Scott,
So are we finally reaching a point in the cost benefit curve where Moore's law is going to meet up with reality and the cost to play is becoming to great? $10 million dollars for one masks must be having some effect on the decreasing size and increasing cost curve and the benefits that every shrinking die size is having on micro circuitry. With the shrinkage of the desktop market and the dumbing down of tablets with less computing power will things finally have reached some plateau or does the march go on?
PS. I guess by now that many people have figured out that they never used their computers for nothing but web surfing anyway, not like some of us who do actual design or computing and can use a real computer vs the masses that never needed a very powerful computer in the first place. My cad programs are not going to run on a tablet anytime soon that I can see.
So are we finally reaching a point in the cost benefit curve where Moore's law is going to meet up with reality and the cost to play is becoming to great? $10 million dollars for one masks must be having some effect on the decreasing size and increasing cost curve and the benefits that every shrinking die size is having on micro circuitry. With the shrinkage of the desktop market and the dumbing down of tablets with less computing power will things finally have reached some plateau or does the march go on?
PS. I guess by now that many people have figured out that they never used their computers for nothing but web surfing anyway, not like some of us who do actual design or computing and can use a real computer vs the masses that never needed a very powerful computer in the first place. My cad programs are not going to run on a tablet anytime soon that I can see.
Last edited:
Ed
What you are pointing at? Vertical or transverse modulation?
Or is it distortion related to modulation amplitude?
See some measurements. Formulas in that link predict distortion products. Measurements show this.
But there are a myriad “small” mechanical details that play a role too. See the following for some of them.
&d=1362699535[/url]
Skating force is another problem. If you like see here:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/analogue-source/75389-think-thhow-puthhy-cat.html#post863681
Apart from antiskating force doesn’t match the change of skating force across the record radius, skating force varies with the dynamics of the recorded signal. Almost impossible to compensate for this
A waterproof source
http://ia701507.us.archive.org/25/items/RadioDesignersHandbook/LangfordSmith-RadioDesignersHandbook.pdf
George
George,
What I am aiming for is less noise from the peanut gallery. John was explaining his design and methods.
Now as you know there are many issues that have to be juggled in any design. Focusing on a single issue such as THD obscures the big picture.
JC actually knows he doesn't have all the answers, but he does know what he has done and that it works. That doesn't mean he knows completely why it works. When you fix one problem sometimes you unknowingly fix others.
However others keep trying to impose their views on how they would do things. JC sometimes even tries to explain why he doesn't do that, but not always. To me these comments just raise the noise level.
Now the plots you show are from a decent turntable/arm/cartridge. It is not worst case. A marketed product must do a bit better. However even what you showed would cause a level of problem that JC tells me would be unacceptable to him.
Part of the noise level has had JC move on without fully exploring the subject of what happens when you have low frequency out of band signals. These do more than just add some distortion. But those issues are now apparently not going to be raised.
FYI JC in a fit of rage over some of the comments threw his computer against the wall, so he won't be with us for a while. (Actually kidding, he broke his keyboard.)
ES
Last edited:
Yes, the general populace were gifted some 20 years ago with hugely powerful machines, which they failed to appreciate, applying them to all sorts of trivial tasks like email, word processing, web surfing and watching porno etc. In the meantime, individuals like us, with a higher calling and clearly superior intellect, labored endlessly to make the machines ever more powerful until one day . . . poof, it was all swept away by a bearded magician who brought forth . . . the Tablet. Henceforth, our kind were scattered as rice grains to the wind . . .
More later ;-)
More later ;-)
Unfortunately, Ed, when you start with bad assumptions, you end up with bad conclusions. John is just going to have to accept that some of his assumptions might be incorrect. "Because I say so" is not technical analysis. Correction of fundamental errors in assumptions is not "noise."
I used to work for an aging professor who constantly wrestled with his Apple computer. We'd hear, "@#$%! it, son of a @#$%@& mother-%^$#@!!!!!" from down the hall and everyone would say, "George is making his computer noises again." We got him a new laptop and had to return it after three days because he had broken the "Esc" key.
I used to work for an aging professor who constantly wrestled with his Apple computer. We'd hear, "@#$%! it, son of a @#$%@& mother-%^$#@!!!!!" from down the hall and everyone would say, "George is making his computer noises again." We got him a new laptop and had to return it after three days because he had broken the "Esc" key.
