Author and Technical Review

Author: Third Octave Editorial Team

Technical scope: IIR versus FIR design choices for acoustics software, with emphasis on octave-band DSP, stability, latency, and standards-oriented implementation.

Reviewed March 2026. These guides are written from an acoustics software and DSP implementation perspective. For regulated or contractual work, check the purchased standard and your instrument documentation directly.

Core differences

Aspect IIR FIR
Structure Recursive, feedback terms Non-recursive, feedforward taps
Phase Non-linear phase Can be linear phase
Latency Low Higher (kernel length)
CPU and memory Low for steep filters Higher for narrow bands
Stability Depends on pole locations Always stable

Why IIR is common for octave bands

Octave and third-octave filters need steep skirts to meet standards. IIR designs achieve this with fewer coefficients, making them efficient for real-time analysis and portable devices. Many published standards are defined from analog prototypes that naturally map to IIR filters.

When FIR is the better choice

  • When you need linear phase to preserve waveform shape or transient timing.
  • When you already process in blocks (FFT-based) and can reuse convolution infrastructure.
  • When exact magnitude control at band edges is more important than CPU usage.

Large FIR kernels can be expensive, but multi-rate processing or FFT convolution can reduce the cost.

Practical design notes

  • Use SOS cascades for IIR filters and verify pole radii are less than 1.0 in the z-plane.
  • For FIR, choose a window or Parks-McClellan design, then validate stop-band attenuation.
  • Always test on real data: band levels, time constants, and aggregation can alter the subjective output.
Results are calculated in general accordance to IEC standards. Any actions, advice, or expenses based on the analysis are the user's responsibility, not third-octave.co.uk or any subsidiaries.