In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
I'm pretty confident [hip~] would not loose its efficiency when using iemlib's recipe. Both hi pass filters have a feed forward and feedback component, with coefficients for normalization and feedback. Calculation of these coefficients is a bit more involved with iemlib's recipe, using trig functions. But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
To reassure, it is not my intention to spark another 'what's wrong with pd' thread. If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD code I'll try patch the C of [hip~] and submit on the tracker for review. Who knows, it may be a no-brainer.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
That's a good point. You're right that both involve a feedback and feedforward, so I'm wondering why [hp1~] needs more CPU... otherwise, iemlib's filters are very efficient.
Anyway, I researched a bit and found the reason why the frequency response of Pd filters seems 'wrong':
Miller uses a formular for calculating the cutoff frequency which is taken from analog filters but is not really adequate for digital filters since it doesn't reflect the cyclic nature of the digital domain (although you can see it in some articles on digital filters).
Let's take [hip~] as an example:
the formular for a 1-pole 1-zero highpass goes: y[n] = (x[n] - x[n-1]) * (1 + k) / 2 + k * y[n-1]
Miller calculates the position of the pole with k = 1 - (fc * 2*pi / SR).
The correct formular, however (if you want the frequency response to be zero at Nyquist!), would be k = (1-sin(a))/cos(a), where a = fc * 2*pi / SR.
You can find it here: http://www.arpchord.com/pdf/coeffs_first_order_filters_0p1.pdf
BTW, the reason why [hip~] seems to get stuck at 7018 Hz is because Miller clips the coefficient below 0, so it never reaches -1 (where the gain would be all zero).
Also, there is another approximation with a similiar behaviour, which goes like this: k = e^(-2*pi*fc/SR). I could find it here: http://www.dspguide.com/ch19/2.htm Here, the pole can only move from 1 to 0 and doesn't ever reach -1 as well.
Now, is the behaviour of [hip~] 'wrong'? If you define at 1-pole 1-zero high pass filter as something which passes everything at fc = DC and blocks everything at fc = Nyquist, then I'd say yes. If it should roughly model an analogue filter (where the cutoff frequency can go up to infinity) for low cutoff frequencies only, then I'd say no.
Also, as I tried to point out, this issue with the cutoff frequency is true for all Pd filters!
So I think this behaviour should either be changed (great, if Katja is willing to submit a patch!) or documented in the help patch (gain is not 0 at Nyquist!).
I'm not an engineer or any expert on filter design. It's just my two cents :-)
Christof
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 11:39 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
I'm pretty confident [hip~] would not loose its efficiency when using iemlib's recipe. Both hi pass filters have a feed forward and feedback component, with coefficients for normalization and feedback. Calculation of these coefficients is a bit more involved with iemlib's recipe, using trig functions. But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
To reassure, it is not my intention to spark another 'what's wrong with pd' thread. If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD code I'll try patch the C of [hip~] and submit on the tracker for review. Who knows, it may be a no-brainer.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD
IMHO, the correct formular for the cutoff frequency below (which I guess is also used in [hp1~] since the frequency response is the same) is 'common knowledge', so I don't think you'd have to pay attention to any licence.
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 13:52 Uhr Von: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at An: katja katjavetter@gmail.com, "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
That's a good point. You're right that both involve a feedback and feedforward, so I'm wondering why [hp1~] needs more CPU... otherwise, iemlib's filters are very efficient.
Anyway, I researched a bit and found the reason why the frequency response of Pd filters seems 'wrong':
Miller uses a formular for calculating the cutoff frequency which is taken from analog filters but is not really adequate for digital filters since it doesn't reflect the cyclic nature of the digital domain (although you can see it in some articles on digital filters).
Let's take [hip~] as an example:
the formular for a 1-pole 1-zero highpass goes: y[n] = (x[n] - x[n-1]) * (1 + k) / 2 + k * y[n-1]
Miller calculates the position of the pole with k = 1 - (fc * 2*pi / SR).
The correct formular, however (if you want the frequency response to be zero at Nyquist!), would be k = (1-sin(a))/cos(a), where a = fc * 2*pi / SR.
You can find it here: http://www.arpchord.com/pdf/coeffs_first_order_filters_0p1.pdf
BTW, the reason why [hip~] seems to get stuck at 7018 Hz is because Miller clips the coefficient below 0, so it never reaches -1 (where the gain would be all zero).
