[PD] WG: Inverse bandpass filter
robert at urbanstew.org
Wed Apr 23 02:06:21 CEST 2014
Though with DC you don't have the issue of phase. I'm not an expert in
filter math, but I assume that by the time your filtered audio (assuming its
not DC) gets subtracted by the [-~] object it is out of phase with the
original signal. Moreover, I hear a distinct difference. Maybe I'm not
conceiving your statement properly and perhaps this discussion has been
about DC all along
From: Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 3:51 PM
To: GCC <robert at urbanstew.org>
Cc: <apvague at gmail.com>, Ingo <ingo at miamiwave.com>, pd-lista puredata
<pd-list at iem.at>
Subject: Re: [PD] WG: Inverse bandpass filter
can;t remember where I saw about this, but check this link
see the quote "An easy and practical way to remove the zero-frequency
component from an audio signal is to use a one-pole low-pass filter to
extract it, and then subtract the result from the signal. The resulting
transfer function is one minus the transfer function of the low-pass
doesn't it agree with what I said?
2014-04-22 14:37 GMT-03:00 Robert Esler <robert at urbanstew.org>:
> I could be wrong, but I don't think it's quite the same thing. I believe the
> signal would be out of phase negating many of the effects of the filter. I
> would recommend using [biquad~] and in pd-extended there is a [notch] object
> which takes care of the coefficients. This sounds much cleaner and more
> notch-like to my ear than subtracting the filtered output.
> There is an explanation in Miller's book if you like unit circle math:
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:59:07 -0300
> From: Alexandre Torres Porres <porres at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [PD] WG: Inverse bandpass filter
> To: Ingo <ingo at miamiwave.com>
> Cc: pd-list <pd-list at iem.at>
> <CAEAsFmhD0HanLmv9vutcSQZjkZY69i7wMeBqQ+20S2riWYaakw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> isn't it just subtract the audio from the filtered output?
> I guess you can get inverse freq response just by that
> 2014-04-18 17:21 GMT-03:00 Ingo <ingo at miamiwave.com>:
>> You could send the original signal in parallel and invert the phase by
>> multiplying with -1. You might have to delay the original signal in case
>> that the processed signal gets also delayed by one or more blocks.
>>> > Von: pd-list-bounces at iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces at iem.at] Im Auftrag
>>> > AP Vague
>>> > Gesendet: Freitag, 18. April 2014 18:49
>>> > An: pd-list at iem.at
>>> > Betreff: [PD] Inverse bandpass filter
>>> > Is there a simple way to make [bp~] or [vcf~] have an inverse function?
>>> > filter out, rather than pass a changing frequency value. Is the easiest
>>> > way to do this with a combination of [lop~] and [hip~]?
>> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list