Common Digital Filter Types

Why This Matters

Digital filters form the backbone of nearly every signal processing system you'll encounter—from audio engineering and telecommunications to biomedical instrumentation and radar systems. When you're tested on filter design, you're really being evaluated on your understanding of tradeoffs: stability versus computational efficiency, sharp transitions versus phase distortion, and implementation complexity versus performance. These aren't just abstract concepts—they determine whether a real-time system can meet its latency requirements or whether a filtered signal retains its essential characteristics.

The filters in this guide fall into distinct categories based on structure (how they compute outputs), frequency selectivity (which frequencies they pass or reject), and approximation method (how they achieve their frequency response). Don't just memorize filter names—know what problem each filter solves, what tradeoffs it accepts, and when you'd choose one over another. If an exam question asks you to "design a filter for X application," your job is to match the application's constraints to the right filter architecture.

---

Filter Structures: FIR vs. IIR

The most fundamental distinction in digital filter design is whether the filter uses feedback. This structural choice affects everything from stability guarantees to computational requirements and phase behavior.

Finite Impulse Response (FIR) Filters

• No feedback architecture—output depends only on current and past input samples: $y[n] = \sum_{k=0}^{M} b_k x[n-k]$
• Guaranteed stability and achievable linear phase response, meaning all frequency components experience equal delay—critical for preserving waveform shape
• Higher computational cost for sharp transitions, requiring more coefficients (taps) than equivalent IIR designs to achieve similar roll-off

Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) Filters

• Feedback architecture—output depends on past outputs as well as inputs: $y[n] = \sum_{k=0}^{M} b_k x[n-k] - \sum_{k=1}^{N} a_k y[n-k]$
• Computational efficiency allows sharp frequency responses with fewer coefficients, making them preferred for resource-constrained real-time systems
• Stability requires careful design—poles must lie inside the unit circle in the z-plane, or the filter will oscillate or diverge

---

Frequency Selectivity: Shaping the Spectrum

These classifications describe what frequencies a filter passes or rejects, independent of whether the implementation is FIR or IIR. Understanding selectivity is essential for matching filters to application requirements.

Low-Pass Filters

• Passes frequencies below cutoff $f_c$ while attenuating higher frequencies—the most common filter type in practice
• Applications include anti-aliasing before ADC conversion, smoothing noisy sensor data, and extracting baseband signals in communication systems
• Transition bandwidth (the region between passband and stopband) determines how "sharp" the filter appears and trades off against filter order

High-Pass Filters

• Passes frequencies above cutoff $f_c$ while attenuating lower frequencies—mathematically the spectral complement of a low-pass filter
• Removes DC offset and low-frequency drift, essential in AC-coupled measurements and baseline wander correction in ECG signals
• Can be derived from low-pass designs using spectral transformation techniques, simplifying the design process

Band-Pass Filters

• Passes frequencies within a range defined by lower cutoff $f_L$ and upper cutoff $f_H$, attenuating everything outside
• Center frequency $f_0 = \sqrt{f_L \cdot f_H}$ and bandwidth $BW = f_H - f_L$ are the key design parameters for communication channel selection
• Essential for frequency-division multiplexing where multiple signals share a medium by occupying different frequency bands

Band-Stop (Notch) Filters

• Attenuates frequencies within a specific range while passing everything else—the inverse of a band-pass filter
• Eliminates interference at known frequencies, such as 50/60 Hz power line hum or specific harmonic distortion components
• Narrow notch filters require high Q-factor designs, often implemented as second-order IIR sections for efficiency

All-Pass Filters

• Unity magnitude response at all frequencies—passes everything but modifies the phase relationship between frequency components
• Phase equalization applications correct for phase distortion introduced by other system components or transmission channels
• Group delay manipulation enables signal alignment in multi-path systems and is used in phaser audio effects

---

Approximation Methods: Achieving the Response

These filter types describe how a desired frequency response is mathematically approximated. Each method accepts different tradeoffs between passband flatness, stopband attenuation, transition sharpness, and phase linearity.

Butterworth Filters

• Maximally flat passband—no ripple, with magnitude response $|H(j\omega)|^2 = \frac{1}{1 + (\omega/\omega_c)^{2N}}$ where $N$ is filter order
• Gradual roll-off of 20N dB/decade means higher orders are needed for sharp transitions compared to other approximations
• Best choice when passband flatness is critical and transition bandwidth constraints are relaxed—common in audio applications

Chebyshev Filters

• Steeper roll-off than Butterworth for the same order, achieved by allowing controlled ripple in either passband or stopband
• Type I has equiripple in the passband with monotonic stopband; Type II has monotonic passband with equiripple stopband
• Ripple amplitude (specified in dB) is a design parameter—more ripple tolerance yields sharper transitions

Elliptic (Cauer) Filters

• Sharpest possible transition for a given filter order, achieving optimal efficiency in the Chebyshev sense
• Equiripple in both passband and stopband—accepts ripple everywhere to minimize transition bandwidth
• Preferred for strict frequency separation requirements where computational resources limit filter order, such as channelization in software-defined radio

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. You need to filter a biomedical signal where preserving the exact timing relationship between waveform features is critical. Would you choose FIR or IIR, and why?

2. Compare Butterworth and Chebyshev Type I filters: what tradeoff does each make, and in what application would you prefer one over the other?

3. A software-defined radio must separate two adjacent channels with minimal guard band. Which approximation method provides the sharpest transition for a given filter order?

4. What structural property distinguishes IIR filters from FIR filters, and what design constraint does this property impose?

5. You're designing a system to remove 60 Hz power line interference from an audio recording while preserving the rest of the spectrum. What filter selectivity type would you use, and what implementation consideration affects how narrow you can make the rejection band?