Barycenter Theorem in Phase Characteristics of Symmetric and Asymmetric Windows

Jiufei Luo 1 ID , Haitao Xu 1, Kai Zheng 1 ID , Xinyi Li 2 and Song Feng 1,* 1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Advanced Manufacturing Engineering, Chongqing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Chongqing 400065, China; jiufluo@gmail.com (J.L.); xuhaitao@zoho.com.cn (H.X.); zhengkai2001@163.com (K.Z.) 2 College of Mechanical Engineering, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400044, China; lixinyi1981@gmail.com * Correspondence: fengsong@cqupt.edu.cn


Introduction
Windows are a kind of weighting function that are introduced to reduce the spectral leakage in spectrum analysis [1].Classic windows have constant time delay and linear phase response due to the symmetry and time shifting causality-imposed in the time domain [2].In recent years, asymmetric windows have attracted increasing concerns due to the nonlinear and adjustable phase response, as well as alterable time delay [2].Short-time phase distortion can lead to better recognition in speech processing and bring a lot of advantages in speech coding [3][4][5][6][7].These asymmetric windows with extended discrimination capacity are very good candidates for the detection of closely spaced frequency components [8].The characteristics of the adjustable spectral phase in asymmetric windows also play an important role in parameter estimation [9].However, it should be pointed out that most of the past literature, so far, has been mainly focused on the construction of asymmetric windows or the amplitude response [2][3][4].Although the alterable phase response of asymmetric windows is of great benefit to scientific fields or engineering applications, such as speech recognition and parameter estimation, there have been relatively few studies devoted to the theoretical analysis of phase response.
For example, when asymmetric windows are applied in phase difference-based frequency estimation implemented by discrete Fourier Transform (DFT), an accurate frequency estimate can be obtained through only one sample frame [9].The critical point is to find the abscissa where the phase difference is zero, because the intersection of the phase lines of a symmetric window and its Since w(t) is even and real, F( f ) is a real even function.Obviously, the phase is 0 or π, depending on the sign of F( f ).If a time shift on the window function w(t) is T/2, the Fourier transform of the time-shifted window function ŵ(t) = w(t + T/2) would be [11] Accordingly, the phase is It is indicated that a time shift on a window function would introduce a linear phase shift.

Phase Response of Sampled Symmetric Windows
As a symmetric window in the form of continuous time is an even function about the origin, the discrete window with an odd number of points N is also presented as symmetrical.The overall points include (N − 1)/2 points on each side, and a peak point in the middle of the window.For an even number of points, a discrete window is obtained after the right endpoint is discarded.This is DFT-even, referred to in [1].In that paper, Harris also mentioned that the window with the absolute even symmetry, rather than that with the implied symmetry with the missing endpoint, was designed by much of the literature and incorporated in many software libraries [1].However, whether all the DFT-even windows have a strictly linear phase is still unknown, and so far, the differences and relationships between the phase of DFT-even windows and that of absolute-even windows have not been analyzed.To answer these questions, a new and uniform perspective of the process from a continuous symmetric window to a discrete window will be presented in the latter part of this section.We used the triangle window as an example.The triangle window in the form of continuous time can be written as the period of which is T. The interval can be separated into N slices by N + 1 points.A discrete window with an odd or even number of points can be obtained by keeping or removing the last point.This is the routine operation.Now, we consider a sampling train q(t), which can be shifted by a coefficient ς.
It is described as where ∆T is sample interval; and ς is the shifting factor between zero and ∆T.By making ∆T equal to T/N and ε equal to ς/∆T, a discrete triangle window sampled from the continuous one with N points is obtained.Given the radix-2 operations were implemented in fast Fourier Transform (FFT), we only discuss the discrete window with an even number of points in detail.The discrete triangle window can be described as where 0 The value of each point in the discrete triangle window is dependent upon the parameter ε.In this paper, special cases with ε = 0 and ε = 0.5 were considered.When ε = 0, it is exactly the same as the DFT-even window.When ε = 0.5, the window is absolutely symmetric.Two cases of a triangle window with 32 samples are shown in Figure 1.
been analyzed.To answer these questions, a new and uniform perspective of the process from a continuous symmetric window to a discrete window will be presented in the latter part of this section.We used the triangle window as an example.The triangle window in the form of continuous time can be written as the period of which is T. The interval can be separated into N slices by N + 1 points.A discrete window with an odd or even number of points can be obtained by keeping or removing the last point.This is the routine operation.Now, we consider a sampling train ) (t q , which can be shifted by a coefficient .It is described as where


