From: Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...> - 2004-08-09 07:07:55
|
> >The test case is quite unrealistic, actually --- users would almost > >certainly never make such a choice consciously. > But Octave is the one that chooses it; as part of the freqz() command, > and because I chose the number of FFT points to be a power of 2, for > efficiency. Well, then I would suggest it's Octave that needs to be fixed. If it wants to do all the work by itself, rather than letting gnuplot help where it can, then it's Octave's responsibility to get it right. So let me see, that 1.99805 of yours is actually 1023/512, right? Couldn't you use 1024/512, i.e. 2.0 instead? -- Hans-Bernhard Broeker (br...@ph...) Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain. |