Filter pole question

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.
Gorskytron
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:09 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Filter pole question

Post by Gorskytron » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:07 am

What does the "pole" of a filter mean?
Such as when a filter is referred to as having a two pole or a four pole.
I understand what dB roll off means but I'm a little unclear on what a pole represents.

User avatar
Stab Frenzy
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9723
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 5:41 pm
Gear: Eurorack, RYTM, Ultranova, many FX
Location: monster island*
Contact:

Post by Stab Frenzy » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:19 am

1 pole = 6dB/oct rolloff

ie 2 pole = 12dB/oct etc.

I don't know where the term originates, maybe someone will enlighten us. I have a hunch it might be related to the number of inductors used in passive filter design, but that might be wildly wrong.

Mooger5
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1459
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Lisbon

Post by Mooger5 » Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:14 am

Stab Frenzy wrote:1 pole = 6dB/oct rolloff

ie 2 pole = 12dB/oct etc.

I don't know where the term originates, maybe someone will enlighten us. I have a hunch it might be related to the number of inductors used in passive filter design, but that might be wildly wrong.
Here´s what I learned so far:

I think the term has a specific origin much like the term "bug" originates from a real bug that got trapped inside a relay back when computers were mostly electro-mechanical.

But yes, the term "pole" refers to one filter section. For a low-pass either one resistor in series to the signal path plus a capacitor to ground or an inductor in series plus resistor to ground are used to attenuate the signal by 6 dB/oct. This is one pole (for high-pass the components positions in the path are reversed). A second pole in series, identical to the first one, will take on the previous rolloff and attenuate the remaining signal by another 6 dB/oct and so on. For a Moog-type 24 dB/oct attenuation, 4 poles in series are needed.

BTW...

To constantly alter the cuttoff frequency one of the components must be variable, and the easiest is the resistance as potentiometers are more available than variable capacitors or inductors of adequate value.
So, since in a four-pole filter there are four resistors, a four-gang potentiometer is required. Add a buffer to the output to compensate for the changes in impedance and there you have a manually controllable four-pole filter.
To make it controllable by several external sources you use voltage-control. Oberheim, Roland and the SSM2040 filters all use the same configuration of operational transconductance amplifiers (OTAs) acting as variable resistors.
These weren´t available in 1966 so Bob Moog used the well-known transistor base-to-emitter inherent resistance. Nobody had thought of it before since this particularity in transistors was regarded as something to avoid rather than an active part in a design. This technique added some distortion to the audio signal so it was impractical in hi-fi terms but in the end it was responsible for the filter´s and the instrument´s musical character. Today it´s known as "Phatness"...
Herrare umanum est.

clubbedtodeath
No Longer Registered

Post by clubbedtodeath » Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:55 pm

I'd guess that pole comes from pole point in mathematics.

GeneralBigbag
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:16 pm
Location: Grad school

Post by GeneralBigbag » Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:34 pm

That sounds right - pole from complex analysis - not that I know a whole lot about filter implementation, but if you write the transfer function of a filter down, it's of the form p(z)/q(z), (p,q polynomials taking complex arguments z) and the 'poles' are the zeros of the q function - the higher order q is, the more zeros or poles it has.
That said, if you showed me a circuit diagram I would have *no* idea :)
virb.com/ookpikk

User avatar
nathanscribe
VSE Review Contributor
VSE Review Contributor
Posts: 2889
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Contact:

Post by nathanscribe » Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:07 pm

Mooger5 wrote:since in a four-pole filter there are four resistors, a four-gang potentiometer is required. Add a buffer to the output to compensate for the changes in impedance and there you have a manually controllable four-pole filter.
To make it controllable by several external sources you use voltage-control.
I'd half-agree with this. You could use a 4-gang pot, but they're not commonly available in more than 2-gang. It's easy to make a 2-pole filter this way, but as good a reason as any for voltage control is to get not just external control, but higher order than 2-pole operation.

Loads of synths use OTAs, they're common and cheap. Transistor ladders are the classic Moog-style ones, diode ladders are around but less common, and Steiner's multi-input filter is also an occasional one. What I like about the modern modulars (and some other synths) is the availability of different filter types. Lowpass gets a bit samey after a while. Nice to have some HP/BP/Notch floating around.

solderguy
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 11:15 pm

Post by solderguy » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:08 pm

http://electronotes.netfirms.com/free.html


The best info around concerning poles ( and zeroes ) and synths!

Mooger5
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1459
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Lisbon

Post by Mooger5 » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:12 pm

I'd half-agree with this. You could use a 4-gang pot, but they're not commonly available in more than 2-gang. It's easy to make a 2-pole filter this way, but as good a reason as any for voltage control is to get not just external control, but higher order than 2-pole operation.


Alps make 4 and 6-gang potentiometers. They´re used in high-quality Home-Theatre preamps. You can get them easily from Ebay and they´re not so expensive as one might think.
http://cgi.ebay.ie/ALPS-Quad-Potentiome ... m153.l1262
The motorized models even mean they´re voltage-controlled, but the motor wouldn´t be fast enough for synthesizer use.


I think there were full-range filters available in the early days (just not sure about the steepness of the curve), and the difficulty was precisely in making them voltage-controlled. See Till Kopper´s comments about the Moog filter patent here: http://www.till.com/articles/moog/patents.html
Herrare umanum est.

Mooger5
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1459
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Lisbon

Post by Mooger5 » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:17 pm

solderguy wrote:http://electronotes.netfirms.com/free.html


The best info around concerning poles ( and zeroes ) and synths!
I was looking for the Electronotes link for ages. Thanks!
Herrare umanum est.

