AnsweredAssumed Answered

vrf Comparator question

Question asked by rsb on Nov 18, 2004
"Pickles, Warren <> wrote:
> >
> > Or just throw the "build arbitrary waveform" object in front of the
> > comparator. It won't change bevhavior at all but it does make it
> > more obvious what is happening- and the behavior is documented.
> >
> > with the extra object you'll have resampled input to match
> > the X values you want- so the comparator will have explicit
> > point-to-point comparison (rather than implicit).
> >
> For me, this comes down to a trade-off.  On the one hand, it's more
> preferable to rely on the build-arb-waveform than on the comparator, because
> the BAW's algorithm is documented.  On the other hand, to use the BAW in the
> way you suggest means resampling ie modifying my measurement data; I might
> risk false passes doing that - such scenarios exist although they are
> unlikely.  No, I have to leave the measurement data unchanged, which means
> if I want a point-to-point comparison I must resample the spec to match the
> measurement data x values.  I can't use the BAW for that because the
> measurement data x values will not be linearly distributed, maybe not even
> monotonic.  Pity, that.  So I have to write my own resampling algorithm.  Or
> just go with the comparator, which at the end of the day is most likely
> perfectly reliable.  This is probably of interest to a tiny percentage of
> the readership, but it's clearer in my mind now I've written it down.

What I was trying to point out is that the comparator does exactly
what the "build arbitratry waveform" object does. Adding it to
the program won't change anything other than making the action
explictly visible. In either case the resampling occurs.


Stan Bischof  Agilent Technologies  707-577-3994

You are currently subscribed to vrf as:
To subscribe send a blank email to "".
To unsubscribe send a blank email to "".
To send messages to this mailing list,  email "". 
If you need help with the mailing list send a message to "".