Thread: differences in instrument response

Hi Yannik,

Please, take into account the Correction time delay in the Response file,

milton@macton:Downloads $ cat RESP.NZ.CRLZ.10.HHZ | grep Correction
B057F08 Correction applied (seconds): 0.000000E+00
B057F08 Correction applied (seconds): 6.234400E-03
B057F08 Correction applied (seconds): 3.975000E-02
B057F08 Correction applied (seconds): 1.187500E-01
B057F08 Correction applied (seconds): 2.375000E-01

the total delay is: 4.0223438e-01 s

I wait this help you,

Milton

**********************************
Milton P. PLASENCIA LINARES

Dipartimento Centro di Ricerche Sismologiche
Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e di Geofisica Sperimentale - OGS

Borgo Grotta Gigante 42/C
(34010) Sgonico - TRIESTE - ITALIA
Tel: +39-040-2140136
Fax: +39-040-327307

E-mail: mplasencia<at>ogs.trieste.it

ASAIN (Antarctic Seismographic Argentinean Italian Network)
*********************************


Quoting "Yannik Behr" <yannik.behr<at>vuw.ac.nz>:

Hi,

I am removing the instrument response first using a pole-zero file (SAC
format) and then a RESP file (both extracted from the same DatalessSEED
volume). The resulting traces show a phase shift of around 0.5 s. Is
there anything wrong with the way I'm correcting for the instrument
response? I have attached the script that I used to test this.

Best,
Yannik


--
Yannik Behr
PhD Student in Seismology
School of Geography, Environment, and Earth Sciences
Victoria University of Wellington
P.O. Box 600
Wellington 6015
New Zealand

yannik.behr<at>vuw.ac.nz

ph. +64 (4) 463 5233 8369
fax.+64 (4) 463 5186

--
This email was Anti Virus checked by INOGS Antivirus filter.

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.