Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz

Liste des GroupesRevenir à se design 
Sujet : Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz
De : joegwinn (at) *nospam* comcast.net (Joe Gwinn)
Groupes : sci.electronics.design
Date : 19. Nov 2024, 22:55:11
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <102qjjh5n2hr9b3mkmuibol68r4glc4fon@4ax.com>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:16:05 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 13:50:46 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:
>
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:12:18 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>
On 11/19/24 17:47, Edward Rawde wrote:
"Liz Tuddenham" <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:1r3a1m9.1lg1mngftnegwN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid...
[...]
>
The startup transient of the FFT would have to be included, so that may
set a limit to the accuracy of the simulation measurements.  Even if you
start on a zero-axis crossing, you will get spurious results because of
the finite length of the sample.
 
Yes I understand that. It's actually a sinewave multiplied by a rectangular function.
That's why I try to use a sample length of many tens of seconds.
A window function might help but then I'd have to decide which window to use.
 
>
This can be demonstrated by doing FFT on samples of fewer and fewer
cycles from the middle of an apparently pure sinewave.  As the sample
length decreases, spurious harmonics begin to appear, even though they
don't exist in reality.
>
An FFT implicitly connects the end of the recording back to the
beginning. It's sufficient that the number of periods is integer.
>
If testing with sine waves that all fit with an integral number of
cycles per window, the FFT noise floor will be determined by the
precision of the arithmetic used.
>
But there is often a splice error at that join because the fit into
the window is approximate, which is a good reason to use a window
function.  The default choice in the radar world is Taylor.
>
Joe Gwinn
>
I wouldn't trust LT Spice for simulating a low-distortion oscillator.
>
Run a sim and zoom up on the top of some sine wave. It looks all
segmented and ratty.
>
I was just simulating something and had a KHz range loop oscillation
that refused to be compensated. Turns out I had a BI behavioral
current source driving an inductor, and that oscillated all by itself.
A G current source does the same thing.
>
At really low distortion, the opamp models can getcha too.

Oh yeah.  I don't use spice simulations unless I'm designing a
circuit, which is rare these days.

Mostly, I use Wolfram Mathematica, often with Bessel window functions
(for phase linearity across the passband).

Joe Gwinn

Date Sujet#  Auteur
4 Nov 24 * 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz64Edward Rawde
4 Nov 24 +* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz62Jan Panteltje
4 Nov 24 i+* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz23Bill Sloman
4 Nov 24 ii`* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz22Edward Rawde
5 Nov 24 ii `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz21Bill Sloman
6 Nov 24 ii  `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz20Edward Rawde
6 Nov 24 ii   +* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz8Jeroen Belleman
6 Nov 24 ii   i+- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1Jan Panteltje
6 Nov 24 ii   i+- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1Edward Rawde
6 Nov 24 ii   i`* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz5john larkin
6 Nov 24 ii   i `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz4Jeroen Belleman
6 Nov 24 ii   i  `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz3john larkin
7 Nov 24 ii   i   `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz2Jeroen Belleman
7 Nov 24 ii   i    `- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1john larkin
18 Nov 24 ii   `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz11Liz Tuddenham
19 Nov 24 ii    `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz10Edward Rawde
19 Nov 24 ii     `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz9Liz Tuddenham
19 Nov 24 ii      `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz8Edward Rawde
19 Nov 24 ii       `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz7Jeroen Belleman
19 Nov 24 ii        +- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1Edward Rawde
19 Nov 24 ii        `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz5Joe Gwinn
19 Nov 24 ii         `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz4john larkin
19 Nov 24 ii          `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz3Joe Gwinn
20 Nov 24 ii           `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz2Jan Panteltje
20 Nov 24 ii            `- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1Joe Gwinn
4 Nov 24 i`* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz38Edward Rawde
5 Nov 24 i `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz37Jan Panteltje
5 Nov 24 i  `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz36Edward Rawde
6 Nov 24 i   +- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1Bill Sloman
6 Nov 24 i   `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz34Jan Panteltje
6 Nov 24 i    +* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz20Bill Sloman
6 Nov 24 i    i`* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz19Jan Panteltje
6 Nov 24 i    i +* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz2Liz Tuddenham
6 Nov 24 i    i i`- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1Jan Panteltje
6 Nov 24 i    i `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz16Bill Sloman
6 Nov 24 i    i  `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz15Liz Tuddenham
6 Nov 24 i    i   +* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz13Bill Sloman
6 Nov 24 i    i   i`* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz12Liz Tuddenham
7 Nov 24 i    i   i `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz11Jan Panteltje
7 Nov 24 i    i   i  `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz10Liz Tuddenham
7 Nov 24 i    i   i   `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz9Jan Panteltje
8 Nov 24 i    i   i    `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz [OT]8Liz Tuddenham
8 Nov 24 i    i   i     +- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz [OT]1Jan Panteltje
8 Nov 24 i    i   i     +* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz [OT]2Cursitor Doom
8 Nov 24 i    i   i     i`- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz [OT]1Liz Tuddenham
8 Nov 24 i    i   i     `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz [OT]4ehsjr
9 Nov 24 i    i   i      `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz [OT]3Liz Tuddenham
9 Nov 24 i    i   i       `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz [OT]2Jan Panteltje
9 Nov 24 i    i   i        `- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz [OT]1Liz Tuddenham
6 Nov 24 i    i   `- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1john larkin
6 Nov 24 i    `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz13Edward Rawde
6 Nov 24 i     +* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz8john larkin
7 Nov 24 i     i`* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz7Liz Tuddenham
7 Nov 24 i     i +* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz3Jeroen Belleman
7 Nov 24 i     i i`* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz2Liz Tuddenham
7 Nov 24 i     i i `- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1Jeroen Belleman
7 Nov 24 i     i `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz3john larkin
7 Nov 24 i     i  +- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1Bill Sloman
7 Nov 24 i     i  `- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1john larkin
7 Nov 24 i     `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz4Jan Panteltje
7 Nov 24 i      +- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1Edward Rawde
7 Nov 24 i      `* Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz2john larkin
7 Nov 24 i       `- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1Jan Panteltje
21 Nov 24 `- Re: 80dB now but still needs improvement at 1KHz1Klaus Vestergaard Kragelund

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal