38 pointsby rbanffy3 days ago6 comments
  • MEMS devices absolutely blew my mind the first time I read about them. Thinking: "yeah, this just shouldn't exist". Like, how can you make something with moving parts out of something that normally doesn't move (polycrystalline silicon), and is very fragile at that, all the while doing it at a scale that you require similar processes as 'normal' semiconductors. You can make physical oscillators like the peeps do in this article and have surrounding circuitry to drive and measure them, levers and actuators to mount actual tools onto: probes to manipulate single cells, mirrors to control light (looking at you, DLP) and so many other things. Super interesting!
    • nwiswella day ago
      > out of something that normally doesn't move (polycrystalline silicon)

      More commonly, bulk micromachined MEMS devices are monocrystalline.

      > and is very fragile at that

      Normalizing for density, monocrystalline silicon is stronger than steel!

      • Whoops, yep, thanks for the correction! What's a Greek prefix between friends (save for crystal properties).
    • amelius19 hours ago
      I once heard a story about a MEMS device. It was about a tiny motor that could do a million revolutions per second. However, as it turned out it would break after 1 second.
      • rcxdude18 hours ago
        Yeah, this is a common issue. There was a lot of hype initially about basically just taking large-scale mechanical designs and shrinking them. The issue is that anything where you have moving parts in contact, they wear extremely quickly because things tend to stick together at that scale (combined with extremely fast speeds involved in scaling things down)

        All the MEMS that are actually used in practice avoid this: they are effectively entirely flexural structures, nothing rubs against anything else, they just flex in place. This kind of structure can last almost indefinitely (especially since they're usually made of a single crystal, making the usual creep/cracking wear mechanisms mostly a non-issue)

  • kurthra day ago
    One thing to realize about MEMS is that it is mostly used for sensors (accelerometers, gyros, pressure, magnetometers) and actuators. There's a whole journal by that name.

    Fundamentally, an oscillator/resonator is the sensing of nothing.

    You want the frequency of output to be completely independent of acceleration, strain, rotation, pressure, magnetic/electric field, etc). That's really hard to do and involves a combination of building very robust silicon packaging, minimizing (making symmetric) all contacts to the outside to shield it, and compensating for every possible effect you can measure.

    • klysma day ago
      A sensor of nothing is an interesting way of looking at it, I like that characterization. Ideally you shouldn’t be able to infer a single thing about the environment from the signal
    • rcxdudea day ago
      Yeah, like all sensors, basically anything you make in MEMS is a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, an acceleration sensor, and a strain gauge all in one. The trick is to make it only sense the thing you want.
  • boomskatsa day ago
    FWIW I'm very impressed with the xMEMS tweeters in my earphones. I'd say they have the widest soundstage of any earphone i've ever listened to (even over lossy LC3). The MEMS mic on my qudelix 5k is also really good.
    • snvzza day ago
      Measurements, please. Everything else is subjective.

      If xMEMS is that good, it should be easy to verify in frequency response and harmonic distortion plots.

      • klysma day ago
        I think the term soundstage is reserved for qualitative aspects beyond freq response, but I’m not enough of an audiophile to know
        • snvzza day ago
          While a party trick, it can be quantized.

          Rtings does it in its automated reviews.

      • amelius19 hours ago
        What kind of device would you want to use for the measurements? Conventional? MEMS?
      • boomskats16 hours ago
        My comment above is entirely subjective, but that's exactly as intended. I was trying to express my personal opinion, hence I scoped it to my own experience. Sorry if that was unclear.

        I think there are graphs out there showing some pretty good distortion measurements for xMEMS tweeters (I googled [0]), but for what it's worth I'm not too big on FR and THD curves these days, as I've not found them to be a great predictor of actual subjective listening pleasure. For example, some of my favourite audio gear, like my Letshouer ej07 earphones or Audio.gd NFB-28.38 DAC, look like absolute trash on paper in terms of FR/THD; yet, for whatever reason, they're the ones I _enjoy_ listening to the most and can get lost in for hours.

        I feel like I'm about to go off on one and risk sounding like one of those gold-plated hdmi cable people, and this next bit is going to be tenuous and probably not entirely correct, but I'm gonna write it down anyway. I also feel like I need to point out that the most expensive cable I own cost like 30 quid, and that I'm far from a neuroscientist and would love to be corrected on any of these assumptions that follow. With that said -

        I have come to believe that there's more to listening experience and auditory immersion than the measurements that are typically published and most people look for on paper. This is why one of the characteristics of MEMS speakers that I find most interesting, that isn't typically measured, is the phase accuracy and coherence that they're capable of across their entire frequency response, probably due to their smaller size, lighter moving mass, flat driver surface & more consistent silicone-based manufacturing process.