, a discrete triangle window sampled from the continuous one with N points is obtained.Given the radix-2 operations were implemented in fast Fourier Transform (FFT), we only discuss the discrete window with an even number of points in detail.The discrete triangle window can be described as where  In the two cases, the results of DFT were all real, because of the symmetry and real in the time domain.As a result, after the windows were shifted, both of them had a linear phase, with the difference being that the slope for the DFT-even window was   (see Appendix A) and the slope for the true-even window was

  
(see Appendix B).This is because the number of shifting points was N/2 for the DFT-even window and was (N − 1)/2 for the true-even window.Figures 2-4 show the normalized log-magnitude response (NLMR), the normalized phase response (NPR), and the derivative of normalized phase response (DNPR).The results coincided well with the theoretical analysis.In the two cases, the results of DFT were all real, because of the symmetry and real in the time domain.As a result, after the windows were shifted, both of them had a linear phase, with the difference being that the slope for the DFT-even window was −π (see Appendix A) and the slope for the true-even window was −(N − 1)π/N (see Appendix B).This is because the number of shifting points was N/2 for the DFT-even window and was (N − 1)/2 for the true-even window.Figures 2-4 show the normalized log-magnitude response (NLMR), the normalized phase response (NPR), and the derivative of normalized phase response (DNPR).The results coincided well with the theoretical analysis.When it comes to windows with non-zero endpoints, things get more complex.For example, the Hamming window can be written as When  = 0.5, the phase slope for the true-even window is still

  
. However, when  = 0, the DFT-even window has a nonlinear, but approximately linear phase, due to loss of symmetry in the time domain.For an enough large N, the slope of the phase gets close to   .For the two cases of Hamming window with 32 samples, the normalized log-magnitude response, the normalized phase response, and the derivative of normalized phase are shown in Figures 5-8    When it comes to windows with non-zero endpoints, things get more complex.For example, the Hamming window can be written as When  = 0.5, the phase slope for the true-even window is still

  
. However, when  = 0, the DFT-even window has a nonlinear, but approximately linear phase, due to loss of symmetry in the time domain.For an enough large N, the slope of the phase gets close to   .For the two cases of Hamming window with 32 samples, the normalized log-magnitude response, the normalized phase response, and the derivative of normalized phase are shown in Figures 5-8    When it comes to windows with non-zero endpoints, things get more complex.For example, the Hamming window can be written as When  = 0.5, the phase slope for the true-even window is still

  
. However, when  = 0, the DFT-even window has a nonlinear, but approximately linear phase, due to loss of symmetry in the time domain.For an enough large N, the slope of the phase gets close to   .For the two cases of Hamming window with 32 samples, the normalized log-magnitude response, the normalized phase response, and the derivative of normalized phase are shown in Figures 5-8   When it comes to windows with non-zero endpoints, things get more complex.For example, the Hamming window can be written as When ε = 0.5, the phase slope for the true-even window is still −(N − 1)π/N.However, when ε = 0, the DFT-even window has a nonlinear, but approximately linear phase, due to loss of symmetry in the time domain.For an enough large N, the slope of the phase gets close to −π.For the two cases of Hamming window with 32 samples, the normalized log-magnitude response, the normalized phase response, and the derivative of normalized phase are shown in Figures 5-8, respectively.It is clear that all absolute-even (ε = 0.5) windows have a strictly linear phase.The phase for some DFT-even (ε = 0) windows are strictly linear, and some are not, which is decided by the value of the endpoint.
Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20 respectively.It is clear that all absolute-even ( = 0.5) windows have a strictly linear phase.The phase for some DFT-even ( = 0) windows are strictly linear, and some are not, which is decided by the value of the endpoint.respectively.It is clear that all absolute-even ( = 0.5) windows have a strictly linear phase.The phase for some DFT-even ( = 0) windows are strictly linear, and some are not, which is decided by the value of the endpoint.respectively.It is clear that all absolute-even ( = 0.5) windows have a strictly linear phase.The phase for some DFT-even ( = 0) windows are strictly linear, and some are not, which is decided by the value of the endpoint.

