|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Re: test for transients posted by mfc on July 18, 2003 at 22:14:39:
mfc,
one other thing, your step size doesn't seem to be related to your signal period. I use a professional IC design system (Cadence) that uses DFT rather than FFT and this isn't to fussy about setting up the transient timestep. So, it's been a few years since I used FFTs but I recal for best accuracy we'd force the timestep to be
1/(X2^n-1) of the signal period. This guarantees a multiple of 2^n points and you can use these to calculate the FFT rather than interpolating if the FFT points do not lie exactly on the transient timepoints that SPICE chose.
Alternatively, you can specify maxstep to this value which will allow SPICE to use finer points if it thinks its necesary but there will always be points exactly where you want to calculate an FFT.
However, I feel if you're forcing the step size for accuracy then set just timestep with finer resolutions until you don't see any improvement.Regards
13DoW
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: test for transients - 13th Duke of Wymbourne 07/19/0321:05:22 07/19/03 (2)
- Re: test for transients - mfc 17:01:29 07/22/03 (0)
- Re: test for transients - john curl 15:09:36 07/21/03 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
