Daneshrad was an excellent professor. He focused on applications of digital signal processing instead of complex numerically challenging computations. Daneshrad liked to follow a signal from the input all of the way to the output often including sampling, filtering, and signal reconstruction in the same problem. We took two 50 minute quizzes during the year that usually contained some questions similar to the homework and one problem that is more practical and similar to examples in class.

This class was an absolute waste of time. Though I got an A+, I did not feel like I learned anything in his class. You are better off reading and understanding the book than going to his lectures. Seriously, his lecture notes come straight from the book, and are often incomprehensible and riddled with errors. His lectures just consist of him writing his notes down on the board, and then asking questions that no one wants to answer.
Daneshrad was the most obnoxious professor I've ever had. For one, on the first day of class, he said, and I kid you not, that "this is also a comedy class" (though most of the time he definitely not funny). He claims that his class is more practical rather than theoretical, as if that is something great to brag about. In my opinion, that is bulls**t; his lecture and homework covered filters and other signal processing applications with minimal detail. My theory is that he was being unclear, since his exams are filled with questions that cover applications. You can only imagine how unprepared the students are.
Speaking of exams, he has two so-called "quizzes". Although they are timed at 50 minutes each, the tediousness of the last application-based questions make it very difficult to finish on time. They are in fact midterms in their own right, and students have complained to him that 50 minutes is not enough. Luckily, he agreed to give more time, but that only discredits him as an instructor in terms of organization and preparedness. His final was relatively difficult because of a number of questions with tedious algebra as well as difficult application questions.
He also taught in what I thought was a very illogical manner. He first taught the continuous Fourier Transform, the discrete time Fourier Transform (DTFT), then the discrete Fourier Transform (DFT), then the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) algorithm, then discrete signals and systems (which in my opinion should have been taught first), then the z- transform, then the transfer function and frequency response, with decreasing emphasis and detail for the last few topics.
Another thing with Daneshrad is: do not ask a question unless you are 100% positive that there is no way it can go wrong. I only say this because Daneshrad has a habit of answering questions in a defensive manner, even if your question is definitely not aimed to offend him. For instance, one student asked him why he taught the course in the order I mentioned above. And he literally responded to the entire class with, "Because I'm here and you're there." You can only imagine how uncomfortable and awkward the class felt after witnessing a display of obnoxiousness and narcissism. Another student once asked him to give exam problems more related to the homework and what he covers in lecture. While I do agree with the fact that the exams should test students' problem-solving skills, I did not agree with Daneshrad losing his temper and giving an angry spiel. Believe me, although the guy doesn't look it, he will get angry and lash out at the class if he is tired or not in a good mood.
Anyways, you should find a professor that is better able to integrate both theoretical and practical aspects of signal processing, which is a neat and interesting subject. Daneshrad is the head of a company in wireless communications; he should be better suited to working with employees rather than students. He is definitely not suited to teaching If possible, DO NOT TAKE ANY CLASS WITH HIM, you won't regret it.

He loves to hid the most important material, and surprise you with these in the exams. He avoids teaching the material that will be given in the exams. The lecture is almost useless and hard to follow. The exam is partially related to homework.
The greatest impression for me and my friends is : this class is hard, and there is no where to learn.

Daneshrad plays the game “I know but I won’t tell you.” Consequently, his lectures are totally useless. It seems that he instructs his TAs adopt the same philosophy (if it’s a philosophy at all, but let me be educated, you can use the most properly word to qualify this attitude).
He repeats what is in the reader making an impressive rate of mistakes when he is not reading his notes. He does not provide any personal approach for understanding the topic is talking about. Conversely, he will confused you madly when his lack of understanding of this class (I mean EE13). There is a moment in which every good and excellent professor provides to student his insight about the course he is teaching that makes his lecture memorable and worthy to remember forever, and to attend. DO NOT EXPECT THAT FROM THIS ASSISTANT-PROFESSOR. If you enjoy his great English pronunciation, it’s fine, but he is an Electrical Engineering assistant professor, not a political sciences one. I don’t know what his problem is, but certainly, UCLA engineering school is going all the way down the hill with people like him.
Midterm: Easy but tricky
Final: 50% was the project.
Overall quality: very low as teacher (From A to F, I would give him a D-) assistants were even worst