Quote:

Originally Posted by

**Dave_Amels**
I can see you modeling a non-ideal transformer as an equivalent circuit... just not the hysteresis effect as a circuit. You can model it mathematically... just not seeing a circuit for that. Are you sure you mean circuit and not the mathematical model?

Well, that's simple. I start from schematics. Then I look for some simple gross emulation of non-components parts like a transformer. Then I struggle to include this part in the circuits as much as I can. From here on listening tests are started. Sometimes circuit replacement for non-circuital parts are effective. It's all math, after all, and realtime dsp requires such a level of simplification that starting from circuits or from other kinds of modeling (tables, differential equations, etc.) can converge to the same kind of mathematical structure.

You know, marketing pushes for a bold "circuit modeling" or "analog modeling" definition, but it's just a formal scheme. That's all mathematical modeling.

My feeling is that the more I can bring the system to the same formal dimension and integrate it (e.g. model magnets with circuits near a circuit modeled electronic network) the more the overall model sounds organic and smoothly interacting.

If you look at a transformer core as a non-linear filter which saturates and changes its frequency response with level, and then model this filter as a circuit... etc. etc.

Not a single model is strictly circuit modeled or table based or differential eq based or anything (I mean not only one method), here, because the final freehand touch is essential for us to like it