Also, there is another approximation with a similiar behaviour, which goes like this: k = e^(-2*pi*fc/SR). I could find it here: http://www.dspguide.com/ch19/2.htm Here, the pole can only move from 1 to 0 and doesn't ever reach -1 as well.
Now, is the behaviour of [hip~] 'wrong'? If you define at 1-pole 1-zero high pass filter as something which passes everything at fc = DC and blocks everything at fc = Nyquist, then I'd say yes. If it should roughly model an analogue filter (where the cutoff frequency can go up to infinity) for low cutoff frequencies only, then I'd say no.
Also, as I tried to point out, this issue with the cutoff frequency is true for all Pd filters!
So I think this behaviour should either be changed (great, if Katja is willing to submit a patch!) or documented in the help patch (gain is not 0 at Nyquist!).
I'm not an engineer or any expert on filter design. It's just my two cents :-)
Christof
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 11:39 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
I'm pretty confident [hip~] would not loose its efficiency when using iemlib's recipe. Both hi pass filters have a feed forward and feedback component, with coefficients for normalization and feedback. Calculation of these coefficients is a bit more involved with iemlib's recipe, using trig functions. But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
To reassure, it is not my intention to spark another 'what's wrong with pd' thread. If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD code I'll try patch the C of [hip~] and submit on the tracker for review. Who knows, it may be a no-brainer.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Jumping in on this thread:
If anyone who can tackle improvements on these filters can provide a patch for lop~, hip~, bp~ and vcf~, please copy me when submitting the patch, so that I can merge it with pd-l2ork. Thank you.
Best,
Ico
On 10/15/2016 7:59 AM, Christof Ressi wrote:
If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD
IMHO, the correct formular for the cutoff frequency below (which I guess is also used in [hp1~] since the frequency response is the same) is 'common knowledge', so I don't think you'd have to pay attention to any licence.
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 13:52 Uhr Von: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at An: katja katjavetter@gmail.com, "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
That's a good point. You're right that both involve a feedback and feedforward, so I'm wondering why [hp1~] needs more CPU... otherwise, iemlib's filters are very efficient.
Anyway, I researched a bit and found the reason why the frequency response of Pd filters seems 'wrong':
Miller uses a formular for calculating the cutoff frequency which is taken from analog filters but is not really adequate for digital filters since it doesn't reflect the cyclic nature of the digital domain (although you can see it in some articles on digital filters).
Let's take [hip~] as an example:
the formular for a 1-pole 1-zero highpass goes: y[n] = (x[n] - x[n-1]) * (1 + k) / 2 + k * y[n-1]
Miller calculates the position of the pole with k = 1 - (fc * 2*pi / SR).
The correct formular, however (if you want the frequency response to be zero at Nyquist!), would be k = (1-sin(a))/cos(a), where a = fc * 2*pi / SR.
You can find it here: http://www.arpchord.com/pdf/coeffs_first_order_filters_0p1.pdf
BTW, the reason why [hip~] seems to get stuck at 7018 Hz is because Miller clips the coefficient below 0, so it never reaches -1 (where the gain would be all zero).
Also, there is another approximation with a similiar behaviour, which goes like this: k = e^(-2*pi*fc/SR). I could find it here: http://www.dspguide.com/ch19/2.htm Here, the pole can only move from 1 to 0 and doesn't ever reach -1 as well.
Now, is the behaviour of [hip~] 'wrong'? If you define at 1-pole 1-zero high pass filter as something which passes everything at fc = DC and blocks everything at fc = Nyquist, then I'd say yes. If it should roughly model an analogue filter (where the cutoff frequency can go up to infinity) for low cutoff frequencies only, then I'd say no.
Also, as I tried to point out, this issue with the cutoff frequency is true for all Pd filters!
So I think this behaviour should either be changed (great, if Katja is willing to submit a patch!) or documented in the help patch (gain is not 0 at Nyquist!).
I'm not an engineer or any expert on filter design. It's just my two cents :-)
Christof
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 11:39 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
I'm pretty confident [hip~] would not loose its efficiency when using iemlib's recipe. Both hi pass filters have a feed forward and feedback component, with coefficients for normalization and feedback. Calculation of these coefficients is a bit more involved with iemlib's recipe, using trig functions. But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
To reassure, it is not my intention to spark another 'what's wrong with pd' thread. If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD code I'll try patch the C of [hip~] and submit on the tracker for review. Who knows, it may be a no-brainer.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Thanks for your pointers Christof. The recipe you mention from arpchord.com is different than iemlib's, but yields identical normalization and feedback coefficients, thus the same beautiful response. As you say, what's in the textbooks is common knowledge and can be used by everyone. Now I'll try to get the same result in C.
