On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:39:19 +0000, Antigoni wrote:
> anyone <jaup@h/WSWLG{nR1³qHe> wrote in message
[...]
>
> At first, thank you for the explanation.
> It's not a typo, I found this way to perform inverse Fourier in a
> relevant website. Although, using fft(ifftshift) gives me exactly the
> same result.
> So, what you are implying is that I can't improve the time domain
> resolution by increasing the frequency steps? Is there anyway to do it?
> Thanks again for the reply!
Just for clarification, I deliberately assert '...as far as I know...' because people are endlessly finding new ways of
doing things. Nevertheless, if you wanted to improve the resolution in the time domain, it likely would be simpler and
more direct to rely on time domain interpolation -- linear, spline, and so on.![]()
> anyone <jaup@h/WSWLG{nR1³qHe> wrote in message
[...]
>
> At first, thank you for the explanation.
> It's not a typo, I found this way to perform inverse Fourier in a
> relevant website. Although, using fft(ifftshift) gives me exactly the
> same result.
> So, what you are implying is that I can't improve the time domain
> resolution by increasing the frequency steps? Is there anyway to do it?
> Thanks again for the reply!
Just for clarification, I deliberately assert '...as far as I know...' because people are endlessly finding new ways of
doing things. Nevertheless, if you wanted to improve the resolution in the time domain, it likely would be simpler and
more direct to rely on time domain interpolation -- linear, spline, and so on.