Thursday, September 27, 2018

downsampling - Frequency Representation of Downsampled Signal


I'm trying to follow the steps from Oppenheim for the derivation of the frequency representation of a signal which is to be down sampled by a factor of M.


It makes sense to me that:


enter image description here


But then the book says to make a change of variables from r to i and k where i = 0,1,...M1, and k = (-,). However, I don't really understand how this change of variables comes logically. After making this change of variables it is then easy to see how the downsampled frequency representation is just a sum of scaled and shifted representations of the original sampled sequence. But I would like to be able to make the bridge better between steps and how such a change of variable was concluded.



Answer



In the final result, you want to express the spectrum Xd(ejω) in terms of X(ejω), the spectrum of x[n]=xc(nT). Since X(ejω) is already periodic, it must be possible to represent Xd(ejω) as a sum of a finite number (M) of shifted versions of X(ejω). This is why the original infinite sum is split up into a finite sum of infinite sums, the latter being shifted versions of X(ejω).


I think you shouldn't worry if you think you wouldn't have come up with that change of variables yourself. What is important is that you understand what's going on.



Furthermore, I think it's instructive to understand the derivation of the expression for Xd(ejω) without introducing an auxiliary continuous-time signal xc(t):


Xd(ejω)=n=x[Mn]ejnω=n=kMx[n]ejnω/M


where in the second sum we only sum over indices n that are integer multiples of M. If we introduce a sequence d[n] which equals 1 for n=kM (kZ), and zero otherwise, we can rewrite (1) as


Xd(ejω)=n=x[n]d[n]ejnω/M


An expression for the sequence d[n] satisfying our requirements is


d[n]=1MM1l=0ej2πln/M


Inserting (3) into (2) gives the final result:


Xd(ejω)=1Mn=x[n]M1l=0ej2πln/Mejnω/M=1MM1l=0n=x[n]ejn(ω2πl)/M=1MM1l=0X(ej(ω2πl)/M)


No comments:

Post a Comment

periodic trends - Comparing radii in lithium, beryllium, magnesium, aluminium and sodium ions

Apparently the of last four, MgX2+ is closest in radius to LiX+. Is this true, and if so, why would a whole larger shell ($\ce{...