By the way, [iemlib/hp~] seems to recalculate coefficients for every dsp vector which explains the higher CPU load.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD
IMHO, the correct formular for the cutoff frequency below (which I guess is also used in [hp1~] since the frequency response is the same) is 'common knowledge', so I don't think you'd have to pay attention to any licence.
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 13:52 Uhr Von: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at An: katja katjavetter@gmail.com, "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
That's a good point. You're right that both involve a feedback and feedforward, so I'm wondering why [hp1~] needs more CPU... otherwise, iemlib's filters are very efficient.
Anyway, I researched a bit and found the reason why the frequency response of Pd filters seems 'wrong':
Miller uses a formular for calculating the cutoff frequency which is taken from analog filters but is not really adequate for digital filters since it doesn't reflect the cyclic nature of the digital domain (although you can see it in some articles on digital filters).
Let's take [hip~] as an example:
the formular for a 1-pole 1-zero highpass goes: y[n] = (x[n] - x[n-1]) * (1 + k) / 2 + k * y[n-1]
Miller calculates the position of the pole with k = 1 - (fc * 2*pi / SR).
The correct formular, however (if you want the frequency response to be zero at Nyquist!), would be k = (1-sin(a))/cos(a), where a = fc * 2*pi / SR.
You can find it here: http://www.arpchord.com/pdf/coeffs_first_order_filters_0p1.pdf
BTW, the reason why [hip~] seems to get stuck at 7018 Hz is because Miller clips the coefficient below 0, so it never reaches -1 (where the gain would be all zero).
Also, there is another approximation with a similiar behaviour, which goes like this: k = e^(-2*pi*fc/SR). I could find it here: http://www.dspguide.com/ch19/2.htm Here, the pole can only move from 1 to 0 and doesn't ever reach -1 as well.
Now, is the behaviour of [hip~] 'wrong'? If you define at 1-pole 1-zero high pass filter as something which passes everything at fc = DC and blocks everything at fc = Nyquist, then I'd say yes. If it should roughly model an analogue filter (where the cutoff frequency can go up to infinity) for low cutoff frequencies only, then I'd say no.
Also, as I tried to point out, this issue with the cutoff frequency is true for all Pd filters!
So I think this behaviour should either be changed (great, if Katja is willing to submit a patch!) or documented in the help patch (gain is not 0 at Nyquist!).
I'm not an engineer or any expert on filter design. It's just my two cents :-)
Christof
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 11:39 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
I'm pretty confident [hip~] would not loose its efficiency when using iemlib's recipe. Both hi pass filters have a feed forward and feedback component, with coefficients for normalization and feedback. Calculation of these coefficients is a bit more involved with iemlib's recipe, using trig functions. But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
To reassure, it is not my intention to spark another 'what's wrong with pd' thread. If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD code I'll try patch the C of [hip~] and submit on the tracker for review. Who knows, it may be a no-brainer.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
And my learning for the day is done.
Thanks both
On 15 October 2016 at 15:59, katja katjavetter@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your pointers Christof. The recipe you mention from arpchord.com is different than iemlib's, but yields identical normalization and feedback coefficients, thus the same beautiful response. As you say, what's in the textbooks is common knowledge and can be used by everyone. Now I'll try to get the same result in C.
By the way, [iemlib/hp~] seems to recalculate coefficients for every dsp vector which explains the higher CPU load.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD
IMHO, the correct formular for the cutoff frequency below (which I guess
is also used in [hp1~] since the frequency response is the same) is 'common knowledge', so I don't think you'd have to pay attention to any licence.
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 13:52 Uhr Von: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at An: katja katjavetter@gmail.com, "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
That's a good point. You're right that both involve a feedback and
feedforward, so I'm wondering why [hp1~] needs more CPU... otherwise, iemlib's filters are very efficient.
Anyway, I researched a bit and found the reason why the frequency
response of Pd filters seems 'wrong':
Miller uses a formular for calculating the cutoff frequency which is
taken from analog filters but is not really adequate for digital filters since it doesn't reflect the cyclic nature of the digital domain (although you can see it in some articles on digital filters).
