Hi Joe, versions of these calculations without [expr] are also part of the rj-library as u_lowpass, u_lowpassq etc. These have been taken straight from the Audio-EQ-Cookbook.
Ciao -- Frank On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:06:45PM +0100, Joe White 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 <cgclep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Joe White <white.j...@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 <m...@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@lists.iem.at mailing list > >>> > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >>> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Follow me on Twitter @diplojocus > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > >> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > >> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >> > >> > > > > > -- > Follow me on Twitter @diplojocus > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list