4 ms·
In the code you'll see there is also linear interpolation being performed between the LUT entries, hence the reduced error compared to just using the 256 LUT en
by chris_overseas 4y ago
In the code you'll see there is also linear interpolation being performed between the LUT entries, hence the reduced error compared to just using the 256 LUT entry values directly.
- tails4e 4y agoThanks, I missed the linear interp part. I might look into this more for DDS, would be interesting to see how small a lut could be for 90db performance.
- zokier 4y agoFound interesting post that implements computed approximation, apparently it was faster than interpolated lut in his case. https://hackaday.io/project/28597-the-delta-flyer/log/145736-building-a-better-sine-function https://hackaday.io/project/28597-the-delta-flyer/log/145736...
- willis936 4y agoWouldn't cubic interpolation have less error at the cost of performance?
- jamesmunns 4y agoLikely! But as mentioned in my top level comment, performance was the key metric I was going for here :)