Good luck
FIR does not have higher resolution. It is limited by the identity T=1/F.
Where T is the time of the FIR filter (# of samples past impulse peak / sample rate). And F = frequency resolution.
Minimum phase via passive electrical components has theoretically infinite frequency resolution.
Minimum phase via dsp IIR replication, also has theoretically infinite frequency resolution, but has the potential for computational instability.
Minimum phase via FIR replication, will have the resolution of the FIR filter as described above, but without the potential for computational instability.
Tradeoffs...always in audio...
Are you sure sure DSP FIR vs DSP IIR. FIR doesn't have better resolution potential?
Yep. Here's a straightforward article that explains it
https://www.prosoundtraining.com/2016/05/20/fir-ward-thinking-part-5/
Ty for the info, saved into my library
The only thing I can think to say is that maybe the person advising me, which I know he knows, was referring to ability of a filter designer to sculpt a FR is better suited with FIR?
What I am am trying to say is that, if the IIR filters have more "resolution" in the same terms of Analog EQ. Then there may be some other form of "resolution" that is being meant.....ie, the power points, of control, you have.... In others, maybe you can do more things to the curve, with FIR than the IIR.
Is it possible that FIR filtering allow more resolution (more control points) to achieved desired curve......vs the infinite resolution capability of FIR being limited by control points.
In one example we can have 2 curves....say a 2nd order roll off
And we can say that IIR has infinite resolution....and has higher resolution than FIR drawing the same 2nd order roll off filter.
In the other example we can use FIR to bend the line into more outcomes....
And FIR is limited in comparison, looking at the control points via hardware available vs what software does for FIR and Taps.
I think that may be the case.
The only thing I can think to say is that maybe the person advising me, which I know he knows, was referring to ability of a filter designer to sculpt a FR is better suited with FIR?
What I am am trying to say is that, if the IIR filters have more "resolution" in the same terms of Analog EQ. Then there may be some other form of "resolution" that is being meant.....ie, the power points, of control, you have.... In others, maybe you can do more things to the curve, with FIR than the IIR.
Is it possible that FIR filtering allow more resolution (more control points) to achieved desired curve......vs the infinite resolution capability of FIR being limited by control points.
In one example we can have 2 curves....say a 2nd order roll off
And we can say that IIR has infinite resolution....and has higher resolution than FIR drawing the same 2nd order roll off filter.
In the other example we can use FIR to bend the line into more outcomes....
And FIR is limited in comparison, looking at the control points via hardware available vs what software does for FIR and Taps.
I think that may be the case.
Last edited:
This came recommended, for my particular set up, and has good reviews
https://motu.com/en-us/products/gen5/ultralite-mk5/
https://motu.com/en-us/products/gen5/ultralite-mk5/
If you're using a PC for FIR filters, the resolution comparison/issue is mostly likely moot. Yes, hardware is a different story.
I can't trust my very high dynamic/SPL rig to PC processing... plus i like to listen outdoors and won't drag a computer out for anything other than source material. But i figure i'm an anomaly.
Biggest thing with regard to resolution and "control points", is how many filters, how many types, orders, Q's etc are supported.
IIR replication usually has a limited set of filters, probably more likely from the measurement software and correction process, than from the processing software. Take REW's auto-EQ for example...i think i recall it generates up to 20 filters max.
FIR IIR replication can imbed practically unlimited filters into a single file. And since FIR correction is mostly tantamount to impulse inversions, that's what it does.
I can't trust my very high dynamic/SPL rig to PC processing... plus i like to listen outdoors and won't drag a computer out for anything other than source material. But i figure i'm an anomaly.
Biggest thing with regard to resolution and "control points", is how many filters, how many types, orders, Q's etc are supported.
IIR replication usually has a limited set of filters, probably more likely from the measurement software and correction process, than from the processing software. Take REW's auto-EQ for example...i think i recall it generates up to 20 filters max.
FIR IIR replication can imbed practically unlimited filters into a single file. And since FIR correction is mostly tantamount to impulse inversions, that's what it does.
Mmmhh, hard to see on the photos but it looks like a truncated tractrix profile. Even if the profile is transformed to an ellipse there should be 180 degrees exit angle everywhere around the mouth. The vertical has almost no flare and it will beam like hell. What you also will get is a huge waist banding effect especially in the vertical plane. You cannot correct this with EQ.
It very funny that you ask how to ship them after they have been finished. Do you want to fool us? Reminds me on a very rich guy who commissioned a very big and high yacht. But there is one major problem. To reach the high seas a very old and very traditional bridge has to be demounted and now people seriously complain about this.
So if the rich guy buys the horns and knows how to ship them, yet still ask's for advice, to see if someone knows something he does not, already....hes foolish for that or are you just an......lol
Guess I will see first hand... In hindsight I would recommend just buying a cnc router and going to town,
Last edited:
The limitations tend to be seen in the way the filters are programmed in the device/computer. It is easier to produce a detailed inverse filter using FIR where all the little dips bumps or wild swings are exactly compensated. To do the same with IIR would take a significant number of bands to get to the same result.
As you saw with the semi Auto EQ I made for you, if you use a higher number of bands of IIR you can get there. In a computer you can just keep adding more instances of a plugin to get more bands of IIR EQ or use a single FIR filter of the appropriate length. Resolution only becomes an issue in FIR filters at low frequencies where the rate of change of the filter gets high. So high Q notches or steep crossover slopes. A virtually perfect 60Hz 2nd order linear phase filter is easy to make with 10ms latency and not many taps. Try a 4th order with the same taps and it becomes nothing like what you wanted.
Great. That company is 10 Minutes from here.
I can put any TAD component on the same palette: TD-2001, TD-2002, TD-4001, TD-4002, TL-1601a, TL-1601b, TL-1603. Thats a once in a lifetime opportunity for anybody to ship components "back" to USA nearly for free.
I can suggest the people from UPS SCS who are located 10 Minutes the other direction.
Interesting review of filter topologies, but no info on creating the "MIR".
This appears to be the same as RePhase's linear phase filter, which has constant phase, given a minimum #taps in the FIR. No phase change means constant group delay.
[edit] all of this is just for the electrical XO
This appears to be the same as RePhase's linear phase filter, which has constant phase, given a minimum #taps in the FIR. No phase change means constant group delay.
[edit] all of this is just for the electrical XO
Last edited:
Here is your 2-way full spectrum:
https://www.martinlogan.com/en/product/renaissance-esl-15a
Darn laws of physics. The old decade rule still holds and it means for a full range, you need three drivers to do it decently.
https://www.martinlogan.com/en/product/renaissance-esl-15a
Darn laws of physics. The old decade rule still holds and it means for a full range, you need three drivers to do it decently.