Hi Markus
For some unknown reason I find ucsf works a lot better with analysis than 3rrr format, so if you've got a choice that's what I would work with.
Best wishes
Marie
NMR Centre
Biological Sciences
University of Liverpool
Crown Street
Liverpool
L697ZB
0151 795 4398
________________________________________
From: CcpNmr software mailing list [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Wayne Boucher [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 8:00 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ucsf or 3rrr
Hello,
They are both blocked data formats which means they both ought to be
equally ok for Analysis. (And I've never converted one to the other but I
imagine whatever the conversion process is used is unlikely to change the
actual block size.)
Regards, Wayne
On Mon, 28 May 2012, Markus Heller wrote:
> Hello all,
> Sparky user here, but I have decided to give CcpNmr Analysis a try for my next assignment
> project, since I'm pretty impressed with its capabilities.
>
> What file format for the NMR data would you recommend and why? My top two options are Bruker's
> 3rrr and sparky's ucsf. I've pretty much never used nmrpipe, which eliminates a bunch of
> options.
>
> So, if you had to decided between 3rrr and ucsf, what would you pick and why?
>
> Thanks and Cheers
> Markus
>
>
|