Performance Comparison of Windowed Interpolation FFT and Quasisynchronous Sampling Algorithm for Frequency Estimation

<table>Results of frequency estimations with frequency fluctuations when the sampling frequency is set as <svg height="13.1824pt" id="M154" style="vertical-align:-3.53609pt" version="1.1" viewbox="0 -9.64631 10.6177 13.1824" width="10.6177pt" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g transform="matrix(.0135,0,0,-0.0135,0,0)"><path d="M619 670C619 686 593 712 555 712S459 686 410 634S335 504 320 430H250L219 400L222 388H312L258 73C223 -133 201 -166 187 -180C175 -191 158 -199 140 -199C123 -199 88 -188 74 -172C68 -166 63 -164 54 -171C38 -185 23 -201 23 -215C23 -236 60 -261 93 -261C122 -261 161 -247 207 -200C268 -138 300 -71 337 94C365 220 376 277 394 387L501 399L521 430H401C432 623 464 665 501 665C524 665 544 651 567 627C577 617 583 618 592 625C601 631 619 651 619 670Z" id="g113-103"></path><glyph.data ascent="3473" descent="-2876" horiz-adv-x="642" vert-adv-y="642"></glyph.data></g><g transform="matrix(.0095,0,0,-0.0095,7.004,3.264)"><path d="M357 391C357 416 325 451 270 451C241 451 179 431 146 400C109 365 97 334 97 307C97 248 143 213 196 180C250 146 261 123 261 101C261 75 237 40 190 40C153 40 110 72 86 109C81 116 68 119 55 112C37 102 24 87 24 66C24 30 85 -12 137 -12C229 -12 331 62 331 140C331 189 304 218 236 260C197 284 164 309 164 346C164 381 194 400 220 400C259 400 282 380 304 350C310 342 321 339 330 344C347 353 357 372 357 391Z" id="g50-116"></path><glyph.data ascent="3443" descent="-2856" horiz-adv-x="381" vert-adv-y="381"></glyph.data></g></svg> = 3.2 kHz.</table>

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

fig3

Figure 3

Figure 3: Performance Comparison of Windowed Interpolation FFT and Quasisynchronous Sampling Algorithm for Frequency Estimation 