Let's take [hip~] as an example:
the formular for a 1-pole 1-zero highpass goes: y[n] = (x[n] - x[n-1]) * (1 + k) / 2 + k * y[n-1]
Miller calculates the position of the pole with k = 1 - (fc * 2*pi / SR).
The correct formular, however (if you want the frequency response to be
zero at Nyquist!), would be
k = (1-sin(a))/cos(a), where a = fc * 2*pi / SR.
You can find it here: http://www.arpchord.com/pdf/
coeffs_first_order_filters_0p1.pdf
BTW, the reason why [hip~] seems to get stuck at 7018 Hz is because
Miller clips the coefficient below 0, so it never reaches -1 (where the gain would be all zero).
Also, there is another approximation with a similiar behaviour, which
goes like this:
k = e^(-2*pi*fc/SR). I could find it here:
http://www.dspguide.com/ch19/2.htm
Here, the pole can only move from 1 to 0 and doesn't ever reach -1 as
well.
Now, is the behaviour of [hip~] 'wrong'? If you define at 1-pole 1-zero high pass filter as something which
passes everything at fc = DC and blocks everything at fc = Nyquist, then I'd say yes.
If it should roughly model an analogue filter (where the cutoff
frequency can go up to infinity) for low cutoff frequencies only, then I'd say no.
Also, as I tried to point out, this issue with the cutoff frequency is
true for all Pd filters!
So I think this behaviour should either be changed (great, if Katja is
willing to submit a patch!) or documented in the help patch (gain is not 0 at Nyquist!).
I'm not an engineer or any expert on filter design. It's just my two
cents :-)
Christof
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 11:39 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
I'm pretty confident [hip~] would not loose its efficiency when using iemlib's recipe. Both hi pass filters have a feed forward and feedback component, with coefficients for normalization and feedback. Calculation of these coefficients is a bit more involved with iemlib's recipe, using trig functions. But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
To reassure, it is not my intention to spark another 'what's wrong with pd' thread. If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD code I'll try patch the C of [hip~] and submit on the tracker for review. Who knows, it may be a no-brainer.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Christof Ressi <
christof.ressi@gmx.at> wrote:
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd
(expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong)
formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q
values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and
[vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not
designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage.
[hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's
well suited for DC removal (but not much else).
[bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] -
but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response.
[vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need
3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC
removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file).
But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably
be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is
not
constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB
with
cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~]
has
-3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't
know
if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external
literature
for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the
recipe
with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/
listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/
listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
The filter recipe that Christof pointed to was easy to plug into the C code of [hip~] and works perfectly. But when looking further in d_filter.c I came across an approximation function 'sigbp_qcos()' used in the bandpass filter. It made me realize once more how passionate Miller is about efficiency. I'm not going to make a fool of myself by submitting a 'fix' using two trig functions to calculate a filter coefficient when a simple approximation could do the job. So that is what I'm now looking into, with help of a math friend: an efficient polynomial approximation for (1-sin(x))/cos(x).
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:59 PM, katja katjavetter@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your pointers Christof. The recipe you mention from arpchord.com is different than iemlib's, but yields identical normalization and feedback coefficients, thus the same beautiful response. As you say, what's in the textbooks is common knowledge and can be used by everyone. Now I'll try to get the same result in C.
By the way, [iemlib/hp~] seems to recalculate coefficients for every dsp vector which explains the higher CPU load.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD
IMHO, the correct formular for the cutoff frequency below (which I guess is also used in [hp1~] since the frequency response is the same) is 'common knowledge', so I don't think you'd have to pay attention to any licence.
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 13:52 Uhr Von: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at An: katja katjavetter@gmail.com, "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
That's a good point. You're right that both involve a feedback and feedforward, so I'm wondering why [hp1~] needs more CPU... otherwise, iemlib's filters are very efficient.
Anyway, I researched a bit and found the reason why the frequency response of Pd filters seems 'wrong':
Miller uses a formular for calculating the cutoff frequency which is taken from analog filters but is not really adequate for digital filters since it doesn't reflect the cyclic nature of the digital domain (although you can see it in some articles on digital filters).
