Next |
Prev |
Up |
Top
|
Index |
JOS Index |
JOS Pubs |
JOS Home |
Search
We have discussed in detail (Chapter 1) the simplest lowpass filter,
having the transfer function
with
one zero at
and one pole at
. From the graphical method
for visualizing the amplitude response (§8.2), we see that this
filter totally rejects signal energy at half the sampling rate, while
lower frequencies experience higher gains, reaching a maximum at
. We also see that the pole at
has no effect on the
amplitude response.
A high quality lowpass filter should look more like the ``box
car'' amplitude response shown in Fig.1.1. While it is
impossible to achieve this ideal response exactly using a finite-order
filter, we can come arbitrarily close. We can expect the amplitude
response to improve if we add another pole or zero to the
implementation.
Perhaps the best known ``classical'' methods for lowpass filter
designs are those derived from analog Butterworth,
Chebyshev, and Elliptic Function filters
[64]. These generally yield IIR filters with the same number
of poles as zeros. When an FIR lowpass filter is desired, different
design methods are used, such as the
window method
[68, p. 88]
(Matlab functions fir1 and fir2),
Remez exchange algorithm
[68, pp. 136-140], [64, pp. 89-106]
(Matlab functions firpm, firpmord, and cfirpm),
linear programming
[93], [68, p. 140],
and convex optimization [67]. This
section will describe only Butterworth IIR lowpass design in some detail.
For the remaining classical cases (Chebyshev, Inverse Chebyshev, and
Elliptic), see, e.g., [64, Chapter 7] and/or Matlab/Octave functions
butter,
cheby1,
cheby2, and
ellip.
Next |
Prev |
Up |
Top
|
Index |
JOS Index |
JOS Pubs |
JOS Home |
Search
[How to cite this work] [Order a printed hardcopy] [Comment on this page via email]