i am asking this question sorta as a surrogate for a friend at comp.dsp who posted a similar one.

even though i did it for a quarter century, laying out math (using "ASCII-math") is crappy, which is why i think the traffic at comp.dsp is in decline (and being displaced by traffic here).

so here's the question, but i am gonna frame it differently than Bob Adams did, making it more about the sampling and reconstruction theorem.

suppose we have an analog signal that is a collection of simple sinusoids:

$$ x(t) = \sum\limits_{m=1}^{M} A_m \cos(2 \pi f_m t + \phi_m) $$

without loss of generality, we can order the terms w.r.t. frequency, $0 < f_m < f_{m+1}$, so that $$f_M = \max\{ f_m \} \ .$$

we can uniformly sample $x(t)$ if the sample rate, $f_\text{s} \triangleq \tfrac{1}{T} > 2 \, f_M$, is sufficiently high

$$\begin{align} x_\text{s}(t) &= x(t) \cdot T \, \mathbf{III}_T(t) \\ &= x(t) \cdot T \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(t - nT) \\ &= T \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(t) \, \delta(t - nT) \\ &= T \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(nT) \, \delta(t - nT) \\ &= T \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x[n] \, \delta(t - nT) \\ \end{align}$$

it is also true that the sampling function is periodic and has a Fourier series.

$$\begin{align} T \, \mathbf{III}_T(t) &\triangleq T \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(t - nT) \\ &= \sum\limits_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{j 2 \pi k f_\text{s} t} \\ \end{align}$$

turns out that all of the Fourier series coefficients are 1. this means that the uniform sampled function is

$$\begin{align} x_\text{s}(t) &= x(t) \cdot T \, \mathbf{III}_T(t) \\ &= x(t) \cdot T \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(t - nT) \\ &= x(t) \sum\limits_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} e^{j 2 \pi k f_\text{s} t} \\ &= \sum\limits_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} x(t) \, e^{j 2 \pi k f_\text{s} t} \\ \end{align}$$

accordingly, taking the continuous Fourier Transform, the spectrum of the sampled signal is

$$\begin{align} X_\text{s}(f) & \triangleq \mathscr{F} \Big\{ x_\text{s}(t) \Big\} \\ &= \mathscr{F} \left\{ \sum\limits_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} x(t) \, e^{j 2 \pi k f_\text{s} t} \right\} \\ &= \sum\limits_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} \mathscr{F} \Big\{ x(t) \, e^{j 2 \pi k f_\text{s} t} \Big\} \\ &= \sum\limits_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} X(f - k f_\text{s}) \\ \end{align}$$

and we know, as long as $f_M < \tfrac12 f_\text{s}$, that there is no overlap in the adjacent shifted spectra of $X(f)$ and the original $X(f)$ can be recovered from the $k=0$ term of the summation.

$$\begin{align} X(f) &= \Pi\left( \tfrac{f}{f_\text{s}} \right) \, \sum\limits_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} X(f - k f_\text{s}) \\ &= \Pi\left( \tfrac{f}{f_\text{s}} \right) \, X_\text{s}(f) \\ \end{align}$$

where $\Pi(u)$ (sometimes "$\operatorname{rect}(u)$") is the rectangular function

$$\Pi(u) \triangleq \begin{cases} 1 \qquad & \text{ if } |u| < \tfrac12 \\ \tfrac12 \qquad & \text{ if } |u| = \tfrac12 \\ 0 \qquad & \text{ if } |u| > \tfrac12 \\ \end{cases}$$

and we know that the inverse Fourier transform is

$$ \mathscr{F}^{-1} \left\{ \Pi\left( \tfrac{f}{f_\text{s}} \right) \right\} = f_\text{s} \, \operatorname{sinc}(f_\text{s} t) $$

