Power Spectral Density Confusion

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of Power Spectral Density (PSD) and its implications in signal processing, particularly in relation to sampling parameters and the generation of time signals from frequency spectra. Participants explore the relationship between concatenating time signals, the resulting frequency bins, and the characteristics of the PSD.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes a process of generating a time signal from a PSD and expresses confusion about the resulting PSD when the time frame is concatenated, noting that every other frequency bin becomes zero.
  • Another participant explains that concatenating identical time sequences results in even frequencies while eliminating odd frequencies, leading to gaps in the power spectrum.
  • A participant questions the effectiveness of PSDs in normalizing power across different FFT parameters, suggesting that larger dF values may limit the frequency components present in the generated time signal.
  • One participant emphasizes the importance of applying a window function to the time signal before performing the FFT, noting that failing to do so could introduce high-frequency noise and deep notch filters between frequency bins.
  • Another participant reiterates the significance of window functions, suggesting that they can be used to manage spectral leakage and fill gaps in the frequency spectrum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of PSDs and the role of window functions, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain on how these concepts interact in signal processing.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in their understanding of PSDs and the effects of sampling parameters, as well as the implications of window functions on the frequency spectrum.

swraman
Messages
165
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am working on a project and came across a conceptual roadblock.

I am working with a PSD, let's say the units are V^2/Hz.

I choose a dF based on how many sine tones I want in the time signal I am going to create.

I sample the PSD curve at my frequency bin locations; so I have both my frequency vector (0:dF:fMax) and my PSD sampled at each frequency bin.

I multiply my sampled PSD by dF, then take square root of each bin to get a amplitude spectrum. I add a phase to each amplitude bin, and modify my resulting spectrum (amplitude+phase) so that it has Hermitian Symmetry.

IFFT, results in a purely real time signal.

All makes sense up till here.

Now, if I take this tiem frame and concatonate it with itself, I get a frame twice as big. If I FFT that 2x frame, I get a resulting FFT in which the magnitude of every other bin is 0 - which makes sense since the time signal wasn't generated with any of the 0-magnitude frequencies.

But, if I convert this FFT to a PSD, I will still see that every other point is 0 value.

This is my confusion - I thought that every PSD should be the same, regardless of what your sampling parameters are. It makes sense to me why every other bin is zero - but what bit of logic am I overlooking that would predict that my PSD will not match when sampled with 2N points? I thought PSDs were supposed to deal with the problem of sampling using different dFs.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
When you concatenate two identical time sequences you generate even frequencies while eliminating the odd. All odd frequency bins will be zero.
When you stretched the spectrum by concatenation, gaps with zero energy opened at all the odd frequency bins.

The power spectrum is the square of the amplitude spectrum. If there is no amplitude in a particular frequency bin, then there can be no power. 0 * 0 = 0. You are looking at the energy in individual bins, not the sum of several adjacent bins, so the zeros from the amplitude spectrum are preserved in the power spectrum.
 
THanks - that part I do get. My question really is about PSDs. As I understand them, they are a way to give anyone a spectral profile and ensure that when they apply that profile, the FFT parameters they select will not affect the total power of the signal.

I guess another angle for the question I had is this. Am I correct in thinking that there is a big "flaw" in PSDs. They are intended to normalize power of a signal generated from a spectrum; so the process does not depend on your FFT parameters. But, the larger of a dF you use, the fewer frequency components will be in a time signal generated from the PSD.

FOr example, let's say I am using a vibration PSD (g^2/Hz) to generate an acceleration time signal to excite a spring/mass/damper that has a high-Q resonance at 67Hz. If my dF chosen is 15, I will generate a time signal that has content at 60Hz and 75Hz, but will not significantly excite the resonance at 67Hz unless I use a lower dF. Is this understanding correct?
 
I think the application of the window function is important in your situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function

A step where the ends of the time signal wrap around should add high frequency noise and spreads the bins. If you do not multiply your time data by a window function before the FFT you will have deep notch filters between each df bin. There are implications when you use an IFFT to generate a stimulus which has a particular power spectrum. A reverse window could be applied to spread the peaks and fill the notches.
 
Baluncore said:
I think the application of the window function is important in your situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_function

A step where the ends of the time signal wrap around should add high frequency noise and spreads the bins. If you do not multiply your time data by a window function before the FFT you will have deep notch filters between each df bin. There are implications when you use an IFFT to generate a stimulus which has a particular power spectrum. A reverse window could be applied to spread the peaks and fill the notches.
Interesting. I never knew windows were used to intentionally create spectral leakage; I've only ever seen them used to try and prevent it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K