You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Just curious, is there a practical reason to define the whitening frequencies and mwcs_low and mwcs_high to be similar for each filter (i.e. different whitening params for each filter) vs. applying the same broadband whitening across all filters and just modifying mwcs_low and mwcs_high.
Aside from the whitening filter being necessary (currently) if using stretching technique in msnoise, and perhaps slightly easier QC since CCF outputs will be in frequency range of interest pre-MWCS, is there any other reason we should whiten in a more narrow band that reflects target frequency?
Haven't tested yet, but assuming the results would be very similar (in the same way that filtering a broadband CCF gives very similar outputs to filtering in pre-processing).
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
Just curious, is there a practical reason to define the whitening frequencies and mwcs_low and mwcs_high to be similar for each filter (i.e. different whitening params for each filter) vs. applying the same broadband whitening across all filters and just modifying mwcs_low and mwcs_high.
Aside from the whitening filter being necessary (currently) if using stretching technique in msnoise, and perhaps slightly easier QC since CCF outputs will be in frequency range of interest pre-MWCS, is there any other reason we should whiten in a more narrow band that reflects target frequency?
Haven't tested yet, but assuming the results would be very similar (in the same way that filtering a broadband CCF gives very similar outputs to filtering in pre-processing).
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions