Data-path accuracy in IIR filters?
in [DSP]
|
Prev: an audio question about impedance matching
Next: advice on course of action - a techie's retribution
From: Rune Allnor on 1 Aug 2010 15:42 On 1 Aug, 21:33, spop...(a)speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote: > Rune Allnor <all...(a)tele.ntnu.no> wrote: > > >On 1 Aug, 20:42, spop...(a)speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote: > >> Rune wrote, > >>>This is well-known from statistichal DSP. I can't come up > >>>with specifc citations, as my library is is storage and > >>>will remain there for a few weeks to come, > >> Ha! > >Send me your credit card info, and I will order a copy of > >P&M - on your expense - to be delivered overnight. Everything > >is in there. One only needs to read it. > > I just found it a bit amusing that you wanted me to furnish > a proof of my statements, but for your statements it's okay > for you to point to a textbook. The difference is that you have been wrong, while I have discussed plain, standard textbook material all the time. Asking you to provide a proof of your statement is another way of stating a semantic meaning often enough expressed on usenet as "RTFM!" > >> The OP was designing a sixth-order Butterworth, not a linear > >> phase FIR, but no matter. > >That was what the OP talekd about, yes. Somebody else started > >wining about lattice structures only being explained on a per > >application basis. There are very good reasons for that - one > >needs to know *exactly* what they are used for and why. > > It was Tim who asked about where this topology was documented > since it didn't seems to be in the textbooks he had at hand. I pointed out that lattices are dangerous stuff that needs to be handled with care. > It was then that I committed the Evil of pointing to a Mathworks > document. I did not give them an unqualified endorsement; I said > "something like the Mathworks Filter Design Toolbox has a passable > explanation of this topology." I then later posted an exact > link. I now feel like I'm in a "no good deed goes unpunished" > situation. :-) Your posting of the links does not need punishment; your failing to comprehend the material does, Rune
From: Steve Pope on 1 Aug 2010 15:44 Rune Allnor <allnor(a)tele.ntnu.no> wrote: >Your posting of the links does not need punishment; your failing >to comprehend the material does, Please cite something I've said in this thread that was not accurate. Hint: you won't be able to. Steve
From: Steve Pope on 2 Aug 2010 17:49 Rune Allnor <allnor(a)tele.ntnu.no> wrote: [lattice filters] >but I will >tell you what to look for. I know this is treated in the >Proakis & Manolakis general DSP text: It is. I'm back in my office today so I have Proakis & Manolakis right in front of me. In the summary at the end of Chapter 9 these authors state: "Finally we mention that lattice and lattice-ladder filter structures are known to be robust in fixed-point implementations." The is what I was attempting to commuicate to the OP for his filter problem, before the discussion got sidetracked. Steve
From: Steve Pope on 2 Aug 2010 19:55
Rune Allnor <allnor(a)tele.ntnu.no> wrote: [lattice filters] >but I will >tell you what to look for. I know this is treated in the >Proakis & Manolakis general DSP text: It is. I'm back in my office today so I have Proakis & Manolakis right in front of me. In the summary at the end of Chapter 9 these authors state: "Finally we mention that lattice and lattice-ladder filter structures are known to be robust in fixed-point implementations." This is what I was attempting to commuicate to the OP for his filter problem, before the discussion got sidetracked. Steve |