[PD] [lop~] coefficient calculation

[i go bananas]

as far as i know, [expr] went from charcoal to grey, didn't it?


On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:06 PM, Joe White <white.joe4 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for the abstractions Chris. Am I correct in thinking the licensing
> issues for [expr] have been resolved now?
>
> Cheers,
> Joe
>
>
> On 21 May 2014 23:22, Chris Clepper <cgclepper at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Joe White <white.joe4 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it intentional to not a bank of go-to filters? [biquad~] is the next
>>> one I would go to, but generating your own coefficients isn't that... err..
>>> efficient when you're wanting some that just 'works' :)
>>>
>>>
>> Attached are a set of abstractions wrapping most of the 'Audio EQ
>> Cookbook' formulae around biquad~.  It would be nice for Pd to include
>> something like this.
>>
>> The only drawback to [biquad~] is it doesn't take audio rate
>> coefficients.  There are of course externals that do audio rate for cutoff,
>> Q, etc.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 May 2014 17:31, Miller Puckette <msp at ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Joe -
>>>>
>>>> That code is an approximation that works well for low cutoff
>>>> frequencies but badly for high ones.  (I should probably warn
>>>> about this in the help window... that'll go on my dolist)
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> M
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:58:31PM +0100, Joe White wrote:
>>>> > Hi,
>>>> >
>>>> > I've been looking at the [lop~] implementation (Pd-0.45-4) and noticed
>>>> > something that seem weird to me.
>>>> >
>>>> > In d_filter, line 176:
>>>> >
>>>> > static void siglop_ft1(t_siglop *x, t_floatarg f)
>>>> > {
>>>> >     if (f < 0) f = 0;
>>>> >     x->x_hz = f;
>>>> >     x->x_ctl->c_coef = f * (2 * 3.14159) / x->x_sr;
>>>> >     if (x->x_ctl->c_coef > 1)
>>>> >         x->x_ctl->c_coef = 1;
>>>> >     else if (x->x_ctl->c_coef < 0)
>>>> >         x->x_ctl->c_coef = 0;
>>>> > }
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Is it correct that for:
>>>> >
>>>> > y[n] = x[n] * a + y[n-1] * b
>>>> >
>>>> > *a = 2π * Fc / Fs*
>>>> > b = 1.0 - a
>>>> >
>>>> > where Fc is the cut-off frequency and Fs the sampling frequency.
>>>> >
>>>> > I appreciate the a coefficient is bounded afterwards but wouldn't
>>>> that mean
>>>> > that Fc values greater than Fs / 2π will have no impact on the sound
>>>> being
>>>> > processed.
>>>> >
>>>> > For example if Fs is 44100, then Fc values above ~7020Hz will not
>>>> affect
>>>> > the filter.
>>>> >
>>>> > Have I missed something crucial or could this a bug in the code?
>>>> >
>>>> > The simple IIR filter described in
>>>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pass_filter suggests that the actual
>>>> > coefficient calculation should be more like:
>>>> >
>>>> > a = 2π*Fc / (2π*Fc + Fs)
>>>> >
>>>> > Looking forward to understand this more!
>>>> >
>>>> > Cheers,
>>>> > Joe
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> > Follow me on Twitter @diplojocus
>>>>
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>>>> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Follow me on Twitter @diplojocus
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
>>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Follow me on Twitter @diplojocus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20140523/80da6809/attachment.html>