as above:
[z,p,k]=cheby2(n,Astop,fstop);
[s,g]=zp2sos(z,p,k);%# create second order sections
Hd=dfilt.df2sos(s,g);%# create a dfilt object.
Now if you look at the characteristics of this filter, you'll see that all the poles lie inside the unit circle (hence stable) and matches the design requirements
The approach is similar for butter and ellip, with equivalent buttord and ellipord. The MATLAB documentation also has good examples on designing filters. You can build upon these examples and mine to design a filter according to what you want.
To use the filter on your data, you can either do filter(b,a,data) or filter(Hd,data) depending on what filter you eventually use. If you want zero phase distortion, use filtfilt. However, this does not accept dfilt objects. So to zero-phase filter with Hd, use the filtfilthd file available on the Mathworks file exchange site
EDIT
This is in response to #DarenW's comment. Smoothing and filtering are two different operations, and although they're similar in some regards (moving average is a low pass filter), you can't simply substitute one for the other unless it you can be sure that it won't be of concern in the specific application.
For example, implementing Daren's suggestion on a linear chirp signal from 0-25kHz, sampled at 100kHz, this the frequency spectrum after smoothing with a Gaussian filter
Sure, the drift close to 10Hz is almost nil. However, the operation has completely changed the nature of the frequency components in the original signal. This discrepancy comes about because they completely ignored the roll-off of the smoothing operation (see red line), and assumed that it would be flat zero. If that were true, then the subtraction would've worked. But alas, that is not the case, which is why an entire field on designing filters exists.
Create your filter - for example using [B,A] = butter(N,Wn,'high') where N is the order of the filter - if you are unsure what this is, just set it to 10. Wn is the cutoff frequency normalized between 0 and 1, with 1 corresponding to half the sample rate of the signal. If your sample rate is fs, and you want a cutoff frequency of 10 Hz, you need to set Wn = (10/(fs/2)).
You can then apply the filter by using Y = filter(B,A,X) where X is your signal. You can also look into the filtfilt function.
A cheapo way to do this kind of filtering that doesn't involve straining brain cells on design, zeros and poles and ripple and all that, is:
* Make a copy of the signal
* Smooth it. For a 100KHz signal and wanting to eliminate about 10Hz on down, you'll need to smooth over about 10,000 points. Use a Gaussian smoother, or a box smoother maybe 1/2 that width twice, or whatever is handy. (A simple box smoother of total width 10,000 used once may produce unwanted edge effects)
* Subtract the smoothed version from the original. Baseline drift will be gone.
If the original signal is spikey, you may want to use a short median filter before the big smoother.
This generalizes easily to 2D images, 3D volume data, whatever.