Q about Signal Processing

Borat · 12:18 AM

imagine a FIR processor where the impulse response consists of just two impulses with the second one time delayed and inverted. it should produce a comb filter of sorts with the first null at DC.

now lets say i want to claim intellectual property rights for this filter for a certain application. but other guys are already using equalizers to deal with the same problem. if they wanted to steal my idea all they would have to do is to calculate the required frequency response and then design an EQ for it which would end up having the same impulse response that i specified. then they'd be able to claim they didn't use my idea but merely made an EQ which they had been using before.

question is. starting from that comb filter frequency response would they actually be able to arrive at the two impulses by any standard algorithm ? or are there many possible impulse responses which would produce the same frequency response ? i can only think of one other.

in other words i can't claim any rights to the frequency response as this is something they're already working on. but a more direct way of dealing with the problem is to produce a delayed and inverted signal. and i am asking whether a delayed and inverted signal is in fact exactly the same as an equalizer realizing the same response or is it somehow different ?

makes sense ?

HELP ! ! !

dmills · 8th February 2010, 10:39 PM

Considering that a fairly standard way to produce a comb filter is exactly that, delay and sum....

You can trivially go from an impulse response (which is essentially time domain) to a frequency response or vice versa by simply taking a Fourier transform of the impulse response to get the frequency response or vice versa to get from a frequency response to the corresponding impulse.

Sorry, I don't see any reasonably protect-able IP in that filter, possibly in your bigger application, but that approach to a comb filter is well known and well documented.

Incidentally, if you are trying to correct speaker time domain behaviour, Larvy has some interesting notes as to why it does not in general work in one of his presentations.

Regards, Dan.

Borat · 8th February 2010, 10:49 PM

All right screw it

Thanks.

8th February 2010, 12:13 AM	#1
Borat Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Silicon Valley & NYC	Q about Signal Processing imagine a FIR processor where the impulse response consists of just two impulses with the second one time delayed and inverted. it should produce a comb filter of sorts with the first null at DC. now lets say i want to claim intellectual property rights for this filter for a certain application. but other guys are already using equalizers to deal with the same problem. if they wanted to steal my idea all they would have to do is to calculate the required frequency response and then design an EQ for it which would end up having the same impulse response that i specified. then they'd be able to claim they didn't use my idea but merely made an EQ which they had been using before. question is. starting from that comb filter frequency response would they actually be able to arrive at the two impulses by any standard algorithm ? or are there many possible impulse responses which would produce the same frequency response ? i can only think of one other. in other words i can't claim any rights to the frequency response as this is something they're already working on. but a more direct way of dealing with the problem is to produce a delayed and inverted signal. and i am asking whether a delayed and inverted signal is in fact exactly the same as an equalizer realizing the same response or is it somehow different ? makes sense ? HELP ! ! ! Last edited by Borat; 8th February 2010 at 12:18 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sony sound processing....	ThSpeakerDude88	Car Audio	2	29th January 2010 06:14 PM
FIR processing for BASS possible ?	Borat	Digital Line Level	3	14th December 2009 07:19 PM
Audio processing chips	jmar	Chip Amps	0	4th February 2006 06:52 PM
Processing delays at Chipamp.com	Maurice	Chip Amps	2	2nd November 2004 01:00 PM
Input Signal Processing (or whatever you call it)	Damedged2002	Solid State	5	25th August 2003 07:08 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

8th February 2010, 10:39 PM	#2
dmills diyAudio Member Join Date: Aug 2008	Considering that a fairly standard way to produce a comb filter is exactly that, delay and sum.... You can trivially go from an impulse response (which is essentially time domain) to a frequency response or vice versa by simply taking a Fourier transform of the impulse response to get the frequency response or vice versa to get from a frequency response to the corresponding impulse. Sorry, I don't see any reasonably protect-able IP in that filter, possibly in your bigger application, but that approach to a comb filter is well known and well documented. Incidentally, if you are trying to correct speaker time domain behaviour, Larvy has some interesting notes as to why it does not in general work in one of his presentations. Regards, Dan.

8th February 2010, 10:49 PM	#3
Borat Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Silicon Valley & NYC	All right screw it Thanks.