where the sinc function is

$$\operatorname{sinc}(u) \triangleq \begin{cases} \frac{\sin(\pi u)}{\pi u} \qquad & \text{ if } |u| \ne 0 \\ 1 \qquad & \text{ if } |u| = 0 \\ \end{cases}$$

then, remembering that $f_\text{s}=\tfrac1T $, we know that the output of the brickwall reconstruction filter is

$$\begin{align} X(f) &= \Pi\left( \tfrac{f}{f_\text{s}} \right) \, X_\text{s}(f) \\ & \iff \\ x(t) &= f_\text{s} \, \operatorname{sinc}(f_\text{s} t) \ \circledast \ x_\text{s}(t) \\ &= f_\text{s} \, \operatorname{sinc}(f_\text{s} t) \ \circledast \ T \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(nT) \, \delta(t - nT) \\ &= f_\text{s} \, T \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(nT) \, \big( \operatorname{sinc}(f_\text{s} t) \ \circledast \ \delta(t - nT) \big) \\ &= \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(nT) \, \operatorname{sinc}\big( f_\text{s} (t - nT) \big) \\ &= \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(nT) \, \operatorname{sinc}\big( f_\text{s} t - n \big) \\ \end{align}$$

that's how we reconstruct out original $x(t)$ out of the samples $x(nT)$. so much for the sampling and reconstruction theorem. remember, that so the spectra of adjacent shifted copies of $X(f)$, which are $X(f-k f_\text{s})$, do not overlap, it is necessary that $f_M < \tfrac12 f_\text{s}$.

what if $x(t)$ is oversampled?? even grossly oversampled? that is

$$ f_M \ll \tfrac12 f_\text{s} $$

while it continues to be true that

$$ X(f) = \Pi\left( \tfrac{f}{f_\text{s}} \right) \, X_\text{s}(f) $$

it is also true that

$$ X(f) = \Pi\left( \tfrac{f}{2 f_M + \Delta f} \right) \, X_\text{s}(f) $$

where $\Delta f$ is any tiny frequency guard bandwidth greater than zero

$$ 0 < \Delta f $$

This means that

$$ x(t) = \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(nT) \, \tfrac{2 f_M + \Delta f}{f_\text{s}}\operatorname{sinc}\big( (2 f_M + \Delta f) (t - nT) \big) $$

in fact it means moreover

$$ x(t) = \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(nT) \, \tfrac{f_W}{f_\text{s}} \operatorname{sinc}\big( f_\text{W} (t - nT) \big) $$

for any brickwall rect width $f_\text{W}$ such that

$$ 2 f_M < f_\text{W} < 2 f_\text{s} - 2 f_M $$

so, quoting and paraphrasing Bob (because i swapped frequency and time domain)

... so obviously the [Fourier Transform] result will be identical [because of the multiplication with the rectangular function $$ \Pi\left( \tfrac{f}{f_\text{W}} \right) \, X_\text{s}(f) \ = \ \Pi\left( \tfrac{f}{f_\text{s}} \right) \, X_\text{s}(f)$$ ], but if you force yourself to use the time-domain convolution method, the width of the sinc signal will vary continually as you change the [rectangular function] width, and yet somehow you must get an identical convolution result for that entire range of sinc widths [, $ f_\text{W} $,] (since the [frequency-]domain signal doesn't change). Can anyone explain this without resorting to the [frequency] domain ?

i mean, this is an ugly way to put it, but if

$$ f_M \ll \tfrac12 f_\text{s} $$


$$ \sum\limits_{m=1}^{M} A_m \cos(2 \pi f_m t + \phi_m) = \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \sum\limits_{m=1}^{M} A_m \cos\big(2 \pi f_m nT + \phi_m \big) \, \tfrac{f_W}{f_\text{s}} \operatorname{sinc}\big( f_\text{W} (t - nT) \big) $$

for any $A_m, \phi_m, f_m \le f_M$ and and

$$ 2 f_M < f_\text{W} < 2 f_\text{s} - 2 f_M $$

doesn't matter what $f_\text{W}$ is, if it's constrained to that range of values.

