This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about
electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the
project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This page doesn't include the possibility of being complex, which, in audio terms at least, are the most useful all-pass filters. To accommodate complex , the z-transform implementation equation would need to be altered to change to in the second term of the denominator.
Sometime in the past, someone fixed this problem by putting the transfer function in terms of the reciprocal of z. Then someone "fixed" the conjugate problem "again," which made the page nonsensical. I've gone ahead and fixed things once again. I think the page as it stands should satisfy everyone. --TedPavlic | (
talk)
14:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)reply
'Too technical' tag
I see that a 'Too technical' tag has been put on this article. I should have thought that this topic - like many articles on engineering matters is inherently of interest only to readers who have enough background knowledge in the subject area to follow the exposition. I suggest that this in no way diminishes its validity as a subject to be included in Wikipedia, or its value to readers who do have the appropriate background.
DaveApter (
talk)
15:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Well yes and no. An advanced technical subject will always be difficult for a reader with no knowledge of the subject. Against that, Wikipedia articles should be written with the general reader in mind. The lead at least, should be understandable to the general reader. Someone who has heard the phrase and comes to this article should go away satisfied they know what it is. This article could make a better job of explaining why phase is an issue in electronics with example applications. Too often, technical writers here tend to dive straight in to the equations with little explanation in prose. In all probability, practising engineers will go to their textbooks for the design equations, not Wikipedia. Sometimes, the equations are not really necessary at all and do little more than show off the knowledge of the writer rather than add to the readers understanding.
Encyclopaedias are not textbooks.
SpinningSpark16:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Yes I agree that the lead could be a lot clearer and more accessible. I will have a go at re-writing it shortly. Also the opening paragraph of the main section would benefit from some introductory explanation before diving into the equations.
DaveApter (
talk)
18:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I added the tag because despite some of my college education in signal processing and general background in music, I still didn't really internalize what this article is trying to say. If you click on the link in the technical tag, the first sentence says: "The content in articles in Wikipedia should be written as far as possible for the widest possible general audience." Ideally I would be able to understand the main idea within a matter of seconds (perhaps with a picture or an audio demo). If I were more interested/more educated in this area I could then study the article in more depth, including more technical sections of the article. I agree with the guidance provided by
Spinningspark.
Intcreator (
talk)
23:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I've moved the discussion of applications from the lead into a newly created section of the body. I think the introduction should not be too intimidating now, and anyone not understanding the terms can follow the wikilinks for an explanation. I there any objection to the removal of the tag now?
DaveApter (
talk)
17:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Well. I cannot say that I was cognizantly aware of that fact, but it seems right. But, is that an objection? The article does include digital filters; the Z ( or Z-1 ) in the Z-transform is a pure delay. An ideal transmission line that is terminated with its characteristic impedance is a pure delay. And yes, I shamelessly invoke idealness and point out all-pass filters are only all pass in their ideal forms, too.
Constant314 (
talk)
02:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
One has to ask whether an ideal transmission line can be classed as a filter at all. What exactly is it supposed that it is filtering? An actual filter built out of transmission lines (that is a maximally flat time-delay distributed element filter) won't be a pure delay either. That is what is usually meant in RS by transmission line (or microwave) all-pass network.
SpinningSpark15:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
DaveApter: You have now twice tried to insert something about inversion at high (or low) frequency. You can only make such statements about a specific circuit, not as a general statement in the lead. For instance, the passive lattice circuit can show an inversion at either high or low frequency, just swap the capacitors and inductors to achieve this. The inversion can even be arranged to happen at both high and low frequencies – even with a passive circuit.
SpinningSpark14:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks - it was my (obviously all to casual) attempt to address the objection by the editor who reverted my previous amendment. I will think about formulating the point in a sufficiently generalised form.
DaveApter (
talk)
18:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Dave, you are still getting it wrong. You are trying to add a general statement about all all-pass filters in lede that is simply not true of all all-pass filters. You could add that statement to the caption of figure 1.
Constant314 (
talk)
19:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Regarding Fig. 1, it is obvious to me, as an experienced op-amp circuit designer, that the DC gain is -1 and the infinite AC gain is +1. I would have no problem with a statement to that effect added to the caption of fig 1.
But, before we get to that, the phase of : is given as which evaluates to zero when . I think the correct expression is which evaluates to -180 in the limit as at approaches DC. Can anybody verify?
Constant314 (
talk)
18:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how you derived that. I think the original expression () is correct. The tangent of is imaginary part over real part right? So has to be on top. I get your point about , but that is due to the inversion of the op-amp and an inversion is not the same as a phase change. Now I know that inverting a sinusoid gets the same result as a 180° phase shift, but that they are different things is obvious if you view the output on an oscilloscope of an asymmetrical waveform.
SpinningSpark23:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
When you determine the angle of a complex number, it is Arctan of the imaginary part divided by the real part. Example:
I made a mistake and retract my suggested correction. However, there is still something wrong. The definition I gave about the angle of a complex number is only correct when the real part is positive. The real part of this numerator is negative. I copied the following out of the discussion for atan2.
