Hi folks, I'm working with an dsp audio application and I desperately need an algorithm for tone control. The filter is described in my spec as a Baxendall filter with the axial point of 1kHz and the characteristics is a maximum of +-6dB per octave. So far I have implemented low and high pass second order Butterworh IIR filters with coefficients calculated with Matlab and they work fine. For the filter below 1kHz +6dB/octave I ran into problems. I don't know how to calculate the filter coefficients and which function to use. I have tried yulewalk calculated parameters and it did not work at all. Any suggestions? The developent platform is a SHARC DSP EZ-Kit Lite equipped with a ADSP 21061 (floating point) and the sampling rate is 44,100 kHz. Regards T Landgren
Audio application problem
Started by ●January 17, 2004
Reply by ●January 17, 20042004-01-17
PROVENTEK MINDCRAFT AB wrote:> Hi folks, > > I'm working with an dsp audio application and I desperately > need an algorithm for tone control. > > The filter is described in my spec as a Baxendall filter > with the axial point of 1kHz and the characteristics is > a maximum of +-6dB per octave. > > So far I have implemented low and high pass second order > Butterworh IIR filters with coefficients calculated with > Matlab and they work fine. > For the filter below 1kHz +6dB/octave I ran into problems. > I don't know how to calculate the filter coefficients and > which function to use. I have tried yulewalk calculated > parameters and it did not work at all. Any suggestions? > > The developent platform is a SHARC DSP EZ-Kit Lite > equipped with a ADSP 21061 (floating point) and the > sampling rate is 44,100 kHz. > > Regards T Landgrenhttp://www.harmony-central.com/Computer/Programming/Audio-EQ-Cookbook.txt Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●January 19, 20042004-01-19
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:40096010$0$6092$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...> PROVENTEK MINDCRAFT AB wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > I'm working with an dsp audio application and I desperately > > need an algorithm for tone control. > > > > The filter is described in my spec as a Baxendall filter > > with the axial point of 1kHz and the characteristics is > > a maximum of +-6dB per octave. > > > > So far I have implemented low and high pass second order > > Butterworh IIR filters with coefficients calculated with > > Matlab and they work fine. > > For the filter below 1kHz +6dB/octave I ran into problems. > > I don't know how to calculate the filter coefficients and > > which function to use. I have tried yulewalk calculated > > parameters and it did not work at all. Any suggestions? > > > > The developent platform is a SHARC DSP EZ-Kit Lite > > equipped with a ADSP 21061 (floating point) and the > > sampling rate is 44,100 kHz. > > > > Regards T Landgren > > http://www.harmony-central.com/Computer/Programming/Audio-EQ-Cookbook.txt > > JerryThe cookbook mentioned in Jerry's link includes a 2nd order shelving filter that can be used for a tone control. It does not, however, include a first order shelving filter which is what _I think_ the traditional analog tone control uses. However, if you are familiar with the bi-linear Z transform, you can probably derive a first order variant from the analog prototype transfer function. Alternatively, by playing with the shelf slope parameter, you should be able to make a 2nd order filter that has a maximum slope of 6dB/octave.
Reply by ●January 19, 20042004-01-19
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:48:20 -0800, "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote:>"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message >news:40096010$0$6092$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> PROVENTEK MINDCRAFT AB wrote:[snippage]>> http://www.harmony-central.com/Computer/Programming/Audio-EQ-Cookbook.txt >> >> Jerry > > >The cookbook mentioned in Jerry's link includes a 2nd order shelving filter >that can be used for a tone control. It does not, however, include a first >order shelving filter which is what _I think_ the traditional analog tone >control uses.The regular bass and treble controls on your stereo are 2nd order. Regards, Allan.
Reply by ●January 20, 20042004-01-20
"Allan Herriman" <allan.herriman.hates.spam@ctam.com.au.invalid> wrote in message news:ftuo00lm1a2huldts7knk9bh7mp4rv9edg@4ax.com...> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:48:20 -0800, "Jon Harris" > <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message > >news:40096010$0$6092$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >> PROVENTEK MINDCRAFT AB wrote: > [snippage] > >>http://www.harmony-central.com/Computer/Programming/Audio-EQ-Cookbook.txt> >> > >> Jerry > > > > > >The cookbook mentioned in Jerry's link includes a 2nd order shelvingfilter> >that can be used for a tone control. It does not, however, include afirst> >order shelving filter which is what _I think_ the traditional analog tone > >control uses. > > The regular bass and treble controls on your stereo are 2nd order.That's interesting to know. The only thing I've actually measured is a Mackie 1604VLZ-Pro mixer. It's high and low EQ were 6dB/octave, so I assumed 1st order. From that I generalized to think that most treble/bass controls were first order, but that may well be a faulty assumption. Can anyone else confirm Allan's assertion?
Reply by ●January 20, 20042004-01-20
Jon Harris wrote:> "Allan Herriman" <allan.herriman.hates.spam@ctam.com.au.invalid> wrote ... >>The regular bass and treble controls on your stereo are 2nd order. > > > That's interesting to know. The only thing I've actually measured is a > Mackie 1604VLZ-Pro mixer. It's high and low EQ were 6dB/octave, so I > assumed 1st order. From that I generalized to think that most treble/bass > controls were first order, but that may well be a faulty assumption. > > Can anyone else confirm Allan's assertion?http://msswartz.tripod.com/baxandall1.htm shows a typical analog tone control "stack". (I use separate bass and treble controls in a feedback configuration, but the equations are substantially the same.) To a first approximation, it's second order. In detail, it's worse. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●January 20, 20042004-01-20
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:400db2c7$0$15588$61fed72c@news.rcn.com...> Jon Harris wrote: > > > "Allan Herriman" <allan.herriman.hates.spam@ctam.com.au.invalid> wrote...> >>The regular bass and treble controls on your stereo are 2nd order. > > > > > > That's interesting to know. The only thing I've actually measured is a > > Mackie 1604VLZ-Pro mixer. It's high and low EQ were 6dB/octave, so I > > assumed 1st order. From that I generalized to think that mosttreble/bass> > controls were first order, but that may well be a faulty assumption. > > > > Can anyone else confirm Allan's assertion? > > http://msswartz.tripod.com/baxandall1.htm shows a typical analog tone > control "stack". (I use separate bass and treble controls in a feedback > configuration, but the equations are substantially the same.) To a first > approximation, it's second order. In detail, it's worse.On the other hand, http://www.rane.com/pdf/acceler.pdf makes this claim: "Almost universally, these [Baxendall] shelving tone controls use one-pole filter circuits. The steepest response slope that can ever by achieved by a one-pole filter is, of course, 6 dB/octave (or 20 dB/decade, equivalent terms). This would be for an ideal filter circuit. In practice, the overall shelving tone-control transfer function results in a response slope that rarely exceeds about 3 dB/octave. (Due to the close proximity of the pole and zero of the transfer function, there is near cancellation; a 2.7-dB/octave slope is typical for �12 dB designs.)" Has anyone actually measured the frequency response curve of their HiFi's treble/bass circuits?
Reply by ●January 20, 20042004-01-20
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 17:59:17 -0500, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:>Jon Harris wrote: > >> "Allan Herriman" <allan.herriman.hates.spam@ctam.com.au.invalid> wrote ... >>>The regular bass and treble controls on your stereo are 2nd order. >> >> >> That's interesting to know. The only thing I've actually measured is a >> Mackie 1604VLZ-Pro mixer. It's high and low EQ were 6dB/octave, so I >> assumed 1st order. From that I generalized to think that most treble/bass >> controls were first order, but that may well be a faulty assumption. >> >> Can anyone else confirm Allan's assertion? > >http://msswartz.tripod.com/baxandall1.htm shows a typical analog tone >control "stack". (I use separate bass and treble controls in a feedback >configuration, but the equations are substantially the same.) To a first >approximation, it's second order. In detail, it's worse.There's a discussion about the transfer function in this old sci.electronics.design thread: http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=7edjrg%24n1j%241%40wrqnews.wrq.com Brief summary: The transfer function of the classic Baxandall is bicubic (3 poles, 3 zeros), but this is due to the way the circuit is designed. A simplified version that doesn't have all the interactions between the controls would only have two poles and two zeros. Certainly, only two poles and two zeros are needed to get the desired tone control effect. Regards, Allan.