  • $\begingroup$ i have tried to prune the question down and have asked the math SE about it. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Jul 18 '17 at 7:34
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, I don't really like HTML emails myself, but if you're explaining signal processing hardware for a living, you might not be picky about that; have you tried the LaTeX! It plugin for Thunderbird? Allows you to place formulas in-mail and with a click replace them with rendered PNGs. $\endgroup$ – Marcus Müller Jul 19 '17 at 6:56
  • $\begingroup$ of course we can swap the order of summation: $$ \sum\limits_{m=1}^{M} A_m \cos(2 \pi f_m t + \phi_m) = \sum\limits_{m=1}^{M} A_m \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \cos\big(2 \pi f_m nT + \phi_m \big) \, f_W T \operatorname{sinc}\big( f_\text{W} (t - nT) \big) $$ and, if we can prove it for just one term $$ \cos(2 \pi f_M t + \phi_M) = \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \cos\big(2 \pi f_M nT + \phi_M \big) \, f_W T \operatorname{sinc}\big( f_\text{W} (t - nT) \big) $$ with $$ 2 f_M < f_\text{W} < \tfrac{2}{T} - 2 f_M $$ we've proven it in general. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Jul 19 '17 at 8:42

There's a key step in your argument where you did this:

$$\begin{align} x(t) &= f_\text{s} \, \operatorname{sinc}(f_\text{s} t) \ \circledast \ x_\text{s}(t) \\ &= f_\text{s} \, \operatorname{sinc}(f_\text{s} t) \ \circledast \ T \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(nT) \, \delta(t - nT) \\ &= f_\text{s} \, T \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(nT) \, \big( \operatorname{sinc}(f_\text{s} t) \ \circledast \ \delta(t - nT) \big) \\ &= \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(nT) \, \operatorname{sinc}\big( f_\text{s} (t - nT) \big) \end{align}$$

At the 2nd-last line, you have $f_s T$ which has been eliminated in the the last line (since $f_s T=1$). However, later on you've decided to change the sample-rate ($f_s\rightarrow f_W$), and at this point, you should have revised the 2nd-last line of this block with $f_sT\rightarrow f_WT$, and this cannot be eliminated.

As a result, the last line of this block could instead be:

$$x(t) = \frac{f_W}{f_s} \sum\limits_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} x(nT) \, \operatorname{sinc}\big( f_\text{s} (t - nT) \big)$$

and your sinc-interpolation equation:

$$x(t)=\sum_{n=−\infty}^\infty x(nT) \operatorname{sinc}(f_W(t−nT))$$

should really be:

$$x(t)= \frac{f_W}{f_s} \sum_{n=−\infty}^\infty x(nT) \operatorname{sinc}(f_W(t−nT))$$

What this tells us is that, as the width of the sinc function increases (as $f_W$ decreases), then we must also decrease the amplitude of the sinc function. Intuitively, this means that the average (DC) level of the sinc function must remain equal to 1.

  • $\begingroup$ i did not change the sample rate. i only changed the bandwidth of the reconstruction filter. the sample rate is still the same $f_\text{s}=\tfrac1T$ but with $f_M \ll \tfrac12 f_\text{s}$, i don't need the reconstruction filter to have a passband that extents from $-\tfrac12 f_\text{s}$ to $+\tfrac12 f_\text{s}$. it can, instead, extend from $-f_M-\Delta f$ to $+f_M+\Delta f$ for any tiny $\Delta f > 0$. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Jul 19 '17 at 8:20
  • $\begingroup$ but you have a point there, about decreasing the amplitude of the sinc function. i might have to fix my question. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Jul 19 '17 at 8:24
  • $\begingroup$ i corrected the question. thank you Dave. i missed it and you caught it. $\endgroup$ – robert bristow-johnson Jul 19 '17 at 8:31

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.