Processing again -- March 19, 2014 - 15:53

Hi Edward and relax-users,

I was again thinking about the ideal processing strategy of my R1/R2 
relaxation and HetNOE planes. Routinely in the past, I used the Topspin 
Sine-Bell functions and linear prediction for resolution enhancement in the 
indirect dimension. Now, I use NMRpipe with Lorentz-to-Gauss windows, but 
with my collected data, I hardly get the needed resolution without having 
severe truncation artifacts from my strong peaks wich contaminate 
neighbouring peaks' intensities. 

The latter issue is why I don't use two sets of processing parameters (one 
for intense and one for weak peaks), but fiddle around with overlapping 
peaks. 

I know that you advise to avoid linar prediction, but after reading 
http://spin.niddk.nih.gov/NMRPipe/ref/nmrpipe/lp.html I have the impression 
that LP could help ease the problem of truncation artifacts. I also did some 
literature searching, but I didn't find anything about LP making peak height 
measurements unreliable. 

I remember we discussed that during your visit, and I showed you the graphs 
where I compared rates calculated from spectra without LP vs. rates from 
spectra where the same number of points was added by LP. Maybe you remember, 
there was no visible bias, but rates with large errors also became larger. 

So what again is the reason to not use LP for relaxation series?

Cheers,
Martin

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature