Re: Question on pole-zero cancellation

Rune Allnor said the following on 07/06/2006 21:20:
Oli Filth skrev:
Take as a simple example the moving-sum filter:

H(z) = 1 - z^-L
--------
1 - z^-1

The numerator includes a zero at DC, the denominator gives a pole at DC,
and so these cancel, giving non-zero response at DC.

However, if we implement the filter recursively:
(I hope my ASCII art comes out ok...)

+------+
---+--->| z^-L |------+
| +------+ | -
| v
+----------------->0-----------------+----->
^ |
| +------+ |
+-----| z^-1 |<---+
+------+

This is equivalent to:

+------+
---+--->| z^-L |------+
| +------+ | -
| v
+----------------->0--->0-----------------+----->
^ |
| +------+ |
+-----| z^-1 |<---+
+------+

i.e. implementing the feedforward section before the feedback section,
and doing the two additions separately.

The feedforward section has already killed the DC component, so we can't
recover it.

So my question is, how does the recursive moving-sum filter manage to
work (and we know it does), if it appears to be exactly equivalent to
something that blocks DC?

Because the zero at DC is exactly cancelled by a pole.

Indeed, this is mathematically the case. But if we implement the unit-circle zero first, then the output of that section contains a perfect spectral null. If you put in a true DC signal, the output will be zero. Once that's happened, no amount of subsequent gain can recover the signal at that frequency, not even the infinite gain that a pole provides.


Note that the
second block scheme of yours is an expanded representation of the
total system, not the actual system.

I'm not sure what you mean. The two block diagrams are the *exact* same system, and both explicitly implement:

y[n] = y[n-1] + x[n] - x[n-L]


You can multiply any number by 1,
no matter how the factor 1 is represented, provided the representation
is exact.

Any transfer function H(z) can be expanded in a similar way:

H(z) = 1*H(z) = (1-z)/(1-z)*H(z)

(* means multiplication) and we have the same "paradox" you
found above.

I don't disagree. But conceptually, how do we resolve the paradox? Imagine another example, a channel equaliser. If the (noiseless) channel contains a spectral null (e^{j.theta} - z) for some theta, what equaliser would we use to recover a component at theta? I don't think that 1/(e^{j.omega} - z) would be very useful, even though mathematically it cancels the channel response. So why does it work above?


--
Oli
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question on pole-zero cancellation
    ... The numerator includes a zero at DC, the denominator gives a pole at DC, ... no matter how the factor 1 is represented, provided the representation ... By factoring out the poles and zeros that cancel before we implement ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: Poles an Zeros
    ... I have never heard of any confrontation occurring between the Polish air ... force and a Japanese Zero. ... the Zero would have defeated the Pole. ... Need to learn how to apply control theory in your embedded system? ...
    (sci.electronics.basics)
  • Re: Question on pole-zero cancellation
    ... The numerator includes a zero at DC, the denominator gives a pole at DC, ... and so these cancel, ... Pole-zero cancellations work if the mathematics is exact. ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: pole zero stuff
    ... > I am confused about pole - zero diagrams and how they relate to filter ... Imagine that the plane is covered flat with an elastic sheet. ... location of each pole. ... axis in the s-plane or the unit circle in the z-plane. ...
    (comp.dsp)
  • Re: Touch Tone at 1964 Worlds Fair [telecom]
    ... | |channel noise requires 1.54 MHz bandwidth to transmit. ... | I would have thought that as the noise approaches zero (and the S/N ... | the S/N ratio approaches unity, and that's an incredibly noisy channel. ... carrying SF signalling, and that could mean a "all zero" state during ...
    (comp.dcom.telecom)