Let's take [hip~] as an example:
the formular for a 1-pole 1-zero highpass goes: y[n] = (x[n] - x[n-1]) * (1 + k) / 2 + k * y[n-1]
Miller calculates the position of the pole with k = 1 - (fc * 2*pi / SR).
The correct formular, however (if you want the frequency response to be zero at Nyquist!), would be k = (1-sin(a))/cos(a), where a = fc * 2*pi / SR.
You can find it here: http://www.arpchord.com/pdf/coeffs_first_order_filters_0p1.pdf
BTW, the reason why [hip~] seems to get stuck at 7018 Hz is because Miller clips the coefficient below 0, so it never reaches -1 (where the gain would be all zero).
Also, there is another approximation with a similiar behaviour, which goes like this: k = e^(-2*pi*fc/SR). I could find it here: http://www.dspguide.com/ch19/2.htm Here, the pole can only move from 1 to 0 and doesn't ever reach -1 as well.
Now, is the behaviour of [hip~] 'wrong'? If you define at 1-pole 1-zero high pass filter as something which passes everything at fc = DC and blocks everything at fc = Nyquist, then I'd say yes. If it should roughly model an analogue filter (where the cutoff frequency can go up to infinity) for low cutoff frequencies only, then I'd say no.
Also, as I tried to point out, this issue with the cutoff frequency is true for all Pd filters!
So I think this behaviour should either be changed (great, if Katja is willing to submit a patch!) or documented in the help patch (gain is not 0 at Nyquist!).
I'm not an engineer or any expert on filter design. It's just my two cents :-)
Christof
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 11:39 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
I'm pretty confident [hip~] would not loose its efficiency when using iemlib's recipe. Both hi pass filters have a feed forward and feedback component, with coefficients for normalization and feedback. Calculation of these coefficients is a bit more involved with iemlib's recipe, using trig functions. But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
To reassure, it is not my intention to spark another 'what's wrong with pd' thread. If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD code I'll try patch the C of [hip~] and submit on the tracker for review. Who knows, it may be a no-brainer.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Le 18/10/2016 à 00:47, katja a écrit :
The filter recipe that Christof pointed to was easy to plug into the C code of [hip~] and works perfectly. But when looking further in d_filter.c I came across an approximation function 'sigbp_qcos()' used in the bandpass filter. It made me realize once more how passionate Miller is about efficiency. I'm not going to make a fool of myself by submitting a 'fix' using two trig functions to calculate a filter coefficient when a simple approximation could do the job. So that is what I'm now looking into, with help of a math friend: an efficient polynomial approximation for (1-sin(x))/cos(x).
according to libre office linear regression, for x between 0 and Pi, (1-sin(x))/cos(x) is about : -0.057255x³ + 0.27018x² - 0.9157x + 0.99344
the calc is in attachment, if you want to tune the input source or precision. cheers c
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 4:59 PM, katja katjavetter@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for your pointers Christof. The recipe you mention from arpchord.com is different than iemlib's, but yields identical normalization and feedback coefficients, thus the same beautiful response. As you say, what's in the textbooks is common knowledge and can be used by everyone. Now I'll try to get the same result in C.
By the way, [iemlib/hp~] seems to recalculate coefficients for every dsp vector which explains the higher CPU load.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:59 PM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD
IMHO, the correct formular for the cutoff frequency below (which I guess is also used in [hp1~] since the frequency response is the same) is 'common knowledge', so I don't think you'd have to pay attention to any licence.
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 13:52 Uhr Von: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at An: katja katjavetter@gmail.com, "Miller Puckette" msp@ucsd.edu Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
That's a good point. You're right that both involve a feedback and feedforward, so I'm wondering why [hp1~] needs more CPU... otherwise, iemlib's filters are very efficient.
Anyway, I researched a bit and found the reason why the frequency response of Pd filters seems 'wrong':
Miller uses a formular for calculating the cutoff frequency which is taken from analog filters but is not really adequate for digital filters since it doesn't reflect the cyclic nature of the digital domain (although you can see it in some articles on digital filters).
Let's take [hip~] as an example:
the formular for a 1-pole 1-zero highpass goes: y[n] = (x[n] - x[n-1]) * (1 + k) / 2 + k * y[n-1]
Miller calculates the position of the pole with k = 1 - (fc * 2*pi / SR).
The correct formular, however (if you want the frequency response to be zero at Nyquist!), would be k = (1-sin(a))/cos(a), where a = fc * 2*pi / SR.
