LOL…don’t insult him

Comments like this make me subscribe instantly.

Nonsense. At uni, you should’ve learned all the math behind it, Fourier transforms, Nyquist, analog filters, digital filters and sampling. You would have to know all that to implement it digitally in a computer. This is a good practical intro, but with detail cut to near zero, for noobs. Your post is a meme, I see this kind of comment on just about all these kind of sites, and it can’t possibly be true, unless you slept through your degree.

@@rob28803 uh? don't so goddamn consescending. Professors are often boring and have terrible explanations. Moritz Klein has very simple explanations here- which you note correctly that by doing this, he does have to omitt a lot of detail, and all of the maths involved. But that's just it- he is only omitting the hard theory. These videos are meant to be for practical purposes. And I understand that you already know this, and you were just criticising the commenter here for comparing Klein's work to that of a professors- but I would argue that the commenter here is also right. I think that Klein provides such a solid foundation in these videos that all that is missing is the math. I think he could easily explain that here as well, but he doesn't, because most are uninterested in the maths when they come to these videos. The commenter here was simply praising Klein's excellent teaching ability, and I believe he is right in doing so. I've tried to be civil in my reply to you here, but seriously dude, you need to touch some grass. stop being such a STEMlord.

@@ff-qf1th It is true, that this is a good entry into the matter. But also don't talk bullshit. If you study physics or something-with-e or computer science and you are not fluent "speaking" the math behind the physics you won't survive a semester. If you talk to your professor about the water analogy he will probably drown you(joke). In contrary, if he explains the physics behind electron movement, the endeavor of load carriers to balance each other out with water analogies he will probably get fired(no joke, fired by Georg Simon Ohm himself, turning around in his grave.) Also if rob would criticize the video creator his comment would be over the top ... because why would he watch something he knows clearly in depth and then comment his frustration? That would be worth of a "STEMlord". But it is NOT like that! He criticizes the brain-empty comment that absolutely does not reflect reality, made by Trevor. Further, there is absolutely no problem here with Trevor having no clue and his(!) professor not telling him about the intricacies of electrical engineering and the physics behind it, because he and his prof are COMPUTER SCIENTISTS. Saying "than Professors" and not "my", the plural is the nonsense here. Oh and BTW: Next time, you or Trevor or me or Rob are building a filter ... despite the knowledge shown in the video here ... we need that f'ing math. Or what, a professor, a nanny?:P P.S.: Calm down. The ethical standards that you apply to others(here by misunderstanding?!) will help nothing when you dimension a filter, next time. Next time? I doubt this will happen in the next 4.32×10^17 seconds. Excuse my rant, getting excited doesn't make sense anyway. Either do it or let it stay(i mean electronics).

thanks, very glad you like the videos! and yeah, i mean i'm basically learning about most of these things as i make these videos - i guess that's why i'm being extra-beginner friendly!

@@MoritzKlein0 Which is a good thing. Thanks for doing this!

thanks man, appreciate it!

thanks, i appreciate it!

i‘m honored!

So increasing r makes less current get to that capacitor and thus the capacitor fills up more slowly, and because it’s filling up slower then it can absorb pulses of voltage that are longer (lower frequency waves) as r increases. Correct? Thus it’s not really practical unless the output is actively amplified in an inverse relationship to amount of r?

thanks, much appreciated!