Bonsai,
I guess I missed that model where all my applications will be on the cloud and all of my design work will be in the hands of some other entity where I just have to trust them that somebody won't steal all of my hard work. or better yet have a crash and lose it. We are still being manipulated by a money making machine that wants us to continue to pay to play, even if they keep trying to change the rules. Let's see, they have gotten into DOD computers, infrastructure, financial centers and everything else but we should just trust them they may eventually get security figured out before everything is stolen. besides homeland security that get into everything they possibly can!
I guess I missed that model where all my applications will be on the cloud and all of my design work will be in the hands of some other entity where I just have to trust them that somebody won't steal all of my hard work. or better yet have a crash and lose it. We are still being manipulated by a money making machine that wants us to continue to pay to play, even if they keep trying to change the rules. Let's see, they have gotten into DOD computers, infrastructure, financial centers and everything else but we should just trust them they may eventually get security figured out before everything is stolen. besides homeland security that get into everything they possibly can!
That's just silly. Immersion lith isn't finished yet. What they really need to do is some research on the bug juice, get the index up into double digits.
Then figure out how to make xray opaque masks.
Not a lot...
The synchrotron light sources I am familiar with are great for the R and D portion, athough I never considered how much power would be required to scale it to a wafer.
jn
Ed
There are first a lot of unwanted noise to be read of by a theoretically perfect cartridge/arm/tt set. This noise is embedded in the software (record).
Then is the real -non perfect- cartridge/arm/tt set. This can generate own self operating noise or other noise triggered by the noisy software signal.
Purely mechanically generated noise (in addition to the EM coupled) put it’s stamp over the electrical signal that is to be amplified by the first amplification stage.
We have to know the morphology of this stamp. It is a prerequisite to know the nature of a signal for which one is designing an amplification chain.
Sorry if I distracted anyone.
George
I'll limit myself to three examples.
Noise is not periodic,
You can't do a Laplace transform without the circuit equation
and PSSR does decrease with opamp gain.
I don't intend to be mean, but science is not a democracy.
"He realised the importance of clear and concise language - he was an engineer and had composed the odd song"
(Somewhere in Asimov).
jan
George,
If you don't want to share the Ouzo, let us settle on a bottle of wine.
The issue that is often missed is JC will for example use enough feedback that he is happy with the results. Others will follow; "If a little is good more is better." The problem is that more may bring in something else.
When you add a gain stage to have more feedback you also add noise. so there are tradeoffs involved.
JC is actually surprisingly cautious. He puts resistors around his bifilar power filter inductors, enough is fine asking for too much may ring...
He has used the same basic topology for 30 years. Yes modern opamps do have lower distortion (of course he has been hearing that line for 20 years
) but he likes the sound of his all out discrete designs better... so far. A single figure of merit such as THD does not tell all of the story. Now has JC identified what else there is that differs. Not to the public! (Or does JC even know!)He is a pragmatist, if it works don't fix it.
That's a very difficult question to answer.
Especially when I've absolutely no clue as to what you just said..:
I do know that Intel had some kind of double patterning technique, and I believe they were able to extend EUV down to either 15 or 30 nm from 193nm..
I don't know if anybody's using non linear though. I imagine if people are working on it, they're testing it at a gen 2 or gen 3 light source. Right now, there are some gen 3 machines offshore, ours is not going up to reasonable currents till '15. IBM has a beamline here in perpetuity, I assume they'll move up to the new machine once we decomission the old.. I don't know if any of the wigglers or undulators scheduled for day 1 are IBM or intel.
jn
For the sake of the crypto guys it better not be. A random qaussian distributed value (variable, voltage, whatever) is by definition not periodic or it is not random. That's one reason some security concious folks pay money for CD's of "atmospheric noise".
Last edited:
I don’t like drinking alone. If I have a choice, I prefer a company. Friends or total strangers.
…
One likes playing quitar, Hammond, piano, viola, tt plateau scratching. The “feel” of the instrument is different. But this is just a means, a vehicle. The end is to vent off our soul. Jamming is an opportunity. And a challence.
George
- Status
- Not open for further replies.