You can find it here: http://www.arpchord.com/pdf/coeffs_first_order_filters_0p1.pdf
BTW, the reason why [hip~] seems to get stuck at 7018 Hz is because Miller clips the coefficient below 0, so it never reaches -1 (where the gain would be all zero).
Also, there is another approximation with a similiar behaviour, which goes like this: k = e^(-2*pi*fc/SR). I could find it here: http://www.dspguide.com/ch19/2.htm Here, the pole can only move from 1 to 0 and doesn't ever reach -1 as well.
Now, is the behaviour of [hip~] 'wrong'? If you define at 1-pole 1-zero high pass filter as something which passes everything at fc = DC and blocks everything at fc = Nyquist, then I'd say yes. If it should roughly model an analogue filter (where the cutoff frequency can go up to infinity) for low cutoff frequencies only, then I'd say no.
Also, as I tried to point out, this issue with the cutoff frequency is true for all Pd filters!
So I think this behaviour should either be changed (great, if Katja is willing to submit a patch!) or documented in the help patch (gain is not 0 at Nyquist!).
I'm not an engineer or any expert on filter design. It's just my two cents :-)
Christof
Gesendet: Samstag, 15. Oktober 2016 um 11:39 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
I'm pretty confident [hip~] would not loose its efficiency when using iemlib's recipe. Both hi pass filters have a feed forward and feedback component, with coefficients for normalization and feedback. Calculation of these coefficients is a bit more involved with iemlib's recipe, using trig functions. But coefficients aren't recalculated so often, therefore this difference will be negligible.
To reassure, it is not my intention to spark another 'what's wrong with pd' thread. If iemlib's license allows to use the recipe in BSD code I'll try patch the C of [hip~] and submit on the tracker for review. Who knows, it may be a no-brainer.
Katja
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at wrote:
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr > Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com > An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at > Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe? > > In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not > constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with > cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has > -3 dB at cutoff consistently. > > Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know > if the license also covers the math. Documentation in > https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external literature > for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe > with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached. > > Katja > _______________________________________________ > Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
well, it's got 2 (different) outputs, so it's like 2 filters in there, hence twice the CPU consumption maybe? I dont know vcf~ from iemlib...
2016-10-14 21:34 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at:
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/
listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be
replaced
by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for
compatibility reasons).
how about bob~?
2016-10-14 21:34 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at:
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/
listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
well, it's got 2 (different) outputs, so it's like 2 filters in there
[vcf~] is one filter, it just outputs both the real and imaginary part (which have to be computed anyway), so the idea is you get two filters for the price of one. I have no idea what causes the relatively high CPU load. maybe the tabfudge stuff?
how about bob~?
[bob~] is cool, but it's a bit expensive. Moreover, it's not a bandpass ;-)
Gesendet: Sonntag, 16. Oktober 2016 um 13:39 Uhr Von: "Alexandre Torres Porres" porres@gmail.com An: "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: katja katjavetter@gmail.com, pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
how about bob~? 2016-10-14 21:34 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi <christof.ressi@gmx.at[mailto:christof.ressi@gmx.at]>:There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja <katjavetter@gmail.com[mailto:katjavetter@gmail.com]> An: pd-list <pd-list@iem.at[mailto:pd-list@iem.at]> Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master%5Bhttps://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree...] points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja> _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at[mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list%5Bhttps://lists.puredata.info/l...]
Pd-list@lists.iem.at[mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list%5Bhttps://lists.puredata.info/l...]
Hey people, While I'm not an expert with digital filters, I did manage to piece together a decent-sounding ladder emulation instead of vcf~ a while ago. It only does resonant lowpass though. It's called mvcf~ and is found in the ekext externals library. I've since been reading about analogue filter design and I reckon there may be high pass and band pass filters available from the source code, with the correct adjustment to the algorithm. I'm trying to work out how to adjust the coefficients to accurately model the alternative functions (i.e. highpass, and hence bandpass through arithmetic processes) according to the resistance factors outlined in this paper. Any help would be appreciated :) So, currently, at line 78 in the code I have translations for highpass and bandpass (the current implementation is lowpass only with a gain factor) but I may be stupid in not trying this myself (or I've just been super-busy with other stuff - I'm marking this week). The idea of implementing the other two modes comes from an Electronotes paper from Bernie Hutchins in the 1970s. http://electronotes.netfirms.com/EN85VCF.PDF
Take a look.Cheers,Ed PS have yet to try bob~ but it sounds interesting...will check it out.
