0
$\begingroup$

I wanted to know the difference between split radix and mixed radix algorithm.

I also wanted to know what is the difference between radix 2 ,radix 4 and radix 8 FFT

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So, what literature did you consult so far? I mean, no offense, we're all honored that you assume it's easy for us to explain algorithm better than standard literature, but you probably have something that explains atleast the radix 2 ones.. $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Jan 24 '17 at 16:22
2
$\begingroup$

just did a Google image search and these diagrams have popped up.

these are radix-2 butterflies with expanded detail (showing where the "twiddle factor", Q, goes) for various DIF and DIT FFTs.

enter image description here

a radix-2 FFT (the simplest in concept) uses only radix-2 butterfly operations, each with 2 complex numbers going and and 2 complex numbers coming out.

these four radix-2 butterflies combined

enter image description here

make a radix-4 butterfly:

radix-4 FFT butterfly

the image on the right just above would be a short-hand notation for a radix-4 butterfly. if there were 8 signals going into the dot and 8 coming out, it would be a radix-8 butterfly.

let $p \in \{1, 2, ...\}$ and $P \triangleq 2^p$. essentially a radix-$P$ FFT is an FFT that uses radix-$P$ butterflies and a radix-$P$ butterfly is, in and of itself, a complete $P$-point FFT with some phase adjustment on the internal twiddle factors.

a split-radix FFT has butterflies of different sizes. here is the best example i can think of:

a 256-point FFT can be done entirely using radix-4 butterflies because 256 is a power of 4: $256=4^4$. there would be 4 FFT passes and all of the passes would have radix-4 butterflies. a 256-point FFT can also be done with a radix-2 FFT and it would be 8 passes, all with radix-2 butterflies, instead of 4 passes.

now suppose you wanted a 512-point FFT. if you started with a radix-2 FFT, all you need to do is double the size of the buffer and add one more pass because $512=2^9$. so there is no split radix if you wanted to do that. turns out that the radix-4 FFT is a little more efficient than the radix-2 so you might want to replace 8 contiguous passes of the radix-2 FFT with 4 passes of a radix-4 FFT and one final (or one initial) pass using 2-point butterflies. that is a split-radix FFT.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.