IOhannes m zmölnig zmoelnig at iem.at
Fri Apr 25 12:21:54 CEST 2008

```Enrique Erne wrote:
> IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
>> Enrique Erne wrote:
>>> or [biquad~ 0 0 0 1]
>>>
>>>
>>> Miller Puckette wrote:
>>>> I believe z~ is just rzero~ 0.
>>
>> no.
>> both of them are equivalent to [z~ 1]
>>
>> you could also argue that [f] is just the same as [0(
>> :-)
>
> oups, yes ofcorse z~ 1.
>
> the output of 1 sample with rzero~ 0, z~ 1 and biquad~ 0 0 0 1 seems to
> be slightly different. if one wants to be fuzzy about that :) maybe ome
> rounding problem?

no, i don't see any rounding errors...

>
> and now i even couldn't do the delwrite/read with the subpatch :( :(

it's generally a good idea to tell [delwrite~] how much space it should
allocate for the delayline. e.g. [delwrite~ abcd 1000] helped a lot...

and [rzero~ 0] is not the same as [z~ 1].

the output of [z~ 1] is y[n]=x[n-1]
according to [rzero~]s help-patch it does the following:

y[n]=x[n]-a[n]*x[n-1]
since you set a[n] to "0", you just get y[n]=x[n] :-(

to get [z~ 1], do something like

|
+--+
|  |
|  [rzero~ 1]
|  |
[-~]
|