where and are constants (generally complex). In this
``parallel one-pole'' form, it can be seen that the peak gain is no
longer equal to the resonance gain, since each one-pole frequency
response is ``tilted'' near resonance by being summed with the
``skirt'' of the other one-pole resonator, as illustrated in
Fig.10.10. This interaction between the positive- and negative-frequency
poles is minimized by making the resonance sharper (
),
and by separating the pole frequencies
. The
greatest separation occurs when the resonance frequency is at
one-fourth the sampling rate (
). However,
low-frequency resonances, which are by far the most common in audio
work, suffer from significant overlapping of the positive- and
negative-frequency poles.
Figure 10.10:
Frequency response (solid lines)
of the two-pole resonator
,
for and
, overlaid with the
frequency responses (dashed lines) of its positive- and
negative-frequency complex one-pole components. Also marked (dotted
lines) are the two resonance frequencies; the peak frequencies can be
seen to lie slightly outside the resonance frequencies.
To show Eq. (10.7) is always true, let's solve in general for
and given and . Recombining the right-hand side
over a common denominator and equating numerators gives
which implies
The solution is easily found to be
where we have assumed
im, as necessary to have a
resonator in the first place.
Breaking up the two-pole real resonator into a parallel sum of two
complex one-pole resonators is a simple example of a partial
fraction expansion (PFE) (discussed more fully in §6.8).
Note that the inverse z transform of a sum of one-pole transfer
functions can be easily written down by inspection. In particular,
the impulse response of the PFE of the two-pole resonator (see
Eq. (10.7)) is clearly