Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Per SÃ¸vik" data-source="post: 57926" data-attributes="member: 1285">Re: help with hz to octave conversion for dspAside of how upper and lower frequency point is defined, -3dB or a fraction of cut/boost (nearest to everyday reality) or whatever, calculating the missing parameters&nbsp; given a subset of the parameters Q, BW, f1, f0, f2 one has to realize that we are not dealing with a linear scale, that was my only point. Many internet-published formulaes and calculators are wrong, and misleads the user.One good expanation of some of the maths <a href="http://www.rane.com/note170.html" target="_blank">Bandwidth in Octaves Versus Q in Bandpass Filters</a>Some manufacturers might use definitions of Q and BW that doesn&#039;t correspond too well with my mental model of a fully parametric filter, but i prefer to think they all at least work with a logarithmic scale.Edit: My use of Q as 1/N is probably wrong in most settings</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Per SÃ¸vik, post: 57926, member: 1285"] Re: help with hz to octave conversion for dsp Aside of how upper and lower frequency point is defined, -3dB or a fraction of cut/boost (nearest to everyday reality) or whatever, calculating the missing parameters given a subset of the parameters Q, BW, f1, f0, f2 one has to realize that we are not dealing with a linear scale, that was my only point. Many internet-published formulaes and calculators are wrong, and misleads the user. One good expanation of some of the maths [URL="http://www.rane.com/note170.html"]Bandwidth in Octaves Versus Q in Bandpass Filters[/URL] Some manufacturers might use definitions of Q and BW that doesn't correspond too well with my mental model of a fully parametric filter, but i prefer to think they all at least work with a logarithmic scale. Edit: My use of Q as 1/N is probably wrong in most settings [/QUOTE]

Verification