On Sunday, 16 October 2016, 13:10, Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com wrote:
But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced> by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
how about bob~? 2016-10-14 21:34 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi christof.ressi@gmx.at:
There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja katjavetter@gmail.com An: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/ tree/master points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja ______________________________ _________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Thanks for the paper! I couldn't find [mvcf~] in the ekext deken package but there is a [lpreson~], are these somehow related? Anyway, I will compile [mvcf~] from source and listen to it :-).
Gesendet: Montag, 17. Oktober 2016 um 12:49 Uhr Von: "Ed Kelly" morph_2016@yahoo.co.uk An: "Alexandre Torres Porres" porres@gmail.com, "Christof Ressi" christof.ressi@gmx.at Cc: pd-list pd-list@iem.at Betreff: Re: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
Hey people, While I'm not an expert with digital filters, I did manage to piece together a decent-sounding ladder emulation instead of vcf~ a while ago. It only does resonant lowpass though. It's called mvcf~ and is found in the ekext externals library. I've since been reading about analogue filter design and I reckon there may be high pass and band pass filters available from the source code, with the correct adjustment to the algorithm.
I'm trying to work out how to adjust the coefficients to accurately model the alternative functions (i.e. highpass, and hence bandpass through arithmetic processes) according to the resistance factors outlined in this paper. Any help would be appreciated :) So, currently, at line 78 in the code I have translations for highpass and bandpass (the current implementation is lowpass only with a gain factor) but I may be stupid in not trying this myself (or I've just been super-busy with other stuff - I'm marking this week). The idea of implementing the other two modes comes from an Electronotes paper from Bernie Hutchins in the 1970s. http://electronotes.netfirms.com/EN85VCF.PDF Take a look. Cheers, Ed PS have yet to try bob~ but it sounds interesting...will check it out.
On Sunday, 16 October 2016, 13:10, Alexandre Torres Porres porres@gmail.com wrote:
But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
how about bob~?
2016-10-14 21:34 GMT-03:00 Christof Ressi <christof.ressi@gmx.at[mailto:christof.ressi@gmx.at]>:There are a number of big problems with all build-in filters in Pd (expect for the raw filters).
Problem number 1: [lop~] and [hip~] both use a weird (you could also say: wrong) formula for the cutoff frequency which makes them gradually converge to a fixed output state (reached by about 7000 Hz). The same is true for [vcf~] and [bp~] with Q <= 1. Therefore the actual cutoff frequency is only correct for very low frequencies and approximately gets more and more off until it doesn't move at all.
Problem number 2: [bp~] and [vcf~] don't have zeros at DC and Nyquist. For low Q values, the slope is different for each side and changes with frequency.
Problem number 3: the gain at the center frequency is not 1 for both [bp~] and [vcf~]. It rather depends on frequency and Q. [bp~] even has has a gain of 2 for Q <= 1!
I did some FFT plots, see the attachment.
I remember Miller saying somewhere that these filters are not designed for high cutoff frequencies - but even for low frequencies, the behaviour of [bp~] and [vcf~] is horrible. I can see these filters are mere approximations to reduce CPU usage. [hip~] is indeed much more efficient than iemlib's [hp1~], so it's well suited for DC removal (but not much else). [bp~] only is a little bit more CPU friendly than iemlib's [bp2~] - but the latter one has a correct and stable frequency response. [vcf~], however, is a real CPU sucker!!! 100 [vcf~] objects need 3,40% on my laptop whereas 100 of iemlib's [vcf_bp2~] only need 1,80%! But you have to consider that [vcf_bp2~] not only acts correctly but lets you set the Q at audio rate. The high CPU usage of [vcf~] seems like a bug to me...
I only use the vanilla filters for the most basic stuff like DC removal and smoothing. I guess these are the use cases which Miller had in mind and that way [lop~] and [hip~] have their justification (although there should be some more warning about the 'wrong' frequency response in the help file). But [bp~] and [vcf~] are almost unusable IMHO and should probably be replaced by better filters in the future (while keeping the old ones for compatibility reasons).
Christof
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. Oktober 2016 um 23:51 Uhr Von: katja <katjavetter@gmail.com[mailto:katjavetter@gmail.com]> An: pd-list <pd-list@iem.at[mailto:pd-list@iem.at]> Betreff: [PD] could vanilla borrow iemlib's hi pass filter recipe?