Phase Response of Asymmetric Windows
For a symmetric window, the symmetric center is the peak point.The slope of phase is determined by the causality-imposed time shift.Since all symmetric windows have a constant time delay T/2, they have the same phase response [2].Before further discussion, we introduced an indicator,  , called the normalized time delay factor (NTDF), to evaluate the time delay of different lengths of windows.This is defined as the time delay  of a window scaled by the interval that the window covers.
The phase response in the main lobe, and especially the phase response near the main lobe center is of more significance, as it has a decisive influence on the phase distortion of the tapered signal [11][12][13].The problem is more notable for the FFT of a discrete time signal, due to the picket fence effect [13,14].The phase distortion is determined by the frequency deviation and the variation of phase response near the main lobe center of the adopted window [9].As a result, expanding ) ( f  around the center in the main lobe with Since the weighting function is real, 10) can be simplified as Equation (11) indicates that the phase near the center of the main lobe can be approximated by two parts: the linear part f ) 0 ( '  and the higher order part.According to a similar concept used in symmetric windows, we introduced the general time delay (GTD) in asymmetric windows.Assuming  denotes the general time delay, and considering the relationship between time delay and the linear part of phase, we have The GTD of an asymmetric window can be computed by

Phase Response of Asymmetric Windows
For a symmetric window, the symmetric center is the peak point.The slope of phase is determined by the causality-imposed time shift.Since all symmetric windows have a constant time delay T/2, they have the same phase response [2].Before further discussion, we introduced an indicator, τ, called the normalized time delay factor (NTDF), to evaluate the time delay of different lengths of windows.This is defined as the time delay τ of a window scaled by the interval that the window covers.
Obviously, we have 0 < τ < 1 and the NTDF of all symmetric windows is 1/2.For an asymmetric window, we would also like to find the NTDF.If we denote ϕ( f ) as the phase response of a time-shifting asymmetric window ŵ(t), according to the Taylor series expansion, one can have The phase response in the main lobe, and especially the phase response near the main lobe center is of more significance, as it has a decisive influence on the phase distortion of the tapered signal [11][12][13].The problem is more notable for the FFT of a discrete time signal, due to the picket fence effect [13,14].The phase distortion is determined by the frequency deviation and the variation of phase response near the main lobe center of the adopted window [9].As a result, expanding ϕ( f ) around the center in the main lobe with f 0 = 0, one can reach Since the weighting function is real, ϕ(0) = 0. Equation ( 10) can be simplified as Equation (11) indicates that the phase near the center of the main lobe can be approximated by two parts: the linear part ϕ (0) f and the higher order part.According to a similar concept used in symmetric windows, we introduced the general time delay (GTD) in asymmetric windows.Assuming τ denotes the general time delay, and considering the relationship between time delay and the linear part of phase, we have Symmetry 2018, 10, 329 7 of 20 The GTD of an asymmetric window can be computed by Considering the substitution ϕ (0) = −2πBary[ ŵ(t)] (See Appendix C), the GTD can be finally expressed as Equation (14) indicates that the general time delay is solely determined by the barycenter of the weighting factors and that window function can be adjusted in the time domain to change the time delay.Specifically, the time delay of all symmetric windows is T/2, as the barycenter is located at the symmetric center.Equation ( 14) not only gives a mathematical analysis of the time delay, but also implies that the phase characteristics around the center of the main lobe can be quantitatively adjusted.According to Appendix C, the derivative of the phase in the main lobe center can be computed by (15)

