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] | | [-~] | fmgads.r IOhannes _______________________________________________ PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list