In pd 0.47.1 [hip~] is still not perfect. Attenuation at cutoff is not constant over the frequency range: -6 dB with cutoff=SR/8, -3 dB with cutoff=SR/4, 0 DB with cutoff=SR/2. In contrast, iemlib's [hp1~] has -3 dB at cutoff consistently.
Could vanilla pd implement iemlib's hipass filter recipe? I don't know if the license also covers the math. Documentation in https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/ tree/master[https://git.iem.at/pd/iemlib/tree/master] points to external literature for part of the math (bilinear transform). I've implemented the recipe with vanilla objects for comparison, see attached.
Katja> ______________________________ _________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at[mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list]
Pd-list@lists.iem.at[mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list[https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list] _______________________________________________ Pd-list@lists.iem.at[mailto:Pd-list@lists.iem.at] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list%5Bhttps://lists.puredata.info/l...]
as imperfect as Vanilla's lop~ / hip~ / vcf~ objects may be...i would strongly argue against replacing them in the same namespace, as many old patches rely on the sound they deliver.
Le 17/10/2016 à 14:17, i go bananas a écrit :
as imperfect as Vanilla's lop~ / hip~ / vcf~ objects may be...i would strongly argue against replacing them in the same namespace, as many old patches rely on the sound they deliver.
they have been recently updated (0.44). Many patchs rely on the old sound they deliver, this is achieved via the compatibility flag. (see help file).
cheers c
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On 10/17/2016 8:47 AM, cyrille henry wrote:
they have been recently updated (0.44). Many patchs rely on the old sound they deliver, this is achieved via the compatibility flag. (see help file).
Updated as in fixed the bugs pointed out here or if not, what was updated in them?
Best,
Ico
It was updated for 0.44, so it's not a correction of the bug Katja pointed (in the 0.47)
The updated is describe in hip~ help file as follow :
COMPATIBILITY NOTE: in Pd versions before 0.44, the high-frequency output gain was incorrectly greater than one (usually only slightly so, but noticeably if the cutoff frequency was more than 1/4 the Nyquist frequency). This problem was fixed INCORECTLY in pd 0.44-0 thoguh 0.44-2, and is now hopefully fixed since Pd 0.44-3. To get the old (0.43 and earlier) behavior, set "compatibility" to 0.43 in Pd's command line or by a message:
I think more information can be found in this mailing list archive.
I just wanted to point that this filter can be update while keeping compatibility with old patch (since it already have been done few years ago).
cheers c
Le 17/10/2016 à 18:06, Ivica Ico Bukvic a écrit :
On 10/17/2016 8:47 AM, cyrille henry wrote:
they have been recently updated (0.44). Many patchs rely on the old sound they deliver, this is achieved via the compatibility flag. (see help file).
Updated as in fixed the bugs pointed out here or if not, what was updated in them?
Best,
Ico
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Cool, thank you.
On 10/17/2016 12:36 PM, cyrille henry wrote:
It was updated for 0.44, so it's not a correction of the bug Katja pointed (in the 0.47)
The updated is describe in hip~ help file as follow :
COMPATIBILITY NOTE: in Pd versions before 0.44, the high-frequency output gain was incorrectly greater than one (usually only slightly so, but noticeably if the cutoff frequency was more than 1/4 the Nyquist frequency). This problem was fixed INCORECTLY in pd 0.44-0 thoguh 0.44-2, and is now hopefully fixed since Pd 0.44-3. To get the old (0.43 and earlier) behavior, set "compatibility" to 0.43 in Pd's command line or by a message:
I think more information can be found in this mailing list archive.
I just wanted to point that this filter can be update while keeping compatibility with old patch (since it already have been done few years ago).
cheers c
Le 17/10/2016 à 18:06, Ivica Ico Bukvic a écrit :
On 10/17/2016 8:47 AM, cyrille henry wrote:
they have been recently updated (0.44). Many patchs rely on the old sound they deliver, this is achieved via the compatibility flag. (see help file).
Updated as in fixed the bugs pointed out here or if not, what was updated in them?
Best,
Ico
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-
Alexandre Torres Porres -
Christof Ressi -
cyrille henry -
Ed Kelly -
i go bananas -
Ivica Ico Bukvic -
Julian Brooks -
katja