Optimizing Filter Module

DSP related issues, mathematics, processing and techniques
Post Reply
User avatar
Wishx
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:28 pm
Location: Spain

Optimizing Filter Module

Post by Wishx »

Hi community!

I have found this quite light and easy to use filter ( attached) yet from analyzing the LPF and HPF I see a slight resonance in the response (with Q = 0 ): Image not sure which part of the code is responsible for it ... Can someone help in making it flat ? :?

Also is there a way, since this is a 8/db per octave filter , to have a numberbox where we can insert how many db/octave we want ? :geek:

(I think that'd be pretty cool and make it so much more flexible :evil: )
Attachments
FIlters.fsm
(18.69 KiB) Downloaded 1492 times
tester
Posts: 1786
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Poland, internet

Re: Optimizing Filter Module

Post by tester »

For flat response search for butterworth filters (here and SM forum).
Need to take a break? I have something right for you.
Feel free to donate. Thank you for your contribution.
User avatar
Wishx
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 10:28 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Optimizing Filter Module

Post by Wishx »

I was peeking for some similar filters and how to change the db/octave thing , yet I couldnt find a specific LPF and HPF along with a db/octave option wich Is the main module I need :| , I hope this is something you or someone can help me with ! thanks :)
User avatar
MegaHurtz
Posts: 105
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: Eindhoven/Nederland

Re: Optimizing Filter Module

Post by MegaHurtz »

This looks very much like a Butterworth, Im on the older synthmaker so cant check.
But, the response has a little bump because its a 2nd order filter, so you have to delete the suspected "highpass" section and youre good to go. Seeing this.. I would actually prefer this one over whatever you make of it but thats a matter of taste I guess. Also you can see if the resonance parameter has a setting other than 0, and set it to negative or zero.
192k @ 8ms
Post Reply