2
\$\begingroup\$

Just playing around with the 'c2d' command from matlab and trying to convert a continuous 2nd - order lowpass Butterworth function to a digital one which has the specs of Fc = 20e3Hz and Fs = 44.410e3Hz.

When I apply the pre-warping frequency parameter of 20e3Hz, it doesn't close to mimicking the continuous function.

Is there a reason why this is occurring? Does the prewarping have a limitation of how much it can "pre-warp" or am I doing something wrong? Maybe that's the intended output?

Legends:

  • LP = Continuous TF
  • LP_D = Discrete TF

enter image description here

Code:

s = tf('s');

LP = 15587249629.803/(s^2+176556.77655678*s+15587249629.803);
LP_D = c2d(LP,1/44.410e3,['Method','tustin','prewarpFrequency',125663.706]);

UPDATE: With a higher FS = 96e3Hz from 44.410e3Hz with no pre warping:

enter image description here

UPDATE2: Comparing with and without prewarping on two different Fs (44.410kHz and 96kHz) using a 3rd order Butterworth filter lowpass

Cutoff frequencies:

  • LP = 1.25e5 rad/s
  • LP_D_44kHz = 6.70e4 rad/s
  • LP_D_96kHz = 1.10e5 rad/s

With pre-warping:

enter image description here

Cutoff frequencies:

  • LP = 1.25e5 rad/s
  • LP_D_44kHz = 8.59e4 rad/s
  • LP_D_96kHz = 1.13e5 rad/s

Without pre-warping: enter image description here

UPDATE 3: Doing some research I might have an idea. Just a gut feeling.

I found 2 resources that converted an analog Butterworth into a discrete one using the Tustin method with prewarping and it worked for them.

I noticed they created the Butterworth filter completely different from the way I did it. I made mine based on the Sallen-Key configuration and just found the transfer function, could that be it? For some reason the Sallen-Key way doesn,'t like the prewarping?

Resources HERE and HERE

I also noticed when using a notch filter with the same sampling frequency (44.410kHz) and prewarping it works perfectly. Why when doing low pass filters it doesn't like it that much?

UPDATE 4: Could be the warping is just to nonlinear for it?

\$\endgroup\$
10
  • \$\begingroup\$ Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. \$\endgroup\$
    – Voltage Spike ♦
    Sep 23, 2020 at 21:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ Update main post. Found new findings \$\endgroup\$
    – Leoc
    Sep 23, 2020 at 22:36
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Leoc If you read through the comments, you'd have seen that I said your corner frequency is too close to Nyquist. Same thing here. The prewarping implies a tan(), and that's the effect you're seeing here. Also, when replying to someone, use @<tab> to select the name, otherwise the other person might not get noticed. \$\endgroup\$
    – a concerned citizen
    Sep 24, 2020 at 10:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ "I am aware of the tagging" -- it never hurts to be cautious. And, yes, that's why it all happens. If you want a nice, clean waveform at the end, you need some 10x f0 compared to the highest fp. Same with frequency-domain. Never forget that bilinear transform implies a mapping of a linear domain, s, to a strongly nonlinear domain, z. \$\endgroup\$
    – a concerned citizen
    Sep 24, 2020 at 19:23
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Leoc I meant fp = passband (corner) frequency and f0 = sampling frequency. \$\endgroup\$
    – a concerned citizen
    Sep 24, 2020 at 19:38

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.