Phase Response of Sampled Asymmetric Windows
Similar to the asymmetric windows in the form of continuous time, the discrete time asymmetric windows have the same property.If µ denotes the general time delay, for the asymmetric windows ŵ(n), the derivative of the phase at the center of the main lobe (DPCM) ϕ (0) can be calculated by where µ = µ/N denotes the normalized GTD.According to the conclusion in Appendix D, the normalized GTD can be finally expressed as It should be pointed out that for an asymmetric window, the asymmetry due to the discrete sampling discussed in Section 2.2 is much less critical when compared with the asymmetry of itself, and Equation ( 16) is valid for all sampling cases.

Application in Frequency Estimation
It has been demonstrated that if asymmetric windows are introduced in frequency estimation, some inherent defects in the traditional parameter estimation algorithms can be overcome [9].For example, by replacing symmetric windows with proper asymmetric windows, frequency estimation can be achieved by only one segment of samples, rather than two segments in the traditional phase difference-based algorithms, thus yielding better performance in the estimation of closely spaced frequency components [9].Furthermore, the resistance of traditional algorithms against additive noise can be improved with the proper selection of asymmetric windows.However, it should also be stressed that the improvement is at the expense of a remarkable increase in computational burden as the simple relationship between the normalized frequency deviation and the phase difference disappears, due to the nonlinear phase of asymmetric windows.The calculation of estimate becomes a root-finding problem, and the secant method was suggested in [9] to avoid the computation of a derivative in Newton's method.The secant method is defined by the recurrence relation Symmetry 2018, 10, 329 where k m denotes the normalized frequency estimate in each iteration; ∆ζ(k m ) denotes the phase difference at frequency k m ; and η m is defined as It should be pointed out that we have the relationship that where ∆φ (0) = φ 1 (0) − φ 2 (0), φ 1 (•) and φ 2 (•) are the DPCM of the two adopted windows, respectively.Moreover, φ 1 ( f ) and φ 2 ( f ) vary slightly around the center in the main lobe and the frequency estimate returned by coarse search is also near the center of the modulated main lobe.Accordingly, we can rewrite the recurrence relation by replacing η m with ∆φ (0).
Equation ( 21) avoids the calculation of the finite difference η m .While, in Equation ( 18) η m is required to be computed in each iteration and more importantly, η m may become unstable once intensive random noise is involved.In contrast, ∆φ (0) is only dependent on the adopted windows and is, consequently, a constant value in each iteration.The frequency components and random noise have no influence on ∆φ (0), and thus ∆φ (0) can be computed in advance once the window is determined.As a result, Equation (21) becomes more robust and more efficient than Equation (18) in the presence of interference or random noise.In addition, the requirement of memory for the implementation of Equation ( 21) is also less than that of Equation (18).All those features make it well suited for application in practice engineering.Finally, the improved estimation algorithm can be summarized as follows: (1) Obtain the first discrete-time signal y(n) = x(n)w(n), where x(n) is the raw sequence with N samples and w(n) is a symmetric window.

Simulation and Results
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of Equation (21) as well as compare it with the traditional algorithm, some simulations were designed.For simplicity but without loss of generality, a single discrete complex exponential was considered, which can be generated according to Equation (22).
In Equation ( 22), the amplitude A 0 was set to 1.Both the sampling rate f s and the number of analyzed samples N was set to 256, resulting in a frequency resolution of ∆ f = f s /N = 1.First, we considered the cases free of noise.The frequency scanned from 63.5 to 64.5 in steps of 0.05.For each frequency, the phase scanned from −π to π in steps of π/72, and the maximum absolute estimation error between the estimate and the theoretical value was selected as the result.All frequency estimates Symmetry 2018, 10, 329 9 of 20 were scaled by frequency resolution and expressed in frequency bin.The adopted asymmetric windows were [t] 2 -windows defined in [2], which was constructed by the truncation method.The remaining errors for the Kaiser-Bessel window, Gaussian window, Hanning window, Hamming window, and Blackman window were reported in Figures 9-13 as a function of frequency deviation.As can be seen from these figures, the asymmetric windows-based phase difference method had good compatibility with different window functions.The maximum absolute estimation errors for the classic method with m = 0 were about 10 −3 ~10 −2 .By performing an iteration, the level decreased to 10 −5 ~10 −4 .Without iteration, the improved method had a similar performance to the classic method but attained a worst case at δ = 0.5.However, after an iteration, the errors sharply decreased and were all below 10 −5 .The remaining errors could be completely removed after two iterative operations even for the case where δ = 0.5.As a result, in the absence of noise, an iteration in the proposed algorithm was enough to achieve a high accurate result.
Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20 difference method had good compatibility with different window functions.The maximum absolute estimation errors for the classic method with m = 0 were about 10 −3 ~10 −2 .By performing an iteration, the level decreased to 10 −5 ~10 −4 .Without iteration, the improved method had a similar performance to the classic method but attained a worst case at 5 .0   .However, after an iteration, the errors sharply decreased and were all below 10 −5 .The remaining errors could be completely removed after two iterative operations even for the case where 5 .0   .As a result, in the absence of noise, an iteration in the proposed algorithm was enough to achieve a high accurate result.Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20 difference method had good compatibility with different window functions.The maximum absolute estimation errors for the classic method with m = 0 were about 10 −3 ~10 −2 .By performing an iteration, the level decreased to 10 −5 ~10 −4 .Without iteration, the improved method had a similar performance to the classic method but attained a worst case at 5 .0   .However, after an iteration, the errors sharply decreased and were all below 10 −5 .The remaining errors could be completely removed after two iterative operations even for the case where 5 .0   .As a result, in the absence of noise, an iteration in the proposed algorithm was enough to achieve a high accurate result.Now, we considered that Equation ( 22) was contaminated with an additive Gaussian random noise z(n).The parameter settings were the same as Figures 9-13, except that the phase was randomly selected.The variance of additive white Gaussian noise 2  was set to   Now, we considered that Equation ( 22) was contaminated with an additive Gaussian random noise z(n).The parameter settings were the same as Figures 9-13, except that the phase was randomly selected.The variance of additive white Gaussian noise σ 2 was set to A 2 0 /10, indicating signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) equal to 10 dB.SNR expressed in dB was defined as An amount of 100,000 instances of such test signals were generated for each frequency, and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) was evaluated.The simulation results for the five considered windows are shown in Figures 14-18.For m = 0, the classic secant method had good performance in the vicinity of δ = 0, however, it showed a much worse performance in the rest of the cases.After an iteration, the RMSEs of the classic secant method declined notably, but the fluctuation could be still observed.If m = 2, the values can be maintained at the same level for the whole range of frequency deviation.In contrast, the improved secant method had a more rapid convergence and the errors stayed steady for different frequency deviations after only one iteration.The proposed approach did not seem to capture a substantial improvement by performing another iteration after the first iteration.The benefit from more iterations was limited, but each iteration required a calculation of two DFT coefficients, which would increase the overall computational effort.Hence, it can be concluded that if a moderate noise is involved, performing one iteration after the coarse compensation in step ( 5) is enough for the improved secant method, as the errors due to different frequency deviation can be eliminated.
An amount of 100,000 instances of such test signals were generated for each frequency, and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) was evaluated.The simulation results for the five considered windows are shown in Figures 14-18.For m = 0, the classic secant method had good performance in the vicinity of 0   , however, it showed a much worse performance in the rest of the cases.After an iteration, the RMSEs of the classic secant method declined notably, but the fluctuation could be still observed.If m = 2, the values can be maintained at the same level for the whole range of frequency deviation.In contrast, the improved secant method had a more rapid convergence and the errors stayed steady for different frequency deviations after only one iteration.The proposed approach did not seem to capture a substantial improvement by performing another iteration after the first iteration.The benefit from more iterations was limited, but each iteration required a calculation of two DFT coefficients, which would increase the overall computational effort.Hence, it can be concluded that if a moderate noise is involved, performing one iteration after the coarse compensation in step ( 5) is enough for the improved secant method, as the errors due to different frequency deviation can be eliminated.
An amount of 100,000 instances of such test signals were generated for each frequency, and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) was evaluated.The simulation results for the five considered windows are shown in Figures 14-18.For m = 0, the classic secant method had good performance in the vicinity of 0   , however, it showed a much worse performance in the rest of the cases.After an iteration, the RMSEs of the classic secant method declined notably, but the fluctuation could be still observed.If m = 2, the values can be maintained at the same level for the whole range of frequency deviation.In contrast, the improved secant method had a more rapid convergence and the errors stayed steady for different frequency deviations after only one iteration.The proposed approach did not seem to capture a substantial improvement by performing another iteration after the first iteration.The benefit from more iterations was limited, but each iteration required a calculation of two DFT coefficients, which would increase the overall computational effort.Hence, it can be concluded that if a moderate noise is involved, performing one iteration after the coarse compensation in step ( 5) is enough for the improved secant method, as the errors due to different frequency deviation can be eliminated.We also investigated the RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method for a wide range of SNRs from 0 dB to 180 dB with a step of 10 dB.The normalized frequency, as well as the phase,   We also investigated the RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method for a wide range of SNRs from 0 dB to 180 dB with a step of 10 dB.The normalized frequency, as well as the phase,   We also investigated the RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method for a wide range of SNRs from 0 dB to 180 dB with a step of 10 dB.The normalized frequency, as well as the phase, We also investigated the RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method for a wide range of SNRs from 0 dB to 180 dB with a step of 10 dB.The normalized frequency, as well as the phase, were randomly chosen.The other simulation parameters were kept invariant.As can be seen in Figures 19-23, for some conditions, the RMSEs may become flat after certain SNR as the bias becomes the dominant source of error.In the case where enough iterations were performed, the remaining bias could be completely eliminated, and the RMSEs were linear for the entire range of SNR.The figures were very informative regarding the trade-off between the bias and variance for different iterations.Without iterations, the classic method was first saturated at SNR ≈ 10 dB, followed by the improved method.If an iteration was performed, the values for the improved method sharply decreased, and the RMSEs were much smaller and less than 10 −6 .However, a high level of RMSEs remained for the classic method.If two iterations were performed, the RMSEs of the improved version would be merely dependent on the random noise, while for the classic method, the bias may still be significant when a high SNR was encountered.In most practical situations, the influence of noise is usually more important than the bias.As a result, one iteration was sufficient for the proposed algorithm to produce satisfactory results even in the presence of noise.
Symmetry 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20 were randomly chosen.The other simulation parameters were kept invariant.As can be seen in Figures 19-23, for some conditions, the RMSEs may become flat after certain SNR as the bias becomes the dominant source of error.In the case where enough iterations were performed, the remaining bias could be completely eliminated, and the RMSEs were linear for the entire range of SNR.The figures were very informative regarding the trade-off between the bias and variance for different iterations.Without iterations, the classic method was first saturated at SNR ≈ 10 dB, followed by the improved method.If an iteration was performed, the values for the improved method sharply decreased, and the RMSEs were much smaller and less than 10 −6 .However, a high level of RMSEs remained for the classic method.If two iterations were performed, the RMSEs of the improved version would be merely dependent on the random noise, while for the classic method, the bias may still be significant when a high SNR was encountered.In most practical situations, the influence of noise is usually more important than the bias.As a result, one iteration was sufficient for the proposed algorithm to produce satisfactory results even in the presence of noise.were randomly chosen.The other simulation parameters were kept invariant.As can be seen in Figures 19-23, for some conditions, the RMSEs may become flat after certain SNR as the bias becomes the dominant source of error.In the case where enough iterations were performed, the remaining bias could be completely eliminated, and the RMSEs were linear for the entire range of SNR.The figures were very informative regarding the trade-off between the bias and variance for different iterations.Without iterations, the classic method was first saturated at SNR ≈ 10 dB, followed by the improved method.If an iteration was performed, the values for the improved method sharply decreased, and the RMSEs were much smaller and less than 10 −6 .However, a high level of RMSEs remained for the classic method.If two iterations were performed, the RMSEs of the improved version would be merely dependent on the random noise, while for the classic method, the bias may still be significant when a high SNR was encountered.In most practical situations, the influence of noise is usually more important than the bias.As a result, one iteration was sufficient for the proposed algorithm to produce satisfactory results even in the presence of noise.

