On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, PSPunch wrote:
Perhaps I should have made clear that I was not sure how [print~] and
[samphold~] would even be considered to go under filters.
No, no, you were clear enough, I just meant that those aren't the only
things that don't fit where they've been put, and that the problem is much
bigger than that. (e.g. afaik, in Signal Theory, [rpole~] is not a
"filter", though it still is peripherally related to filters; otoh there
might be other Signal Theorists using different definitions or namings).
Is [samphold~] also often used in building filters?
I don't know... but it isn't "filtering" because what you can get out of
it can have a richer spectrum than the original (left-inlet input), and it
isn't "linear" either, or "quad", or whatever... it doesn't fit the filter
theory much... and I don't see how using it anywhere inside an abstraction
can not prevent the abstraction to be a linear filter or quad filter...!
According to my num.analysis book, [samphold~] would be called a
"piecewise-constant interpolator", with the warning that "constant
interpolator" is somewhat a contradiction of terms; and that you get to
choose the pieces (using right-inlet). Whereas [adc~], for example, is
also a piecewise-constant interpolator (in hardware or emulated), but all
the pieces are identical in "width" (duration), that is, 1 sample.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
