Timeline for Significance of cut-off frequency in a low-pass filter
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 15, 2017 at 17:52 | comment | added | pipe | I don't think I can answer that better than how Bimpelrekkie did. Since there is never a hard limit in a physically realizable filter, it makes sense to put it where half the power is on one side and half on the other. | |
| Nov 15, 2017 at 17:42 | comment | added | Binary Yildirim | @pipe huh, I needed this answer to satisfy myself, then my next question is: In what way it is useful so that it is chosen as cut-off frequency? | |
| Nov 14, 2017 at 13:16 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackElectronix/status/930424124345933824 | ||
| S Nov 14, 2017 at 12:45 | history | suggested | awjlogan | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Formulae in LaTeX
|
| Nov 14, 2017 at 10:31 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 14, 2017 at 12:45 | |||||
| Nov 14, 2017 at 10:17 | comment | added | pipe | To add more confusion: This is really only a convention. You can pick other magnitudes to call the cut-off point. -3 dB is pretty useful, though. | |
| Nov 14, 2017 at 10:07 | answer | added | Bimpelrekkie | timeline score: 13 | |
| Nov 14, 2017 at 9:56 | history | asked | Binary Yildirim | CC BY-SA 3.0 |