btw, here's my lop test that works perfectly; cheers
2014-07-21 23:24 GMT-03:00 Alexandre Torres Porres <por...@gmail.com>: > Hi there, as I've been saying here, I've been studying about filters and > trying to emulate some of the filters as raw filters, or in biquad > coefficients. > > I thought I had nailed [bp~], but now it seems there's some minor > discrepancy between the original object and my patch implementation. Check > the test patch I made: > > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3AoiT0xk8fnWmhuYWtPdk9UYUU/edit > > I'm analysing a filtered noise with [env~] and the resulting numbers > should match exactly in order to prove I've done it right, but a small > difference in value insists on showing up. > > Would any of you be interested in checking it up? Maybe you can find some > mistake that could be corrected and then match the numbers perfectly, or > maybe you could tell me why there's such a small difference and it'll > always be there... I don't know. I have the full code in the patch for you > to check it out. > > All I know is that I've done the same thing with lop~ and numbers match > beautifully > > By the way, [vcf~] is next on my list > > Thanks! > cheers >
lop-test.pd
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
