Hi, Arpad; Moving the Selector to the right side does not save time-domain simulation because it makes the modified impulse returned by Rx Init based on the modified impulse returned by Tx Init and Tx Use_Init_Output is False. Moreover, you can't assume that Rx Init modifies the input impulse by convolving it with a filter. In my opinion (I pointed out last year) the November flow does not really address this issue. It works only if above assumption is true. In addition, de-convolution is still required in certain cases in the November flow. Regards, Fangyi -----Original Message----- From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:08 PM To: ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM teleconference Fangyi, Thanks for your comments. I agree with your observations. In fact this is why Walter was right when he wrote in his recent comment that the Tx Init Output Selector box on my latest drawing should be on the right side instead of the left side. That way both statistical and time domain simulations would be correct without having to sacrifice either one of them over the other. The problem is that making that change would deviate from the flow in more than just changing the order of steps 4 and 5 as described in the existing specification in section 2.3 and it would also bring us back to the issue of having to do a deconvolution for certain configurations, which is why it was suggested to me to move that selector to the left side a week ago. I am beginning to see why Walter said that the entire flow is flawed in the existing specification... The more I push and shove the blocks around in this flow diagram, the more I feel that the November flow is the right way to go. It seems that we have already figured it all out in the fall how to do this right, and no matter how hard we try to be minimalistic in fixing the spec, the best way to do it is as described in the November flow. Thanks, Arpad ==================================================================== -----Original Message----- From: fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:fangyi_rao@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:32 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: AMI_Flows_6.pdf for today's ATM teleconference Hi, Arpad; In the current BIRD only section 2.3 defines the control of Tx Use_Init_Output on input impulse response to the Rx Init call. The excerpt quoted in Walter's email is actually for the control of input waveform to the Rx GetWave call. Your flow presented in the last meeting is consistent with section 2.3. A key difficulty arises from the condition when Tx has GetWave, Tx Use_Init_Output is False and Rx Use_Init_Output is True. If the input impulse to Rx Init is the original impulse input to Tx Init, then the time-domain bit-by-bit simulation is fine but the statistical simulation is broken. If the input impulse to Rx Init is the modified impulse returned by Tx Init, then the statistical simulation is fine but the time-domain simulation is broken. Given the fact that time-domain simulation captures more effects of nonlinear models, it seems we should give it higher priority over statistical simulation. Regards, Fangyi --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/ IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro To unsubscribe send an email: To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: unsubscribe --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/ IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro To unsubscribe send an email: To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: unsubscribe