Conclusions
In this paper, the phase characteristics of symmetric and asymmetric windows were studied.It was shown that the phase characteristics were closely related to the time delay of the windows.The quantitative relationship between the barycenter of the windows in the time domain and the phase

Conclusions
In this paper, the phase characteristics of symmetric and asymmetric windows were studied.It was shown that the phase characteristics were closely related to the time delay of the windows.The quantitative relationship between the barycenter of the windows in the time domain and the phase

Conclusions
In this paper, the phase characteristics of symmetric and asymmetric windows were studied.It was shown that the phase characteristics were closely related to the time delay of the windows.The quantitative relationship between the barycenter of the windows in the time domain and the phase

.
The value of each point in the discrete triangle window is dependent upon the parameter  .In this paper, special cases with exactly the same as the DFT-even window.When is absolutely symmetric.Two cases of a triangle window with 32 samples are shown in Figure1.

Figure 2 .
Figure 2. Normalized log-magnitude response of triangle window.

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Normalized phase response of triangle window.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Derivative of normalized phase of triangle window. ,

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Normalized phase response of triangle window.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Derivative of normalized phase of triangle window. ,

Figure 3 .
Figure 3. Normalized phase response of triangle window.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Derivative of normalized phase of triangle window. ,

Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Derivative of normalized phase of triangle window.
the NTDF of all symmetric windows is 1/2.For an asymmetric window, we would also like to find the NTDF.If we denote ) ( f  as the phase response of a time-shifting asymmetric window ( ), according to the Taylor series expansion, one can have

Figure 8 .
Figure 8. Derivative of normalized phase of Hamming window.

Figure 9 .
Figure 9. Frequency errors of the classic and the improved secant method (Kaiser-Bessel window, 5 .0  

Figure 10 .
Figure 10.Frequency errors of the classic and the improved secant method (Gaussian window, 1   ).

Figure 9 .
Figure 9. Frequency errors of the classic and the improved secant method (Kaiser-Bessel window, 5 .0  

Figure 10 .
Figure 10.Frequency errors of the classic and the improved secant method (Gaussian window, 1   ).

Figure 12 .
Figure 12.Frequency errors of the classic and the improved secant method (Hamming window).

Figure 12 .
Figure 12.Frequency errors of the classic and the improved secant method (Hamming window).

Figure 13 .
Figure 13.Frequency errors of the classic and the improved secant method (Blackman window).

A,Figure 12 . 20 Figure 11 .
Figure 12.Frequency errors of the classic and the improved secant method (Hamming window).

Figure 12 .
Figure 12.Frequency errors of the classic and the improved secant method (Hamming window).

Figure 13 .Figure 13 .
Figure 13.Frequency errors of the classic and the improved secant method (Blackman window).

Figure 19 .
Figure 19.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Kaiser-Bessel window, 5 .0  

Figure 20 .
Figure 20.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Gaussian window, 1   ).

Figure 19 .
Figure 19.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Kaiser-Bessel window, 5 .0  

Figure 20 .
Figure 20.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Gaussian window, 1   ).

Figure 22 .
Figure 22.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Hamming window).

Figure 23 .
Figure 23.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Blackman window).

Figure 22 .
Figure 22.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Hamming window).

Figure 23 .
Figure 23.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Blackman window).

Figure 22 . 20 Figure 21 .
Figure 22.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Hamming window).

Figure 22 .
Figure 22.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Hamming window).

Figure 23 .
Figure 23.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Blackman window).

Figure 23 .
Figure 23.RMSEs of the classic and the improved secant method versus SNR (Blackman window).