IRIS Supported Software » JEvalResp

For the attached response file, verbose output from evalresp 5.0 and JEvalResp 1.80 disagree on

- computed or Calc sensitivity (calculated sensitivity at the Stage 0 normalization frequency)
- stage 1 S(am)Int (sample interval = 1/sample rate)(evalresp has the correct value here)
- stage 2 SInt
- stage 2 Sd (sensitivity of stage 2 only calculated at the stage 2 normalization frequency)

Command lines and output follow:

evalresp 5.0
------------
evalresp YY ZZZ 2022 001 0.001 5000 501 -u def -f CMG-6TD_TL100_TP800-200-100-25-5_FR800.resp -v

Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] << EVALRESP RESPONSE OUTPUT V5.0.0 >>
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [WARN] (norm_resp): computed and reported sensitivities
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [WARN] differ by more than 5 percent.

Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [WARN] Execution continuing.

Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] --------------------------------------------------
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] /Users/met/ws_NRL/syncs/productiondb_20220304/datalogger/Guralp/CMG-6TD_TL100_TP800-200-100-25-5_FR800.resp
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] --------------------------------------------------
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] XX YY 00 ZZZ
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] 1970,001,00:00:00 2599,365,23:59:59
Seed units: V - Volts(in)->counts - Digital Counts(out)
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] computed sens=7.59694E+05 (reported=6.63679E+05) @ 2.00000E+02 Hz
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] calc_del=6.39902E-02 corr_app=6.39902E-02 est_delay=6.39902E-02 final_sint=0.00125(sec/sample)
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] stage 1: FIR_SYM_1 H0=1.000000E+00 Ncoeff= 1 SamInt=3.906250E-06 Sd=1.020410E+06
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] stage 2: FIR_SYM_2 H0=1.343230E+00 Ncoeff=764 SamInt=3.906250E-06 Sd=7.444731E-01
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] stage 3: FIR_SYM_1 H0=1.000283E+00 Ncoeff=501 SamInt=2.500000E-04 Sd=1.000034E+00
Mon Mar 21 16:21:43 2022 [INFO] —————————————————————————

JEvalResp 1.80
--------------
java -jar JEvalResp.jar YY ZZZ 2022 001 0.001 5000 501 -u def -f CMG-6TD_TL100_TP800-200-100-25-5_FR800.resp -v

<< JEvalResp, Version 1.80 Response Output >>
--------------------------------------------------
/Users/met/ws_NRL/syncs/productiondb_20220304/datalogger/Guralp/CMG-6TD_TL100_TP800-200-100-25-5_FR800.resp
--------------------------------------------------
XX YY 00 ZZZ 1970,1,00:00:00 2599,365,23:59:59
SEED units: In="VOLT", Out="COUNT"
Calc_sens=6.636790E+05 (reported=6.636790E+05) @ 2.000000E+02 Hz
Calc_delay=6.427650E-02, Correction_applied=6.399020E-02
Est_delay=6.399020E-02, Final_sample_interval=1.250000E-03(sec/sample)
Stg 1: FIR H0=1.000000E+00 1 Coefficient SInt=4.656613E-06 Sd=1.020410E+06
Stg 2: FIR_SYM2 H0=1.537556E+00 764 Coefficients SInt=4.656613E-06 Sd=6.503820E-01
Stg 3: FIR_SYM1 H0=1.000283E+00 501 Coefficients SInt=2.500000E-04 Sd=1.000034E+00
Generated output files: "AMP.XX.YY.00.ZZZ", "PHASE.XX.YY.00.ZZZ”
---

In contrast, the second attached file (Kephren_PG1_FR1.resp) has the same results for both programs
using these command lines:

evalresp YY ZZZ 2022 001 0.001 5000 501 -u def -f Kephren_PG1_FR1.resp -v

java -jar /Applications/JEvalResp/JEvalResp.jar YY ZZZ 2022 001 0.001 5000 501 -u def -f Kephren_PG1_FR1.resp -v

Chad had a hunch that a difference in precision between the two programs may be behind it because in
the calculations that differ, values used are quite small.