If the number is x + jy then the angle
In terms of the standard arctan function, whose range is (−π/2, π/2), it can be expressed as follows:
By the way, the circuit in the reference you added has R and C swapped relative to figure 1 of this article. I have references for the circuit in your reference that agree with the formula for phase shift with your reference. We're good on that.(
talk)
02:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Spinningspark: rather than simply deleting every attempt I make to provide a succinct accessible summary, would it not be more constructive to edit it so that it meets your satisfaction. Alternatively, perhaps you could suggest a form of words that achieves this?
DaveApter (
talk)
17:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
There is nothing unconstructive about removing information that is incorrect. We are primarily here to serve our readers, not to avoid hurting each other's feelings. Leaving wrong information in the article is very bad on that account. Your contributions are not based on
reliable sources. This is the entire problem. If you had provided a source, I would at least have checked out what the source said and whether or not it could be considered reliable. If the source was reliable and you had just misinterpreted it then I might edit what you wrote to comply with the source. However, if you insist on adding your own
original research then you can expect it be perfunctorily reverted if we think you are wrong. You wouldn't have had multiple reverts if you had made the alternative suggestions here first after the initial revert. Here's what our policy says on this
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Please pay attention to that in future.
And to answer you question directly, I don't believe that it is possible to summarise in the way that you want. There are numerous variations, some of which I mentioned above.
SpinningSpark18:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Filter in fig. 1 produces phase lead
The filter in fig 1 produces a phase lead at ω = 1/RC of +90°. The output should lead the input. I included a SPICE simulation of the filter with the input being a 100 Hz sine burst. The quadrature frequency is 100Hz.
All Pass Simulation
You see that the output (yellow) settles to a quarter cycle ahead of the input (cyan).
Note, E1 is equivalent to a very very good opamp with a gain of 109 and infinite bandwidth.
The Padé approximation uses the other all-pass filter, the one with the low pass filter. Maybe we should replace fig 1 with the other filter and start over.
Phase, phase shift, phase lag, phase lead and delay
I’m in a quandary about the use of the terms phase shift and delay when the filter produces phase lead.
Consider for a moment, an ordinary one pole low pass filter. The phase of the transfer function is 0° at DC and become increasingly negative, reaching -45° at the 3 dB point and approaches -90° at frequencies well above the 3 dB point. The output lags the input. We say the output is delayed from the input. We would commonly say that this filter produces a phase shift of 90° at high frequencies. So, in common usage, if the transfer function has a negative phase, we say that the phase shift is positive and the delay is positive.
Now consider a high pass filter (zero at DC and a single real pole). The phase of the transfer function is +90° at DC and become decreasingly positive, reaching +45° at the 3 dB point and approaches 0° at frequencies well above the 3 dB point. The output leads the input. Is the phase shift negative? Is the delay negative? A high pass filter, below the 3dB point is a sort of differentiator or predictor, so a negative delay is not unreasonable, but it certainly could be confusing of the general reader.
So, what do we say when the output leads the input? When the phase of the transfer function is positive, do we say that the phase shift is negative? Do we say that the delay is negative? I'm leaning toward avoiding the use of the terms phase shift and delay in the context of a filter that produces phase lead.
Phase delay has no bearing on causality. It is group delay that must be positive for causality reasons. To some extent, it is meaningless to talk about a delay of a single sinusoid. Any practical method of determining the delay of a single sinusoid will involve limiting it to a finite burst, at which point you no longer have a pure single sinusoid since it now has an envelope.
SpinningSpark22:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Well, if delay is wrong and apparent delay has no support, shall we just remove any discussion of delay? But do we really need support for apparent delay since both apparent and delay are used in their ordinary sense?
Constant314 (
talk)
22:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Implementation using the low pass filter
I have added a sub-section for the implementation using the low pass filter, since @
Spinningspark: has at least one reliable ref that discuss it and I have at least one and maybe more that also discuss that version. Also, the low pass version produces phase lag and the terms delay and phase shift have their ordinary meanings.
I have put the Pade sub-section under the low-pass implementation sub-section because it uses the low-pass implementation.
My intent is to flesh out the low-pass section to the point that it is equivalent to the section on the high-pass filter implementation and then swap them so that the low pass implementation is discussed first. Then, after swapping, I will work to eliminate the terms phase shift and delay in the high-pass version so that it isn't necesary to describe them as having negative values.
Although it seems plausible, it is not obvious and needs a reference. It also is misleading as written. Merely putting an all-pass filter in cascade with an unstable system, won’t stabilize the unstable system. However, an all-pass used in this way may make it easier to stabilize the unstable system with feedback.
Constant314 (
talk)
23:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Well the first thing I would say about that is that it is an application, not an implementation, so at the very least the section needs to be moved. Pole-zero cancellation using all-pass filters is a theoretically possible way of stabilising a system, but it is difficult to achieve in practice. Only slight mistuning or drift results in imperfect cancellation and can reintroduce instability. This is discussed in
Signals and Systems using MATLAB, pages 374-375.
SpinningSpark10:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)reply