3dB/0.5 pole filter?

[vortico]

Yeah, filters in series multiplies the slope. Consider a linear one-pole filter H(s) = 1/(a-s). Two in series becomes H(s)^2 = 1/(a-s)^2, which is two-pole. The problem is that you can't digitally solve a fraction of a filter directly. However, you can Taylor expand (around s^-1) the transfer function H(s)^alpha = 1/(a-s)^alpha to get a rational function again, but this will be a poor approximation except for high order rational functions, which are often numerically and mathematically unstable.

Is OP asking about linear or nonlinear filters?

[aciddose]

The OP just wanted to know whether integrators were a fundamental mathematical concept like the unit and integers.

The unit is "1". There is no integer between "0" and "1".

Likewise, an integrator is a unit. There is no "1/2 pole" and this should be a revelation moment: How would you get half a pole?

We can easily write "0.5" but this hasn't changed the situation at all. There is no half unit. We've just changed the magnitude to 10^-1 and the number we're representing is actually just "5".

[S0lo]

Yeah, filters in series multiplies the slope. Consider a linear one-pole filter H(s) = 1/(a-s). Two in series becomes H(s)^2 = 1/(a-s)^2, which is two-pole. The problem is that you can't digitally solve a fraction of a filter directly. However, you can Taylor expand (around s^-1) the transfer function H(s)^alpha = 1/(a-s)^alpha to get a rational function again, but this will be a poor approximation except for high order rational functions, which are often numerically and mathematically unstable.

Sure it is . I was trying to understand this phrase:

The important thing is: no, running two filters in series will not get you anywhere closer to "less slope" because in series the transfer functions are multiplied.

[vortico]

The OP just wanted to know whether integrators were a fundamental mathematical concept like the unit and integers.

Well, yes. This is the concept behind fractional calculus. Let D be the derivative operator. D^0 is identify, D^-1 is integration, and it turns out you can define D^alpha using a kind of overkill way, but the idea is not a bad one. It just turns out that the filter y(t) = D^alpha x(t) is noncausal and infinite in general (except for integer alpha), so truncation, windowing, and/or minimum phase forms are needed for it to be useful.

[aciddose]

Sure it is . I was trying to understand this phrase:

The important thing is: no, running two filters in series will not get you anywhere closer to "less slope" because in series the transfer functions are multiplied.

A single integrator is a slope of "1" where we have 1/2 amplitude per octave as its asymptote. That is the basic unit.

Running filters in series multiplies them together. So if you have a gain of 1/2 at some point and you run the same filter twice this is now 1/2^2 = 1/4.

There is no way to get "less than 1/2" by running filters in series (less slope) because you'll always get more or equal slope.

The "pinking" filter we're interested in is 1/1.41 (sqrt(2)), not 1/2.

[S0lo]

Sure it is . I was trying to understand this phrase:

The important thing is: no, running two filters in series will not get you anywhere closer to "less slope" because in series the transfer functions are multiplied.

A single integrator is a slope of "1" where we have 1/2 amplitude per octave as its asymptote. That is the basic unit.

Running filters in series multiplies them together. So if you have a gain of 1/2 at some point and you run the same filter twice this is now 1/2^2 = 1/4.

There is no way to get "less than 1/2" by running filters in series (less slope) because you'll always get more or equal slope.

The "pinking" filter we're interested in is 1/1.41 (sqrt(2)), not 1/2.

It seams that we have a misunderstanding of what was "less" and "more". I was referring to -12db/oct as being "less" than -6db/oct. Clearly you meant more (absolute value). So yeah I agree. But also clearly I wasn't trying to have a less slope in the plots. I've started with 12db and morphed to MORE db.

[vortico]

Here h (in blue) is some lowpass filter in the analog domain (derived from coefficients of a digital filter). I take h^0.5 (in orange), compute its Padé approximant (in green) to the third order, and you can see it's pretty close. 4th order is dead-on (not shown).

[S0lo]

Here h (in blue) is some lowpass filter in the analog domain (derived from coefficients of a digital filter). I take h^0.5 (in orange), compute its Padé approximant (in green) to the third order, and you can see it's pretty close. 4th order is dead-on (not shown).

It's a nice approach. Can you put a symbol instead of that 0.5 ? Would it evaluate?

What tool is this by the way?

[vortico]

Mathematica. Yes, there is always a closed form Pade approximant of rational functions raised to a symbol alpha. For example, the forward Euler digital filter to third order (writing z^-1 as z):

Probably not a useful example but the simplest I could think of.

[S0lo]

Mathematica. Yes, there is always a closed form Pade approximant of rational functions raised to a symbol alpha. For example, the forward Euler digital filter to third order (writing z^-1 as z):

Probably not a useful example but the simplest I could think of.

Thats good, I used to use mathcad before. But I can't use it for commercial stuff. The version I have is academic. Now they turned to subscription with an outrageous fee.

[vortico]

You could do this by hand, I'm just busy/lazy.

[S0lo]

You could do this by hand, I'm just busy/lazy.

I'm umbearably slow and miss and slip too easily.

[aciddose]

It seams that we have a misunderstanding of what was "less" and "more". I was referring to -12db/oct as being "less" than -6db/oct. Clearly you meant more (absolute value). So yeah I agree. But also clearly I wasn't trying to have a less slope in the plots. I've started with 12db and morphed to MORE db.

Yep I understood what you were saying. The difference though is that you can't approximate for example a 15 dB slope with series filters. You can start with 6 or 12, but once you add another you're already up to 18 even if in the transition it's closer to 15 for an instant.

After the frequency where it goes below 15 you can never get it up above that point again. So you're limited to two filters (n pole + 1 pole) and then you're stuck.

By adding them in parallel instead you can approximate any slope whether 15 or 109 with no limit in the frequency range or ripple. You can extend the range and decrease ripple by adding more poles to an infinite extent.

[S0lo]

It seams that we have a misunderstanding of what was "less" and "more". I was referring to -12db/oct as being "less" than -6db/oct. Clearly you meant more (absolute value). So yeah I agree. But also clearly I wasn't trying to have a less slope in the plots. I've started with 12db and morphed to MORE db.

Yep I understood what you were saying. The difference though is that you can't approximate for example a 15 dB slope with series filters. You can start with 6 or 12, but once you add another you're already up to 18 even if in the transition it's closer to 15 for an instant.

After the frequency where it goes below 15 you can never get it up above that point again. So you're limited to two filters (n pole + 1 pole) and then you're stuck.

By adding them in parallel instead you can approximate any slope whether 15 or 109 with no limit in the frequency range or ripple. You can extend the range and decrease ripple by adding more poles to an infinite extent.

Oh, no, no thats definitely not whats happening here. I can smoothly morph and stop at any slope in between. If you like I could send you the patch so you could test it your self.

Now you could argue that it's a curve and the area were it's a strait line is narrow and not so steep. Thats technically speaking yes, may be. But sound wise it is very different than the 12db and surly steeper and duller. You can see it clearly in the spectrum, about 2 octaves of high harmonics are eaten up. The whole curved slope is visually steeper. And the cut-off point stays intact.

Note this is just a quick rough and dirty patch that I made in less than 10 minutes. It can be done much more accurately with programming.

[mystran]

Mathematica. Yes, there is always a closed form Pade approximant of rational functions raised to a symbol alpha. For example, the forward Euler digital filter to third order (writing z^-1 as z):

Probably not a useful example but the simplest I could think of.

Thats good, I used to use mathcad before. But I can't use it for commercial stuff. The version I have is academic. Now they turned to subscription with an outrageous fee.

Maxima is free and capable of doing Pade approximations.