World's smallest SRAM memory cell announced by IBM

[PC-Engine]

Yes randycat you labelling it as "blast processing" makes it quite clear you believe it to be nothing more than a "marketing ploy" or myth.

Frankly, both you and PC-Engine are misunderstanding him. Fact is 1T-SRAM is not a SRAM by convention. Randycat never said that it is standard conventional DRAM either. He was mainly complaining about the uninformed handling of buzzwords and the way 1T-SRAM was introduced into a topic which it is not really related to. In my opinion he's right on both assertions.

As on the properties (read my link, above) 1T-SRAM enjoys similiar qualities. It has low latency, although it doesn't have SRAM latencies. Li Mu Bai. Its advantages over SRAM are mainly lower error rates, cheaper production, less heat etc. Anyone who wishes to know more about it should read MoSys's technical articles (believe me, they are very easy to understand).

Thing is nobody said 1T-SRAM-Q is the exact same thing as SRAM. As a matter of fact the 1T should've given this away in the first place. Regardless when was it a requirement that it had to be the exact same thing for it to be compared? Did people not compare DDR to RDRAM? Did people not compare Intel, AMD, and IBM cpus?

 

[Guden Oden]

How credible is (EE) 6.2 GFLOPS + (GS) imaginary GFLOPS > 10.5 GFLOPS???

Just to further the on-going trainwreck that is this thread (and mainly the work of you, I might add), I feel I have a need to ask why you're comparing apples and oranges.

The 10.5Gflops figure you quote for the GC is mainly non-programmable ops bound up in the T&L processor of the Flipper chip and can't be used for anything else than transforming, lighting and clipping rigid geometric models. Gekko's flops figure on the other hand is quite low, on the order of just over 2.something afair. Compared to the 6.2Gflops put forth by the EE on the other hand, clocked at only a bit over HALF of Gekko's speed, is much more impressive. Especially as those flops are fully programmable and can be used for anything that a 32-bit float datatype is suited for.

Do you understand any of this, or will you just reply with some of your usual bullshit and a lol emoticon?

 

[PC-Engine]

Of course I understand this. What are you acting like I have no clue?

Why is it relevent anyway? The GFLOPS comparison is a long time running joke between Randycat and I. It's about bench racing which Randy and his crew is very good at.

Anyhow if you want to compare the chipsets then you have to accept the fact EE's VUs are mostly used for TnL anyway so the cpu core itself ends up being about the same or worse than Gekko so it's moot. Doesn't really matter if it's more flexible if a fix function unit coupled to a capable cpu can do the job just as well or better.

 

[Readykilowatt]

Just to further the on-going trainwreck that is this thread (and mainly the work of you, I might add), I feel I have a need to ask why you're comparing apples and oranges.

It was not PC-Engine who derailed this thread.

 

[Gubbi]

A critical component for high-speed computer memory that is about ten times smaller than those currently available was unveiled by IBM today.

The new IBM SRAM (static random access memory) cell is less than half the size of the smallest experimental cell reported to date, and ten times smaller than those available today. IBM says this new cell has the potential to give a major system performance boost for critical business applications like banking and digital media.

IBM says its researchers optimized the SRAM cell design and circuit layout to improve stability and developed several novel fabrication processes in order to make the new SRAM cell possible.

It's a publicity stunt.

Made using boutique lithography.

Cheers
Gubbi

 

[PC-Engine]

Heh it's using a 32nm blast process...

It's water under the bridge at this point, and doesn't make a GC any slower or less enjoyable as before.

Oh the irony.

Next time try not to bring GC into a discussion about SRAM, it might end up biting you in the you know what.

 

[randycat99]

Yeah, and you thought it was behaving as an "infinite Q" device. Yes, constant Q exists, but you still to this day do not understand what it really does.

Actually that's what basically happens when you increase the gain. Just look at the bell curve.

Funny how you thought every EQ was desgined the conventional way where it's not possible to boost a very narrow frequency ie 20kHz...

Constant Q boosts a narrow range of frequencies. It doesn't boost a frequency. What you had mistaken it for was some sort of fanciful "infinite Q" in the audio range. Either way, it doesn't exist as you have thought. Your knowledge of audio components (even with the info right before you in your own links) is equally ridiculous as your knowledge of techno buzzwords here in 3D graphics.

Actually I asked how the Mosys 1T-SRAM compared and since you don't know yourself you assume it's just marketing with ZERO evidence to back it up. Not really surprising though, considering you got nice smack downs in the past and again yesterday then again right now.

Yes, these "smackdowns" from you are sure frightening (1T frightening, that is). Keep readin' those cereal boxes- you almost got it!...

Everytime I see one of your superfluous posts with no substance to back it up it reminds me of the good old days at GTForums where your equally cluelss friends came to try and back you up to only get beat down with real cold hard evidence. Nice to see you behaving at Beyond3D where people here understand and can appreciate PowerVR technology.

Wtf? Everyone thought you were ridiculous there [NEC Avenue? ] as you are here. Go figure!

Wait...so you claim the question is rediculous to only backpedal and offer your WORD that it's purely marking? Riiiiiight. Who are you anyway...God???

Take or leave it. It's not like no one ever told you now. You just refuse to listen.

 

[PC-Engine]

Constant Q boosts a narrow range of frequencies. It doesn't boost a frequency. What you had mistaken it for was some sort of fanciful "infinite Q" in the audio range. Either way, it doesn't exist as you have thought. Your knowledge of audio components (even with the info right before you in your own links) is equally ridiculous as your knowledge of techno buzzwords here in 3D graphics.

You had no clue as to why Constant Q was brought up back then and you still don't have a clue even now. That probably explains your desparate retort at turning this into a semantics argument.

When you were later shown that 20kHz adjustments on EQs do exist , you retorted to talking about how boosting one 20kHz frequency slider had to also boost remote frequencies like 16kHz since you didn't know about the existence of Constant Q EQs.


Yes when I boost that 20kHz slider with 10+dB of gain, I'm not really hearing anything in the 20kHz range but in fact am only hearing the 16kHz range that most people according to you cannot hear beyond even though it's a Constant Q EQ design and even though the adjacent sliders are at 0dB. You think only 3-band EQs exists? How about 20 or 30 band Constant Q EQs?

Yes, these "smackdowns" from you are sure frightening (1T frightening, that is). Keep readin' those cereal boxes- you almost got it!...

We all know how you can't admit that Xbox and GCN are more powerful than PS2 Mr. Randycat, but statements like these:

We're not talking about simple MPEG2 decoding, anymore (of which the XCPU would have been barely capable of

doesn't really add to your credibility which you seem to place much importance on.

Wtf? Everyone thought you were ridiculous there [NEC Avenue? ] as you are here. Go figure!

I think you meant everyone of your friends over there which really wasn't a suprise considering they knew nothing about what the console specs meant just like yourself and your rose tinted PS2 > GCN and Xbox dreams .

BTW what happened to your friend JMII? I heard he got demoted from moderator status while Novicious an Xbox owner being promoted? You must of have been steaming over that.

Welcome to the B3D boards Randycat, where PowerVR technology is appreciated starting way back when this board was just Dimension3D which I also was a forum member with my PowerVR PCX1 PCI card.

It's pretty difficult to downplay PowerVRs TBDR technology here with only your WORD to back it up.

 

[Ty]

Welcome to the B3D boards Randycat, where PowerVR technology is appreciated starting way back when this board was just Dimension3D which I also was a forum member with my PowerVR PCX1 PCI card.

Err, afaik this board was NOT Dimension3D and Azbat (Tommy McClain who owned it originally with some guy - I think Sam?) - can attest to.

Yes, many original members such as Kristof, Joe, mfa, & myself came over here when that site stopped.

 

[randycat99]

When you were later shown that 20kHz adjustments on EQs do exist , you retorted to talking about how boosting one 20kHz frequency slider had to also boost remote frequencies like 16kHz since you didn't know about the existence of Constant Q EQs.

Constant Q EQ's are fairly common, ya'know. In fact, any of us who have touched a little box with multiple sliders is then familiar with a constant Q device. So saying I didn't know about their existence is pretty ridiculous. What you still don't get is that a constant Q device does indeed effect a residual boost upon neighboring frequencies, regardless of the the magnitude of boost. That is the whole essence of constant Q. The ratio of the amplitude of sideband frequencies always remains constant to the center frequency, in a device of this nature. The scenario you had envisioned was one that soley affected one frequency, hence suggesting an infinite Q, which essentially does not exist in any product you could buy for use on audio. That's the bottomline- no and's, if's, or but's. It doesn't matter if you have a Rane hooked up to your disc player or not- it is either a constant or variable Q, and you are wishfully thinking it is operating as an infinite Q device. Sorry.

Yes when I boost that 20kHz slider with 10+dB of gain, I'm not really hearing anything in the 20kHz range but in fact am only hearing the 16kHz range that most people according to you cannot hear beyond even though it's a Constant Q EQ design and even though the adjacent sliders are at 0dB.

This perfectly encapsulates your woeful lack of understanding on the topic. For all you know, you were boosting 10 dB of HF noise and counting that as hearing an "improvement".

I think you meant everyone of your friends over there which really wasn't a suprise considering they knew nothing about what the console specs meant just like yourself and your rose tinted PS2 > GCN and Xbox dreams .

Yes, everyone except you was in a cloud. You realize how that sounds, don't you? 2 words- Occam's Razor.

BTW what happened to your friend JMII? I heard he got demoted from moderator status while Novicious an Xbox owner being promoted? You must of have been steaming over that.

You have an eerie sense of dementia if you actually think I would be amiss over this in the slightest. Look at yourself- dragging out stupid events that happened in another website forum?! That's just pathetic. IIRC, not even Novicus would care to stand behind you and your curious persona. You were indeed alone there, even counting the XB luva's in that room. What would that indicate to you? I have a guess what others here must think of you given that context...

Welcome to the B3D boards Randycat, where PowerVR technology is appreciated starting way back when this board was just Dimension3D which I also was a forum member with my PowerVR PCX1 PCI card.

I'm sure the board dearly appreciates you speaking on their behalf. That is indeed a treat, to be sure! Viva la PowerVR!!! (or something rather)

It's pretty difficult to downplay PowerVRs TBDR technology here with only your WORD to back it up.

Kay, good luck with that!... (no offense to those more rational beings here who have an appreciation for PowerVR I mean seriously, what's with him bringing up PowerVR outta the blue? Does he think he is Osama calling out to his followers for support in secret code or something? Bizarre, I tell ya. You folks best keep a safe distance from this one. I fear he may be a hair trigger away from a meltdown...)

Now back to this IBM SRAM! It's pretty fast, no? Yes, I believe so! Should lead to some sick hardware in the not so far future. Clever fellows they are, looking so far ahead of the technology curve.

 

[PC-Engine]

Constant Q EQ's are fairly common, ya'know. In fact, any of us who have touched a little box with multiple sliders is then familiar with a constant Q device. So saying I didn't know about their existence is pretty ridiculous.

Heh that's why Constant Q EQs touts their adavantages compared to conventional EQs. Hey is't all marketing right?

What you still don't get is that a constant Q device does indeed effect a residual boost upon neighboring frequencies, regardless of the the magnitude of boost. That is the whole essence of constant Q. The ratio of the amplitude of sideband frequencies always remains constant to the center frequency, in a device of this nature.

Of course it stays constant, that's why when you boost 20kHz, it's only boosting that very narrow range of frequencies. It's not boosting 16kHz which is 3 or 4 sliders down depending on the number of bands in the EQ which a non Constant Q EQ would do. Constant Q allows a sharp spike or curve not a square bar boost which would boost the neighboring frequencies like 19kHz equally.

The scenario you had envisioned was one that soley affected one frequency, hence suggesting an infinite Q, which essentially does not exist in any product you could buy for use on audio. That's the bottomline- no and's, if's, or but's. It doesn't matter if you have a Rane hooked up to your disc player or not- it is either a constant or variable Q, and you are wishfully thinking it is operating as an infinite Q device. Sorry.

No that's not what I'd envisioned sorry. That's what you tried to twist the argument into ie a semantics issue. The whole argument was about the ability to hear up to 20kHz using an EQ to help boost the 20kHz frequency to audible levels. Yes when I increase the gain at 20kHz it also slightly increases the gain of neighboring frequencies like 19kHz which probalby isn't even high enough to be noticed/heard anyway considering the frequency that gets the most gain is...surprise...the center frequency which just happens to be 20kHz. Your argument was about the possibility that it may have been a lower frequency like 16kHz that I was actually hearing since you said most people can't hear up to 20kHz anyway.

This perfectly encapsulates your woeful lack of understanding on the topic. For all you know, you were boosting 10 dB of HF noise and counting that as hearing an "improvement".

If it sounds better then it sounds better. It's the end result that matters. It's not like the S/N ratio is low 20dB.

Yes, everyone except you was in a cloud. You realize how that sounds, don't you?

You mean the cloud that is PS2 hype over there?

You have an eerie sense of dementia if you actually think I would be amiss over this in the slightest. Look at yourself- dragging out stupid events that happened in another website forum?! That's just pathetic. IIRC, not even Novicus would care to stand behind you and your curious persona. You were indeed alone there, even counting the XB luva's in that room.

The only reason why I'm bringing this to your attention is to show how two-faced you are. At least when I was over there I acted the same as I've always acted over here. Whether people agreed with me or not is irrelevent since everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It doesn't make you or me more or less credible...oh wait unless it's statements like:

"insert uninformed statement here"

I'm sure the board dearly appreciates you speaking on their behalf. That is indeed a treat, to be sure! Viva la PowerVR!!! (or something rather)

Not speaking on their behalf, just letting you know what's been happening here and Dimension3D long before you registered just in case you decide to make uninformed comments like how DC's bandwidth is small compared to X console so it's not as powerful.

Now back to this IBM SRAM! It's pretty fast, no? Yes, I believe so! Should lead to some sick hardware in the not so far future. Clever fellows they are, looking so far ahead of the technology curve.

By the time IBM commercialize this 32nm tech, other companies would have achieved similar progress -> 90nm, 65nm, 32nm.

Oh btw the 1T in 1T-SRAM isn't marketing at all. It stands for 1 transistor, but you knew that too right? You do know that fewer transistors take up less space, consume less power......right? Heh you probably didn't know that standard SRAM uses a 6 transistors structure either.

That's another thought to add to your list of what you thought. May I suggest Captain Crunch or Kellogs Frosted Flakes.

Welcome to the B3D boards Randycat, where PowerVR technology is appreciated starting way back when this board was just Dimension3D which I also was a forum member with my PowerVR PCX1 PCI card.

Err, afaik this board was NOT Dimension3D and Azbat (Tommy McClain who owned it originally with some guy - I think Sam?) - can attest to.

Yes, many original members such as Kristof, Joe, mfa, & myself came over here when that site stopped.

You could be right...it's been awhile ago. I just know that Kristof got hired by Imgtech which was pretty cool and Simon F worked on CLX in DC. Back then Joe Defuria was the Devils advocate and 3Dfx promoter. I also remember Dave Glue too. 8)

 

[randycat99]

Constant Q EQ's are fairly common, ya'know. In fact, any of us who have touched a little box with multiple sliders is then familiar with a constant Q device. So saying I didn't know about their existence is pretty ridiculous.

Heh that's why Constant Q EQs touts their adavantages compared to conventional EQs. Hey is't all marketing right?

Constant Q is indicative of "conventional EQ's" you find in a store. Jesus! It's variable Q that is the more rare and more fancy type. Man, do you suck at this stuff! It's like arguing with some salesfloor kiddy at Best Buy...

Of course it stays constant,...

The amplitude ratio is constant. Do you even have a concept of what "it" is???

...that's why when you boost 20kHz, it's only boosting that very narrow range of frequencies.

It depends on the Q of the filter, and in audio applications, Q is such that you would be affecting more than just "19 kHz". You could be affecting frequencies all the way from 1/3 to 1 octave away from the center-frequency along a logarithmic taper. At a boost of 10 dB, you are likely boosting frequencies in the next "slider" over by as much as 2-3 dB which only increases as you get closer to the center frequency. (Heard of "overlap"?)

It's not boosting 16kHz which is 3 or 4 sliders down...

This entirely depends on the Q of the filters. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The selection of center frequencies does not make a hard rule that they are entirely independent in their effect. It only demarcates the center frequency you will target by actuating the slider.

Constant Q allows a sharp spike or curve not a square bar boost which would boost the neighboring frequencies like 19kHz equally.

You've seriously jumped the shark now! There is no "type" of EQ that effects a "square bar boost" other than how it displays it. The entire family of filters you have been speaking of operate at varied degrees of "spike" vs. curve (.i.e, Q ).

The whole argument was about the ability to hear up to 20kHz using an EQ to help boost the 20kHz frequency to audible levels. Yes when I increase the gain at 20kHz it also slightly increases the gain of neighboring frequencies like 19kHz which probalby isn't even high enough to be noticed/heard anyway considering the frequency that gets the most gain is...surprise...the center frequency which just happens to be 20kHz.

...and this would only be true if you indeed had some fantasy EQ that happened to have nearly infinite Q filters- hence, you clearly think this thing operates as a device that has no practical existence in the audio world. What is really happening is 19 kHz will be affected quite similarly to 20 kHz (due to such close proximity). You may experience sympathetic boost as far as 1/3 octave away- which would be 16 kHz-ish...

Your argument was about the possibility that it may have been a lower frequency like 16kHz that I was actually hearing since you said most people can't hear up to 20kHz anyway.

...and that's the catch to it all. You have no way of telling for sure what you are hearing just by moving a freakin' slider, unless you also have a scope, test signals, and/or full spectral and temporal breakdown of your music program.

If it sounds better then it sounds better. It's the end result that matters. It's not like the S/N ratio is low 20dB.

The pathetic thing of all this is you are so far off from understanding why all your equipment affects the sound like it does. You just tie a pretty theory that fits your expectations to it, and viola, it is then PCE "fact".

You mean the cloud that is PS2 hype over there?

I suppose any place that doesn't hate PS2 outright would appear so to you.

The only reason why I'm bringing this to your attention is to show how two-faced you are. At least when I was over there I acted the same as I've always acted over here. Whether people agreed with me or not is irrelevent since everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It doesn't make you or me more or less credible...oh wait unless it's statements like:

"insert uninformed statement here"

'kay, that response from you made very little sense at all. You are just rambling now.

Not speaking on their behalf...

It appears you are.

...just letting you know what's been happening here and Dimension3D long before you registered just in case you decide to make uninformed comments like how DC's bandwidth is small compared to X console so it's not as powerful.

I have seen it all now. You have introduced a new topic derailment to your own topic derailment. DC bandwidth? Where did that come from? (Don't answer, cuz it doesn't belong in this topic)

Oh btw the 1T in 1T-SRAM isn't marketing at all. It stands for 1 transistor, but you knew that too right? You do know that fewer transistors take up less space, consume less power......right? Heh you probably didn't know that standard SRAM uses a 6 transistors structure either.

Brilliant! Nobody knew that except you...yah! Thank you for going NDA rogue on us. ...and get your own trash talk jokes, for cryin' out loud. Makes you seem like you are 12 or something, can't think of your own original material.

 

[PC-Engine]

Constant Q is indicative of "conventional EQ's" you find in a store. Jesus! It's variable Q that is the more rare and more fancy type. Man, do you suck at this stuff! It's like arguing with some salesfloor kiddy at Best Buy...

You are seriously in denial here.

The amplitude ratio is constant. Do you even have a concept of what "it" is???

Yes the bandwidth doesn't widen drastically like on conventional EQs when the gain is increased that's why overlap is a moot issue.

It depends on the Q of the filter, and in audio applications, Q is such that you would be affecting more than just "19 kHz". You could be affecting frequencies all the way from 1/3 to 1 octave away from the center-frequency along a logarithmic taper. At a boost of 10 dB, you are likely boosting frequencies in the next "slider" over by as much as 2-3 dB which only increases as you get closer to the center frequency. (Heard of "overlap"?)

This entirely depends on the Q of the filters. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The selection of center frequencies does not make a hard rule that they are entirely independent in their effect. It only demarcates the center frequency you will target by actuating the slider.

Oh so now it depends on the Q? Nice shift heh you didn't think none would notice? It's called Constant Q for a reason not to mention 30 bands of adjustment on some models.

You've seriously jumped the shark now! There is no "type" of EQ that effects a "square bar boost" other than how it displays it. The entire family of filters you have been speaking of operate at varied degrees of "spike" vs. curve (.i.e, Q ).

I know a square bar boost doesn't exist and you're missing the point trying to act like I didnn't know it doesn't exist? I was using it as an example to show what a Constant Q EQ is not supposed to do ie boost nearby frequencies EQUALLY like 18, 17, and your wonderful 16kHz which is magically affected using your argument which has shifted to depending on Q.

...and this would only be true if you indeed had some fantasy EQ that happened to have nearly infinite Q filters- hence, you clearly think this thing operates as a device that has no practical existence in the audio world. What is really happening is 19 kHz will be affected quite similarly to 20 kHz (due to such close proximity). You may experience sympathetic boost as far as 1/3 octave away- which would be 16 kHz-ish...

Of course it would be affected, but similarly? I doubt it, especially on a 30 band Constant Q EQ.

...and that's the catch to it all. You have no way of telling for sure what you are hearing just by moving a freakin' slider, unless you also have a scope, test signals, and/or full spectral and temporal breakdown of your music program.

Not even if you attenuate the adjacent sliders for testing purposes?

The pathetic thing of all this is you are so far off from understanding why all your equipment affects the sound like it does. You just tie a pretty theory that fits your expectations to it, and viola, it is then PCE "fact".

I understand it quite clearly, it's not particularly rocket science.

I suppose any place that doesn't hate PS2 outright would appear so to you

Any place that have a group of members who think PS2 > Xbox/GCN.

'kay, that response from you made very little sense at all. You are just rambling now.

Apparently Mr. Hyde has take a long hiatus.

It appears you are.

Coming from you a lot of things can appear to be something than it really is.

Brilliant! Nobody knew that except you...yah! Thank you for going NDA rogue on us. ...and get your own trash talk jokes, for cryin' out loud. Makes you seem like you are 12 or something, can't think of your own original material.

Just using your own jokes to demonstrate how it fits your own logic quite well. 1T is marketing....riiigggtt.

 

[randycat99]

Constant Q is indicative of "conventional EQ's" you find in a store. Jesus! It's variable Q that is the more rare and more fancy type. Man, do you suck at this stuff! It's like arguing with some salesfloor kiddy at Best Buy...

You are seriously in denial here.

Don't believe it? Look it up...

The amplitude ratio is constant. Do you even have a concept of what "it" is???

Yes the bandwidth doesn't widen drastically like on conventional EQs when the gain is increased that's why overlap is a moot issue.

What you have is a conventional EQ. It's just more bands and higher Q's, perhaps. Yes, there is overlap, and yes your sidebands on a 20 kHz slider will extend further than your fanciful 1 kHz estimation. Raise it 10 dB, and you will easily find the next band over will have a sympathetic rise of 2-3 dB (or more, perhaps).

Oh so now it depends on the Q? Nice shift heh you didn't think none would notice? It's called Constant Q for a reason not to mention 30 bands of adjustment on some models.

Different EQ's may employ a different Q value. The operation of the designated Q of a filter in a specific EQ will be constant in a constant Q filter. You're really grasping for straws. The Q may be 10 in one model, it may be 50 in another, it entirely depends on the product. For certain, it won't be infinite as you have described your Rane EQ to operate (20 kHz only with infinite drop-off going higher or lower).

I know a square bar boost doesn't exist and you're missing the point trying to act like I didnn't know it doesn't exist? I was using it as an example to show what a Constant Q EQ is not supposed to do ie boost nearby frequencies EQUALLY like 18, 17, and your wonderful 16kHz which is magically affected using your argument which has shifted to depending on Q.

Then you are arguing against a strawman of your own making. No one has suggested that the "constant" in "constant Q" implies equal boosting on nearby frequencies. As has been said to you over and over, "constant" refers to an amplitude ratio of the center frequency compared to a given sideband frequency, of which the ratio remains the same. You boost the center frequency, the side frequencies will follow by the same ratio. The boost won't be the same, but the ratio will be.

Don't believe it? Look it up. I'm not going to bother repeating it to you any longer.

Of course it would be affected, but similarly? I doubt it, especially on a 30 band Constant Q EQ.

By amplitude ratio, yes. It works that way whether it is 30 bands or 3 bands. It's just higher Q's in the 30 band model.

Not even if you attenuate the adjacent sliders for testing purposes?

Possibly it will address sympathetic boost in adjacent bands, if you attenuate by an equal amount to the boost. You will still fail to isolate the boost to a single frequency. It was simply never designed to do that.

I understand it quite clearly, it's not particularly rocket science.

True, it isn't, but you still managed to fubar it in your head. What does that tell you?

Just using your own jokes to demonstrate how it fits your own logic quite well. 1T is marketing....riiigggtt.

No, you are just that uncreative and witless. You don't even pick up that it isn't the "1T" that is the flakey marketing. It's the "SRAM" that is. Now just let it rest, already.

 

[PC-Engine]

Don't believe it? Look it up...

Why do I need to look it up? I've been reading many comparisons where they compared Constant Q to "conventional" non-Constant Q/Proportional Q designs. Variable Q designs aka Parametrics are nice in that you can vary the Q but they're usually crippled with only having 3 to 6 individual bands.

What you have is a conventional EQ. It's just more bands and higher Q's, perhaps. Yes, there is overlap, and yes your sidebands on a 20 kHz slider will extend further than your fanciful 1 kHz estimation. Raise it 10 dB, and you will easily find the next band over will have a sympathetic rise of 2-3 dB (or more, perhaps).

Different EQ's may employ a different Q value. The operation of the designated Q of a filter in a specific EQ will be constant in a constant Q filter. You're really grasping for straws. The Q may be 10 in one model, it may be 50 in another, it entirely depends on the product. For certain, it won't be infinite as you have described your Rane EQ to operate (20 kHz only with infinite drop-off going higher or lower).

Rane DEQ 60

It's not Constant - not Proportional - It's Perfect! Digital Signal Processing (DSP) allows filter technology not possible with analog designs. Rane coined (and registered as a trademark) the term Perfect-Q to describe the results (U.S. & international patents filed). The DEQ 60 is the first graphic equalizer to use this revolutionary technology. Perfect-Q features virtually no band interaction and extremely low ripple between adjacent bands. The result: the world's first graphic equalizer whose output response precisely matches slider settings. And, just to keep things interesting and flexible, fear not proportional-Q lovers, for each channel of the DEQ 60 is selectable between Perfect-Q or proportional-Q response.

Hey I guess it's just marketing right? Oh btw I don't think Best Buy carries that either.

Then you are arguing against a strawman of your own making. No one has suggested that the "constant" in "constant Q" implies equal boosting on nearby frequencies. As has been said to you over and over, "constant" refers to an amplitude ratio of the center frequency compared to a given sideband frequency, of which the ratio remains the same. You boost the center frequency, the side frequencies will follow by the same ratio. The boost won't be the same, but the ratio will be.

The point was that the *sympathetic* boost as you call it of adjacent sliders is close to zero in a Constant Q design, therefore it will have little to no audible affect.

By amplitude ratio, yes. It works that way whether it is 30 bands or 3 bands. It's just higher Q's in the 30 band model.

Yes however on a 3 band EQ the next adjacent slider is several octaves away so boosting one frequency usually encompasses the boost of many frequencies significantly across several octaves.

True, it isn't, but you still managed to fubar it in your head. What does that tell you?

According to you and your WORD yes, however, it has been clearly demonstrated that your WORD can be quite wrong.

No, you are just that uncreative and witless. You don't even pick up that it isn't the "1T" that is the flakey marketing. It's the "SRAM" that is.

If it offers near SRAM performance back when it was introduced using less transistors, less die space, and consume less power, then who's to say it's just marketing? You still haven't come up with any evidence to support your assertion that it doesn't compare in performance and functionality beyond weak "take it or leave it".

 

[Li Mu Bai]

An epic audio knowledge & interpretation battle ensues.......my money's on PC.

 

[randycat99]

Yes, fine, Rane has a DSP EQ now. Very flexible and capable over traditional analog designs. Is this what you use in your system?

This does not change the fact that the typical EQ found in a store is still a constant Q design (though obviously not as featured as your Rane example), and the distinguishing feature you really had in mind was a digital EQ design. It also doesn't change the fact that 1T SRAM is not really SRAM, nor does it seem good enough for all the major CPU makers to suddenly pick it up for L2 cache use for all its packaging benefits. So yes, it does appear to be more a marketing buzzword than real benefit.

 

[one]

Is this a console talk?

 

[randycat99]

I agree, it should be- specifically about IBM's SRAM. I also apologize to the original topic poster for OT discussion I participated in here.

Oh and btw, PC-E, take a look at the frequency response rating of this nifty device. Hint: It's not going to help you much on your SACD/DVDA enjoyment that you care so much about...

 

[PC-Engine]

It also doesn't change the fact that 1T SRAM is not really SRAM, nor does it seem good enough for all the major CPU makers to suddenly pick it up for L2 cache use for all its packaging benefits. So yes, it does appear to be more a marketing buzzword than real benefit.

First of all nobody claimed it was exactly the same as 6T SRAM but that doesn't prevent one from comparing them. Second it could be any number of reasons why other chip manufacturers are not using it. It could be because you have to license the technology from Mosys. Or it could be that it has limitations in it's implementation like requiring an extra step in manufacturing etc. Who knows? Just because others are not using it doesn't mean it's not comparible to traditional SRAM. However TMSC has licensed 1T-SRAM as well as NEC so there are uses for it as an SRAM alternative. Ever heard of QDR SRAM? Is it used by every other company? Is it really SRAM?

It's not going to help you much on your SACD/DVDA enjoyment that you care so much about...

FYI, I purchased it before I purchased my DVD-A player ie it was used for CDA initially.

Regardless it's not like the response at 20kHz suddenly drops like a brick. It probably extends all the way up to 30kHz at -10dB.

When I listen to DVD-A I can choose to bypass the EQ depending on the sampling frequency of the track. Normally at 48kHz I use the EQ, at 96kHz I bypass the EQ depending on the quality of the mix.