Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 11:40 PM 4/27/2003, Mark Sottilaro wrote: >I said this a while ago and a friend of mine started quoting it in her >signature file and I thought it might shed some light on this subject: > >"You can't simulate dressing like a clown. It's a do or not do thing. >If you're wearing a clown suit, you're a clown." > >I hope this helps. perfect Mark, thanks. for a reference point, I spend a lot of time in my professional life simulating electronic circuits. In my case it is usually the output driver circuits on high-performance IC's driving PCB traces, assorted parasitic impedances, connectors, and the input receiver on another IC. This is reasonably comparable in complexity to simulating an audio amplifier. In my work I simulate transistors, but tubes would be a similar chunk of math when you consider what the electrons are doing. There are two approaches to this that I use. Either a fast "behavioral" simulation, that runs quickly but with less detail. (or perhaps good enough detail in the operating region I care about.) Or a detailed "transistor level" simulation that gives a much more accurate result across all operating regions but takes much longer (using a simulation engine called spice, for those who care). I usually simulate about 3 cycles of a given waveform. On the PIII 850MHz machine on my desk the fast behavioral simulations take about 1 second. the slow, detailed, spice simulations can take as much as an hour and a half, but they come out looking very much like the real thing. One of the guys working for me has a P4 1.9GHz, when he's not around I VNC into his pc to run spice. It speeds up by a factor of 5. Still, 15-20 minutes to get 3 detailed waveform cycles is a long way from real time. My guess is your tube amp modeler isn't doing that kind of detail.... kim ______________________________________________________________________ Kim Flint | Looper's Delight kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com