Circuit modeled filter, how to?

[Aleksey Vaneev]

Electric scheme is a SYSTEM of components. So, there is no such thing as 'ordering of components'. That's why calculating components in random order will work.

Please practice reading comprehension. I said order of DSP algorithm. What you are proposing is a DSP algorithm with non-deterministic order, but causality in a discreet system requires some sort of ordering.

Then you should practice choosing better wording. I was talking about calculating schematic in a discrete (DSP) form. In such form schematic becomes a DSP algorithm.

Thank you for educating us about the only useful (non-trivial) piece of information explained in practically every DSP tutorial concerning non-linearities.

Isn't it quite surprising that you can also multiply two completely unrelated (band-limited)

That's what I was trying to say. No DSP book I've read said that multiplying frequency by frequency yeilds frequency of the sum of two of these frequencies (plus a shifted negative frequency). If you are multiplying in complex quadrature form, you may avoid getting negative frequencies in the result: you'll get a cleanest form of frequency shifting possible.

And no, equating multiplication in time domain to convolution in frequency domain does not tell much. It may tell much to you but not me. They should be talking about frequency shifting.

[mystran]

Yes you didn't look in the right place. You want the sub link on the eCircuit Center page:
Non-Linear Anaysis

Oh ok, sorry then, that looks kinda interesting, though I dislike the part where they say it requires guessing, haha.

But anyway, gonna read that through just in case I learn something new.

[andy_FX]

... though I dislike the part where they say it requires guessing, haha.

When you sort it out for yourself you will see you don't have to guess, what they are really doing is just giving everything a + and - polarity from memory.

Andrew

[aciddose]

what i said was; that any beginner could derive exactly what i did via the exact same methods that i did. i never said they should 'duplicate' my actions. i said they could take the same actions with absolutely no knowledge of mine.

look, if somebody doesnt already know 'basic dsp' and 'basic electronics' they have no business thinking of doing a 'circuit modeled filter' or so on. that isnt what williamk asked for, though!

he asked for "how to start on a basic filter based upon a circuit modeled one."

wait, uh, erm, geez.. wouldnt that be like, uhm, the integrators and waveshaper() example i posted in the first place?

do you disagree that he should start there?

by experimentation he can discover the problems of aliasing, phase and so on, and then come back asking for solutions to those issues.

when, and if, he ever even considers doing some component models he can come and talk to people about that topic - that is however going to be _after_ he learns basic circuit/electronic theory and understands all the fundamentals. without already having that knowledge, it's like starting on a trek through the wilderness without a pair of boots.

before you head up into the mountains, head to the park.

[andy_FX]

So, aciddose, WilliamK posted one schematic, but that as just as an example. How do you propose he works what to do for the next schematic he looks at?

Andrew

[Shy]

Why don't leave it to WilliamK to ask him if he wants? I know aciddose has better things to do than continue to propose how to approach these things to you and then have you argue with him about anything he says instead of just take some of his advice even though you have about 0.1% of the knowledge as well as experience in synthesizer and filter circuits and synthesizers in general that he has.

[whyterabbyt]

Why don't leave it to WilliamK to ask him if he wants? I know aciddose has better things to do than continue to propose how to approach these things to you and then have you argue with him about anything he says instead of just take some of his advice even though you have about 0.1% of the knowledge as well as experience in synthesizer circuits and synthesizers in general that he has.

Do you actually know what Andy has worked on?

[aciddose]

i think he does know, do you?

the next schematic he looks at? well, he shouldn't be looking at schematics without learning the basics of circuit theory, and this will take him several weeks at least. i've told him already that the four stages in the circuit are equivalent to the integrators + wave shapers in my example. he should know by this point that if he wants to look more closely he can use one of the simulators which have been mentioned.

my question for you is: do you think he has even ever done the basic integrator/waveshaper stuff, and do you think it is practical for him to learn about electronics without having done that? do you think it is practical for him to spend months or years studying in the fields required to get a single result, or do you think he should copy/paste my code and learn a small bit just to get the basics working with instant results?

it seems clear that you, for example, have no experience working with real world electronic circuits. you also have no experience designing them, even under simulation. so exactly what gives you the ability to claim you know what you're doing when writing simulations? you know nothing about all the factors involved in real world design (by your own admission, unless i've misunderstood) and so shouldn't you immediately stop what you're doing and get on the bench with a soldering iron before you can pretend to create accurate models?

judge yourself before you judge others, and do not assume to be the wiser of anyone. i do not assume anything about you or about williamk, i merely suggest what i feel may be the best possible solution. you, rather, attempt to entirely discount that 'starting from the beginning' is a wise choice, and you claim that only your methods should be followed.

i'm not here to insult you, but i've used your software and in my opinion that is _not_ accurate modeling, my friend. do you know why? not just the sound, ok, let's ignore the sound for now, i wont mention my impressions there. one major issue is the 'modeling' itself. do you think that all these complex equations are being performed in the real world? do you think all these correction factors exist? the facts are that those correction factors are all huge approximations; when you get into the hundreds of approximations and 'ideal' models in place for component modeling, your approximation is even less accurate than the macro-models i'm suggesting.

why? why?

as i've already said, both systems are mere approximations of a greater, fundamental mathematical process. we're using two very different mediums here, yet the fundamental process we are attempting to accomplish is exactly the same.

in your method, you are going the route of approximate circuits -> approximate function -> fundamentals. in my method we aim to go the route of approximate modified function -> fundamentals. your argument is based upon the idea that such a more direct method should be less accurate. remember though that we take into account the effects added by the electronic approximation in our modified function! look, if you're not able to comprehend this or think in abstract terms why should i bother. i've been repeating myself for the last five pages.

"which you just clamed to before you edited your post again"
2nd edit: i've added this sentence in my first edit after re-reading my post. i realized that andrew would quickly mention "but how will a beginner understand the modified function in the first place?".

do not mention again that you believe simulation is useful for finding our modified function; that much is obvious.

[whyterabbyt]

i think he does know, do you?

I dont think he does, and yes. How did you use the 'Big' one btw, which you just clamed to before you edited your post again, given that there's no demo? And how did you compare it to the original hardware?

[aciddose]

let's not discuss andrew's attempts at modeling, i do not want to be offensive. stick to the topic.

oh look, whoopie i'm editing again:

wr; when you talk shit about edits that way it's obvious you're just coming back into your flaming/trolling nature. as i've said above, stick to the topic and do not make stuff up. where did i say i've ever used this "the big one". i've heard demos actually, i lied. i've never 'used' the software. i researched after getting into the argument initially in order to see what he was actually talking about. i was very disappointed by what i heard - let's leave it at that. we'll leave it for others to judge the usefulness of his attempts in dsp. ultimately his success is decided by sales, not by my opinion.

[whyterabbyt]

let's not discuss andrew's attempts at modeling, i do not want to be offensive. stick to the topic.

you've been plenty offensive all the way through, so dont duck the subject.

and Im not asking for comments on the model, Im asking how you did the comparisons with the original hardware, since there's no demo of the software. Because I dont actually believe you've done any such thing.

[aciddose]

demo of which software? i'm not sure what you mean by 'the big one' if you'd care to explain that..

i've never been offensive unless you're offended at being called a baby when you wont admit that something is simple. i'm very unsure why he is still claiming that the extremely simple two lines of code i posted to 'model' his circuit are not accurate.. they are perfectly accurate. (please use the correct diode equation, the accurate of the equation will change the accuracy of the over-all process!)

i've never argued that what he does is incorrect, i've only tried to say that people do have a simple place to start from, and that they should start in that place. the things he has said seem to be in an attempt to discredit my statements "it is simple" and "start simple", which i very strongly disagree with.

edit again: (are you happy if i mention when i edit? are edits always suspect of mis-intent for you?)

i also very strongly disagree that people are 'unable' to figure things out on their own, or that spoon-feeding them a bunch of textbook equations will help them all that much. in my opinion those equations belong exactly there, in a textbook! i believe that people need practical solutions that they can learn and experiment with. while the information he posted may be useful in the long-term, it isnt going to give any results without a significant amount of effort on the part of the person attempting to learn these systems. i attempted to post code which is very simple and can immediately be used to learn.

i had hoped somebody else might understand this and start by posting additions to my simple code to point out problems and some solutions.

[whyterabbyt]

oh look, whoopie i'm editing again:

wr; when you talk shit about edits that way it's obvious you're just coming back into your flaming/trolling nature.

aw diddums. dont be a prick, awright. i mean I know you cant help it, and that you cant maintain your own context for two sentences, and that you constantly revise your statements until they say the opposite of your starting position, and that you become an aggressive little c**t just because people don't immediately accept your own painfully egocentric idea of yourself as the sole informed opinion of how everything should and does exist, but just try. you'll hate yourself less and be less aggressive without that horrible self-loathing in the long run.
and try smiling, there's a cheery little chappy.

as i've said above, stick to the topic and do not make stuff up.

you edited the post, so I didnt make anything up. now go tell someone else what to do, okay?

where did i say i've ever used this "the big one".

You edited that out, of course.

i lied.

big surprise.

i've never 'used' the software.

Im sure you havent. Like I say, I doubt if you know what it is, let alone have done any comparison with the original hardware.

i researched after getting into the argument initially in order to see what he was actually talking about. i was very disappointed by what i heard - let's leave it at that. we'll leave it for others to judge the usefulness of his attempts in dsp. ultimately his success is decided by sales, not by my opinion.

Indeed. It is likely to be one of the best-selling, best-known plugins around, after all, its predecessor certainly was.

[whyterabbyt]

demo of which software? i'm not sure what you mean by 'the big one' if you'd care to explain that..

exactly. you dont know what he's done. and no, i dont. research it yourself.

i've never been offensive

liar.

i've never argued that what he does is incorrect

liar

i've only tried to say that people do have a simple place to start from, and that they should start in that place. the things he has said seem to be in an attempt to discredit my statements "it is simple" and "start simple", which i very strongly disagree with.

liar. you started by attacking his position, not the other way around.

edit again: (are you happy if i mention when i edit? are edits always suspect of mis-intent for you?)

its symptomatic of your usual disingenuous posthoc refactoring of your argument, yes.

[aciddose]

is it not possible for you guys to use your memory in order to reply to the things i've said?

no, i did not 'edit that part out'. i added more to my comment that "i have tried your software and in my opinion that is _not_ accurate modeling." if you'd care to look you'll see that sentence is in fact still there!

i haven't used the software, not on my own system, no. my ears have however been subjected to some of it's output and that is what i was referring to.