343
CHAPTER
21 Filter Comparison
Decisions, decisions, decisions! With all these filters to choose from, how do you know which
to use? This chapter is a head-to-head competition between filters; we'll select champions from
each side and let them fight it out. In the first match, digital filters are pitted against analog
filters to see which technology is best. In the second round, the windowed-sinc is matched
against the Chebyshev to find the king of the frequency domain filters. In the final battle, the
moving average fights the single pole filter for the time domain championship. Enough talk; let
the competition begin!
Match #1: Analog vs. Digital Filters
Most digital signals originate in analog electronics. If the signal needs to be
filtered, is it better to use an analog filter before digitization, or a digital filter
after? We will answer this question by letting two of the best contenders
deliver their blows.
The goal will be to provide a low-pass filter at 1 kHz. Fighting for the analog
side is a six pole Chebyshev filter with 0.5 dB (6%) ripple. As described in
Chapter 3, this can be constructed with 3 op amps, 12 resistors, and 6
capacitors. In the digital corner, the windowed-sinc is warming up and ready
to fight. The analog signal is digitized at a 10 kHz sampling rate, making the
cutoff frequency 0.1 on the digital frequency scale. The length of the
windowed-sinc will be chosen to be 129 points, providing the same 90% to
10% roll-off as the analog filter. Fair is fair. Figure 21-1 shows the frequency
and step responses for these two filters.
Let's compare the two filters blow-by-blow. As shown in (a) and (b), the
analog filter has a 6% ripple in the passband, while the digital filter is
perfectly flat (within 0.02%). The analog designer might argue that the ripple
can be selected in the design; however, this misses the point. The flatness
achievable with analog filters is limited by the accuracy of their resistors and
The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing 344
capacitors. Even if a Butterworth response is designed (i.e., 0% ripple), filters
of this complexity will have a residue ripple of, perhaps, 1%. On the other
hand, the flatness of digital filters is primarily limited by round-off error,
making them hundreds of times flatter than their analog counterparts. Score
one point for the digital filter.
Next, look at the frequency response on a log scale, as shown in (c) and (d).
Again, the digital filter is clearly the victor in both roll-off and stopband
attenuation. Even if the analog performance is improved by adding additional
stages, it still can't compare to the digital filter. For instance, imagine that you
need to improve these two parameters by a factor of 100. This can be done
with simple modifications to the windowed-sinc, but is virtually impossible for
the analog circuit. Score two more for the digital filter.
The step response of the two filters is shown in (e) and (f). The digital filter's
step response is symmetrical between the lower and upper portions of the
step, i.e., it has a linear phase. The analog filter's step response is not
symmetrical, i.e., it has a nonlinear phase. One more point for the digital
filter. Lastly, the analog filter overshoots about 20% on one side of the step.
The digital filter overshoots about 10%, but on both sides of the step. Since
both are bad, no points are awarded.
In spite of this beating, there are still many applications where analog filters
should, or must, be used. This is not related to the actual performance of the
filter (i.e., what goes in and what comes out), but to the general advantages that
analog circuits have over digital techniques. The first advantage is speed:
digital is slow; analog is fast. For example, a personal computer can only filter
data at about 10,000 samples per second, using FFT convolution. Even simple
op amps can operate at 100 kHz to 1 MHz, 10 to 100 times as fast as the
digital system!
The second inherent advantage of analog over digital is dynamic range. This
comes in two flavors. Amplitude dynamic range is the ratio between the
largest signal that can be passed through a system, and the inherent noise of the
system. For instance, a 12 bit ADC has a saturation level of 4095, and an rms
quantization noise of 0.29 digital numbers, for a dynamic range of about
14000. In comparison, a standard op amp has a saturation voltage of about
20 volts and an internal noise of about 2 microvolts, for a dynamic range
of about ten million. Just as before, a simple op amp devastates the digital
system.
The other flavor is frequency dynamic range. For example, it is easy to
design an op amp circuit to simultaneously handle frequencies between 0.01
Hz and 100 kHz (seven decades). When this is tried with a digital system,
the computer becomes swamped with data. For instance, sampling at 200
kHz, it takes 20 million points to capture one complete cycle at 0.01 Hz. You
may have noticed that the frequency response of digital filters is almost
always plotted on a linear frequency scale, while analog filters are usually
displayed with a logarithmic frequency. This is because digital filters need
Chapter 21- Filter Comparison 345
Frequency
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
b. Frequency response
Frequency (hertz)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
c. Frequency response (dB)
Frequency
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
d. Frequency response (dB)
Time (milliseconds)
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
e. Step response
Sample number
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
f. Step response
Analog Filter
(6 pole 0.5dB Chebyshev)
Digital Filter
(129 point windowed-sinc)
Frequency (hertz)
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
a. Frequency response
FIGURE 21-1
Comparison of analog and digital filters. Digital filters have better performance in many areas, such as:
passband ripple, (a) vs. (b), roll-off and stopband attenuation, (c) vs. (d), and step response symmetry,
(e) vs. (f). The digital filter in this example has a cutoff frequency of 0.1 of the 10 kHz sampling rate.
This provides a fair comparison to the 1 kHz cutoff frequency of the analog filter.
Amplitude
Amplitude
Amplitude (dB)
Amplitude Amplitude (dB)
Amplitude
a linear scale to show their exceptional filter performance, while analog filters
need the logarithmic scale to show their huge dynamic range.
The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing 346
Frequency
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Chebyshev
recursive
windowed-sinc
a. Frequency response
FIGURE 21-2
Windowed-sinc and Chebyshev frequency responses. Frequency responses are shown for a 51 point
windowed-sinc filter and a 6 pole, 0.5% ripple Chebyshev recursive filter. The windowed-sinc has better
stopband attenuation, but either will work in moderate performance applications. The cutoff frequency of both
filters is 0.2, measured at an amplitude of 0.5 for the windowed-sinc, and 0.707 for the recursive.
Frequency
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
b. Frequency response (dB)
Chebyshev
recursive
windowed-sinc
Amplitude (dB)
Amplitude
Match #2: Windowed-Sinc vs. Chebyshev
Both the windowed-sinc and the Chebyshev filters are designed to separate one
band of frequencies from another. The windowed-sinc is an FIR filter
implemented by convolution, while the Chebyshev is an IIR filter carried out
by recursion. Which is the best digital filter in the frequency domain? We'll
let them fight it out.
The recursive filter contender will be a 0.5% ripple, 6 pole Chebyshev
low-pass filter. A fair comparison is complicated by the fact that the
Chebyshev's frequency response changes with the cutoff frequency. We will
use a cutoff frequency of 0.2, and select the windowed-sinc's filter kernel to be
51 points. This makes both filters have the same 90% to 10% roll-off, as
shown in Fig. 21-2(a).
Now the pushing and shoving begins. The recursive filter has a 0.5% ripple
in the passband, while the windowed-sinc is flat. However, we could easily set
the recursive filter ripple to 0% if needed. No points. Figure 21-2b shows that
the windowed-sinc has a much better stopband attenuation than the Chebyshev.
One point for the windowed-sinc.
Figure 21-3 shows the step response of the two filters. Both are bad, as you
should expect for frequency domain filters. The recursive filter has a nonlinear
phase, but this can be corrected with bidirectional filtering. Since both filters
are so ugly in this parameter, we will call this a draw.
So far, there isn't much difference between these two filters; either will work
when moderate performance is needed. The heavy hitting comes over two
critical issues: maximum performance and speed. The windowed-sinc is a
powerhouse, while the Chebyshev is quick and agile. Suppose you have a
really tough frequency separation problem, say, needing to isolate a 100
Chapter 21- Filter Comparison 347
Sample number
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
a. Windowed-sinc step response
FIGURE 21-3
Windowed--sinc and Chebyshev step responses. The step responses are shown for a 51 point windowed-sinc
filter and a 6 pole, 0.5% ripple Chebyshev recursive filter. Each of these filters has a cutoff frequency of 0.2.
The windowed-sinc has a slightly better step response because it has less overshoot and a zero phase.
Sample number
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
b. Chebyshev step response
Amplitude
Amplitude
Frequency
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Chebyshev (IIR)
Windowed-sinc (FIR)
FIGURE 21-4
Maximum performance of FIR and IIR filters.
The frequency response of the windowed-sinc
can be virtually any shape needed, while the
Chebyshev recursive filter is very limited. This
graph compares the frequency response of a six
pole Chebyshev recursive filter with a 1001
point windowed-sinc filter.
Amplitude (dB)
millivolt signal at 61 hertz that is riding on a 120 volt power line at 60 hertz.
Figure 21-4 shows how these two filters compare when you need maximum
performance. The recursive filter is a 6 pole Chebyshev with 0.5% ripple.