Reply by ●January 21, 20042004-01-21
"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bukd3a$j2d2g$1@ID-210375.news.uni-berlin.de>...> "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message > news:400db2c7$0$15588$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > Jon Harris wrote: > > > > > "Allan Herriman" <allan.herriman.hates.spam@ctam.com.au.invalid> wrote > ... > > >>The regular bass and treble controls on your stereo are 2nd order. > > > > > > > > > That's interesting to know. The only thing I've actually measured is a > > > Mackie 1604VLZ-Pro mixer. It's high and low EQ were 6dB/octave, so I > > > assumed 1st order. From that I generalized to think that most > treble/bass > > > controls were first order, but that may well be a faulty assumption. > > > > > > Can anyone else confirm Allan's assertion? > > > > http://msswartz.tripod.com/baxandall1.htm shows a typical analog tone > > control "stack". (I use separate bass and treble controls in a feedback > > configuration, but the equations are substantially the same.) To a first > > approximation, it's second order. In detail, it's worse. > > On the other hand, http://www.rane.com/pdf/acceler.pdf makes this claim: > > "Almost universally, these [Baxendall] shelving tone controls use one-pole > filter circuits. The steepest response slope that can ever by achieved by a > one-pole filter is, of course, 6 dB/octave (or 20 dB/decade, equivalent > terms). This would be for an ideal filter circuit. In practice, the overall > shelving tone-control transfer function results in a response slope that > rarely exceeds about 3 dB/octave. (Due to the close proximity of the pole > and zero of the transfer function, there is near cancellation; a > 2.7-dB/octave slope is typical for �12 dB designs.)" > > Has anyone actually measured the frequency response curve of their HiFi's > treble/bass circuits?I guess it's a matter of definition. The steepest possible slope is indeed six dB./octave, but the analog circuit actually has four breakpoints, and we usually pretend that two of them cancel. <sidebar> Look closely at the curve when one control is set to full boost and the other is flat. You will see a dip before the boost begins. That is not an optical illusion, but evidence that the cancelling breaks don't cancel. I'll show you how to make the cancellation exact if you want to. </sidebar> A tone control boosts or cuts for a while, then flattens out. It takes two breakpoints to do that: one pole, one zero. I called that second order. Was I wrong? Jerry
Reply by ●January 21, 20042004-01-21
"Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:5cc6b040.0401202141.f4ef95e@posting.google.com...> "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:<bukd3a$j2d2g$1@ID-210375.news.uni-berlin.de>...> > "Jerry Avins" <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message > > news:400db2c7$0$15588$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > > Jon Harris wrote: > > > > > > > "Allan Herriman" <allan.herriman.hates.spam@ctam.com.au.invalid>wrote> > ... > > > >>The regular bass and treble controls on your stereo are 2nd order. > > > > > > > > > > > > That's interesting to know. The only thing I've actually measuredis a> > > > Mackie 1604VLZ-Pro mixer. It's high and low EQ were 6dB/octave, soI> > > > assumed 1st order. From that I generalized to think that most > > treble/bass > > > > controls were first order, but that may well be a faulty assumption. > > > > > > > > Can anyone else confirm Allan's assertion? > > > > > > http://msswartz.tripod.com/baxandall1.htm shows a typical analog tone > > > control "stack". (I use separate bass and treble controls in afeedback> > > configuration, but the equations are substantially the same.) To afirst> > > approximation, it's second order. In detail, it's worse. > > > > On the other hand, http://www.rane.com/pdf/acceler.pdf makes this claim: > > > > "Almost universally, these [Baxendall] shelving tone controls useone-pole> > filter circuits. The steepest response slope that can ever by achievedby a> > one-pole filter is, of course, 6 dB/octave (or 20 dB/decade, equivalent > > terms). This would be for an ideal filter circuit. In practice, theoverall> > shelving tone-control transfer function results in a response slope that > > rarely exceeds about 3 dB/octave. (Due to the close proximity of thepole> > and zero of the transfer function, there is near cancellation; a > > 2.7-dB/octave slope is typical for �12 dB designs.)" > > > > Has anyone actually measured the frequency response curve of theirHiFi's> > treble/bass circuits? > > I guess it's a matter of definition. The steepest possible slope is > indeed six dB./octave, but the analog circuit actually has four > breakpoints, and we usually pretend that two of them cancel.The digital 2nd order (biquad) version is capable of 12 dB/octave slopes without overshoot/undershoot (i.e. a slight dip before it starts to rise) or even more than that if you don't mind overshoot.> <sidebar> Look closely at the curve when one control is set to full > boost and the other is flat. You will see a dip before the boost > begins. That is not an optical illusion, but evidence that the > cancelling breaks don't cancel. I'll show you how to make the > cancellation exact if you want to. </sidebar>Interestingly, I recently read about a digital EQ that also offers this feature, claiming it sounds better that way! Maybe it just sounds more like people are used to?> A tone control boosts or cuts for a while, then flattens out. It takes > two breakpoints to do that: one pole, one zero. I called that second > order. Was I wrong?I don't know what is standard in the analog world, but with digital filtering, something with one pole and one zero would be first order. A biquad (quadratic in both numerator and denominator) is second order and has 2 poles and 2 zeros.
