Closed hagenw closed 7 years ago
Yeah, I have already made some changes to align frequency and time implementations inside a local branch on my machine. These changes however build up on #135. I will tackle this after #135 is merged into master.
The points I have mentioned are now tackled by #140.
I guess the only remaining difference is now, that not all driving functions are implemented in the mono-frequency domain yet.
This was basically handled by #140. What is missing at the moment is an implementation of ´driving_function_mono_localwfs_sbl()´. @fietew is this planned in the near future, should I create a new dedicated issue for this, or should we simply close this issue?
I am not sure, when I will have time for this. I think we don't need a dedicated issue and we can close this issue.
By comparing
driving_function_mono_localwfs()
anddriving_function_imp_localwfs()
I was wondering why they look so different.I haven't figured out all the points, but I would like to start with two questions:
1) In
driving_function_mono_localwfs()
you usedriving_function_mono_wfs()
to get the driving signals of the virtual sources. Indriving_function_imp_localwfs()
you use a bigif
clause to get the delays and weights for every single source type. Could you maybe replace this by[~,tauv,wv] = driving_function_imp_wfs(xv,xs,src,virtualconf);
?2) In
driving_function_mono_localwfs()
you usevirtualconf
to calculate the driving signals for the virtual sources. Indriving_function_imp_localwfs()
you useconf
to do the same.