-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
waterfall seems to be exactly what you want - Fourier transform
amplitude over time.
Although I can see the need for different windows in special
applications, why are you not satisfied with the window choices the QT
as well as the WX waterfall plots offer?
And: Although there is a lot of sense in channel selection prior to
analysis, if you do directly adjacent channels anyway, and try to
correlate what happens in different channels, why not keep the full
bandwidth and just increase the DFT size instead? Since temporal
resolution constraints seem to be in the order of 0.1s, at your
physical sampling rates (N*1Msam/s) that offers large (>>1024) sizes.
Don’t worry: Your computer should not take very long to calculate
20000-FFTs and you’re doing this offline, anyway.
Anyway I think you’re right, having a dynamically generated waterfall
is most probably not the right tool.
My weapon of choice for the analysis of offline (recorded) data is
Use the numeric data types of numpy, the algorithms in scipy, the
plotting functionality of matplotlib.pyplot , and the python shell
of my choice is bpython, although Ipython usually integrates better
Happy understanding your signal,
 the same that GR uses
 strikingly similar to matlab, but not smothered by a terrible
 If you’re on the lookout for a little Matlabeske GUI, try
On 23.01.2014 01:26, Paul B. Huter wrote:
me. I have yet to look at it from a Waterfall perspective, which
I am open to using another tool, such as Octave, if need be.
you can add a throttle block to slow things down.
mailing list [email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----