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: 4Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 01:59:07 -0300From: Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com>Subject: Re: [PD] WG: Inverse bandpass filterTo: Ingo <ingo@miamiwave.com>Cc: pd-list <pd-list@iem.at>Message-ID: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 thatcheers2014-04-18 17:21 GMT-03:00 Ingo <ingo@miamiwave.com>:You could send the original signal in parallel and invert the phase bymultiplying with -1. You might have to delay the original signal in casethat the processed signal gets also delayed by one or more blocks.Ingo_______________________________________> Von: pd-list-bounces@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-bounces@iem.at] Im Auftragvon> 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 listUNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->