User avatar
Bitexion
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 4230
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:43 pm
Gear: Alesis Andromeda A6
Roland D-50
Creamware Minimax
Yamaha DX7s
Analogue Systems modular
Ensoniq SQ-80
Waldorf Blofeld
Location: Drammen, Norway

Post by Bitexion » Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:50 pm

Basically, you can say a 4-pole filter sounds "softer" than a 6dB filter, because the 4-pole has a steeper rolloff curve. A 6dB filter will sound a bit brighter over the whole range. That's basically why the Moog filter always sounds "warm". It's 4-poles.

User avatar
nathanscribe
VSE Review Contributor
VSE Review Contributor
Posts: 2889
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The right side of the Pennines
Contact:

Post by nathanscribe » Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:00 pm

Nice pots, Mooger, but they're a bit OTT for a synth panel 8)

User avatar
Solderman
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
Posts: 1799
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:43 pm

Post by Solderman » Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:42 pm

Don't forget the MF-101 and Voyager filters have 2 pole options. I find it gives a more aggressive character. Interesting summary Mooger5. I wonder how it is that the component reversal for multi-mode filters is done without any extra circuits, just alternate wiring and some switching.
I am no longer in pursuit of vintage synths. The generally absurd inflation from demand versus practical use and maintenance costs is no longer viable. The internet has suffocated and vanquished yet another wonderful hobby. Too bad.
--Solderman no more.

Mooger5
Expert Member
Expert Member
Posts: 1459
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 5:11 pm
Location: Lisbon

Post by Mooger5 » Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:56 pm

Solderman wrote:Don't forget the MF-101 and Voyager filters have 2 pole options. I find it gives a more aggressive character. Interesting summary Mooger5. I wonder how it is that the component reversal for multi-mode filters is done without any extra circuits, just alternate wiring and some switching.
Yes, 2-pole filters sound buzzier as higher harmonics are less rolled-off per octave.

I only knew about this pole stuff until very recently, since I started researching for an alternative to the 80017A filters in my Juno 106.
The Moog filter requires more discrete components, but it´s not impossible to implement a Memorymoog clone.
An OTA-based 2-pole (LM13700) requires few adjacent components but I think wouldn´t be appropriate to the already thin sound of the Juno´s oscillators...
The SSM2044 plus CA3080 VCA combination is perfect. I made a prototype and it sounds very moogish, only requiring a little more tweaking. When I have the time I´ll finish this project.

The multi-mode operation in the Oberheim filter (and the Steiner-Parker) is still out of my understanding, but for now I find it ingenious since it appears so deceptively simple. Instead of a switch I think a linear pot could be used to continuously select the mode. The wiper would go for the BP tap and the other two pins for LP and HP taps...
I´ve read in the Moog Music forum that a multi-mode 4-pole filter is immensely difficult to create, hence the 2-pole in the Obie.

After I read Kevin Lightner´s "Why a Moog Sounds Like a Moog" article I modded my Rogue to run on 10 Volts like the Mini, and yes it sounds a little more fatter. But curiously (or predictably) I must have miscalculated some resistor values as the filter now has a limited upper-bandwith. My Rogue must be the only Moog synthesizer in the world whose filter has the ARP error. I´ll have to revise the circuit . :lol:
Herrare umanum est.

User avatar
Bitexion
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
Posts: 4230
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:43 pm
Gear: Alesis Andromeda A6
Roland D-50
Creamware Minimax
Yamaha DX7s
Analogue Systems modular
Ensoniq SQ-80
Waldorf Blofeld
Location: Drammen, Norway

Post by Bitexion » Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:21 pm

You can read lots about the filter theory, why 1 pole equals 3dB and rolloff curves around the net.

soundonsound.com has a series of articles called Synth Secrets. One chapter goes deeply into filter theory.

Here's a good wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-pass_filter

User avatar
Analog Freak
Active Member
Active Member
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 5:29 am
Location: Ohio

Post by Analog Freak » Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:28 pm

GeneralBigbag wrote:That sounds right - pole from complex analysis - not that I know a whole lot about filter implementation, but if you write the transfer function of a filter down, it's of the form p(z)/q(z), (p,q polynomials taking complex arguments z) and the 'poles' are the zeros of the q function - the higher order q is, the more zeros or poles it has.
That said, if you showed me a circuit diagram I would have *no* idea :)
You're somewhat on the right track, however, your equation is in the z domain which is for discreet time systems and we're discussing analog systems. You need to be in the s-domain young grasshoppa'. :) Poles are where the transfer function "blows up" and tries to head towards infinity. Zeroes are where the equation will not produce any output. Poles opccur when the denominator equals zero. In other words a divide by zero error, which is mathematically undefined but practically, it is infinity. Zeroes are when the numerator is equal to zero. Obviously zero over anything is zero. I've had to do quite a bit of messing around with FIR and IIR filter design for a class in Digital Signal Processing that I just finished and this stuff get really messy when you get into the higher order systems. 67th order polynomials anyone? We had to do this sort of thing all the time. Anyway, the number of poles determines the order of the transfer function and hence the order of the filter. A two pole filter will have two poles in the transfer function and the equation will be second order. A four pole filter will have four poles and a fourth order transfer equation. Generally speaking, when you're working with an analog filter, a pole is a capacitor. This is because a capacitor blocks DC and as frequency increases reactance (or impedance if you prefer) drops until it is practically zero. When this happens the capacitor is seen as a short and maximum current flows in the circuit. This is only for R-C filters though, which are the most commonly used in small-signal applications such as synthesizers. The short answer to this question is that the term pole comes from (so called) higher mathematics.

As an example here is the simplification process for a fifth order transfer equation in the s (analog complex frequency) domain: Image
Nasty isn't it?
"All Your Synthesizers Are Belong To Us!" Literally.

Post Reply