This is the maximum number of poles that can be used at a 0.05 cutoff
frequency with single precision. The windowed-sinc uses a 1001 point filter
kernel, formed by convolving a 501 point windowed-sinc filter kernel with
itself. As shown in Chapter 16, this provides greater stopband attenuation.
How do these two filters compare when maximum performance is needed? The
windowed-sinc crushes the Chebyshev! Even if the recursive filter were
improved (more poles, multistage implementation, double precision, etc.), it is
still no match for the FIR performance. This is especially impressive when you
consider that the windowed-sinc has only begun to fight. There are strong
limits on the maximum performance that recursive filters can provide. The
windowed-sinc, in contrast, can be pushed to incredible levels. This is, of
course, provided you are willing to wait for the result. Which brings up the
second critical issue: speed.
The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing 348
Frequency
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
standard
convolution
FFT
convolution
Recursive
FIGURE 21-5
Comparing FIR and IIR execution speeds. These
curves shows the relative execution times for a
windowed-sinc filter compared with an equivalent
six pole Chebyshev recursive filter. Curves are
shown for implementing the FIR filter by both the
standard and the FFT convolution algorithms. The
windowed-sinc execution time rises at low and high
frequencies because the filter kernel must be made
longer to keep up with the greater performance of
the recursive filter at these frequencies. In general,
IIR filters are an order of magnitude faster than FIR
filters of comparable performance.
Relative execution time
Comparing these filters for speed is like racing a Ferrari against a go-cart.
Figure 21-5 shows how much longer the windowed-sinc takes to execute,
compared to a six pole recursive filter. Since the recursive filter has a faster
roll-off at low and high frequencies, the length of the windowed-sinc kernel
must be made longer to match the performance (i.e., to keep the comparison
fair). This accounts for the increased execution time for the windowed-sinc
near frequencies 0 and 0.5. The important point is that FIR filters can be
expected to be about an order of magnitude slower than comparable IIR filters
(go-cart: 15 mph, Ferrari: 150 mph).
Match #3: Moving Average vs. Single Pole
Our third competition will be a battle of the time domain filters. The first
fighter will be a nine point moving average filter. Its opponent for today's
match will be a single pole recursive filter using the bidirectional technique. To
achieve a comparable frequency response, the single pole filter will use a
sample-to-sample decay of . The battle begins in Fig. 21-6 where the x ' 0.70
frequency response of each filter is shown. Neither one is very impressive, but
of course, frequency separation isn't what these filters are used for. No points
for either side.
Figure 21-7 shows the step responses of the filters. In (a), the moving average
step response is a straight line, the most rapid way of moving from one level
to another. In (b), the recursive filter's step response is smoother, which may
be better for some applications. One point for each side.
These filters are quite equally matched in terms of performance and often the
choice between the two is made on personal preference. However, there are
Chapter 21- Filter Comparison 349
Frequency
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Moving average
Single pole
recursive
FIGURE 21-6
Moving average and single pole frequency
responses. Both of these filters have a poor
frequency response, as you should expect for
time domain filters.
Amplitude
Sample number
-20 -10 0 10 20
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
a. Moving average
FIGURE 21-7
Step responses of the moving average and the bidirectional single pole filter. The moving average
step response occurs over a smaller number of samples, while the single pole filter's step response
is smoother.
Sample number
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
b. Bidirectional recursive
Amplitude
Amplitude
two cases where one filter has a slight edge over the other. These are based
on the trade-off between development time and execution time. In the first
instance, you want to reduce development time and are willing to accept a
slower filter. For example, you might have a one time need to filter a few
thousand points. Since the entire program runs in only a few seconds, it is
pointless to spend time optimizing the algorithm. Floating point will almost
certainly be used. The choice is to use the moving average filter carried out
by convolution, or a single pole recursive filter. The winner here is the
recursive filter. It will be slightly easier to program and modify, and will
execute much faster.
The second case is just the opposite; your filter must operate as fast as
possible and you are willing to spend the extra development time to get it.
For instance, this filter might be a part of a commercial product, with the
potential to be run millions of times. You will probably use integers for the
highest possible speed. Your choice of filters will be the moving average
The Scientist and Engineer's Guide to Digital Signal Processing 350
carried out by recursion, or the single pole recursive filter implemented with
look-up tables or integer math. The winner is the moving average filter. It will
execute faster and not be susceptible to the development and execution
problems of integer arithmetic.