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: http://msp.ucsd.edu/techniques/latest/book-html/node144.html ----------- Message: 4 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:59:07 -0300 From: Alexandre Torres Porres <por...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PD] WG: Inverse bandpass filter To: Ingo <i...@miamiwave.com> Cc: pd-list <pd-list@iem.at> Message-ID: <caeasfmhd0hanlmv9vutcsqzjkzy69i7wmebqq+20s2riwya...@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 cheers 2014-04-18 17:21 GMT-03:00 Ingo <i...@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. > > Ingo > > _______________________________________ >> > Von: pd-list-boun...@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-boun...@iem.at] Im Auftrag > von >> > AP Vague >> > Gesendet: Freitag, 18. April 2014 18:49 >> > An: pd-list@iem.at >> > Betreff: [PD] Inverse bandpass filter >> > >> > Is there a simple way to make [bp~] or [vcf~] have an inverse function? > To >> > 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@iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list