        I've always found the way our brains process audio signals fascinating. Think about binaural beats, and the fact that we're able to hear them _at all_. If you were to take a 'binaural beat' recording listen to just the left channel, you hear a drone; listen to the right on it's own and you get the same thing at a slightly different pitch. But put each channel to each ear and you'll also hear this lower frequency oscillation in the middle of your head. Sure you'd expect this from a mixing desk or a pair of speakers a few feet away, but these are earphones - there's no crosstalk, the waves never interact, they don't have a chance to interfere. There's no actual physics involved. Instead, somewhere in there, your brain is summing the two _perceived signals_, and what you're hearing is the interference pattern of the waves interacting. _In your brain_. The fact that we don't have mixing desks in our heads - our ears aren't microphones, there are no line level signals being summed - yet we can still somehow hear that interference, has always blown my mind a bit.

        So whenever I've thought about this stuff, I've always kind of assumed that it's that same part of our brain that's responsible for our auditory spatial localisation, and that the delay/phase shift between the left and right signal that we get from off-centre sound sources must create some kind of comb filter in our heads that our brains use to say 'ah ok that's sound came from over there'. I'd assume this makes less of a difference at higher frequencies given that the wavelength of a 2khz sound is shorter than the distance between our ears, and obviously there is more to auditory spatial perception than just phase (volume, relative frequency response from our faces being in the way, etc.). Otherwise we'd be able to produce realistic binaural recordings without having to use those fake human heads with mics in their ears.

        Anyway, I think this is why planar magnetic headphones, and to an extent electrostatic speakers (where the driver diaphragm is completely flat, way lighter than conventional cones with magnets attached to them, and hence can move much more uniformly keeping phase distortion almost non-existent) are capable of projecting a soundstage that our brains can at the height of listening enjoyment perceive as wider or more 'multi-dimensional' than what we expect based on our auditory experience of the world around us. My assumption here is that when we overload our brains with an unexpected amount of detail that's too coherent and consistent to be discarded as noise, they start to make things up to help us interpret that detail, and that's where the real listening magic happens. I guess it's a bit like when you're having a really good coffee or wine, and you're convinced that you can taste peach or cinnamon, but you know for a fact that there's no peach or cinnamon in there - it's just your brain communicating its interpretation of detail that it doesn't know how to process.

        So the xMEMS earphones I've got are far from my favourite & they were a fraction of the price of some of my other gear. However, in terms of soundstage they're just really impressive, especially given that they're just bluetooth earbuds. Along the same lines, I also think that they have the most unobtrusive ANC of any earphones I've listened to, which makes sense if you think about how ANC works & the part that phase accuracy plays there (especially with the higher frequencies, which is where you tend to notice bad ANC the most).

        I'm really curious to hear what xMEMS tweeters are capable of in a well-tuned wired earphone. I'm pretty sure that it's the Sonion EST electrostatic tweeter in my EJ07 that makes them sound 'special' to me, but that's expensive and heavy (and is annoying me because it's detached itself from the shell so it's just rattling around in there). So if I could get something smaller/cheaper in a wired set I'd be very interested.

        Anyway TL;DR - I don't think perceived soundstage has anything to do with frequency response graphs, and probably little to do with THD measurements. Although phase accuracy would affect those measurements on paper, I don't think it can be inferred from them unless specifically measured. I'm not even sure if anything I wrote here makes sense, but if you've read this far thanks for coming to my ted talk.

        [0]: https://www.anandtech.com/Show/Index/15894

  • ameliusa day ago
    > Ian: There was a story a while ago with Tesla’s AI chip - they had to deliver power at a thousand amps per square centimetre.

    Where can I read more about that?

  • nvadera day ago
    > The beauty of using MEMS over quartz is multi-faceted.

    That is crystal-clear to me.

  • CamperBob2a day ago
    Speaking from (independent) experience, the SiTime parts live up to the hype.

    You do not want to be in the quartz crystal business going forward; it's almost as dead as vacuum tubes, even if the manufacturers don't know it yet. Nothing will be left to fight over but the very cheapest commodity parts.

    • rcxdudea day ago
      It's pretty nuts - if you care at all about your frequency reference and have power or space constraints, SiTime seems to be beating everyone else right now.
      • 1515521 hours ago
        TI bulk acoustic wave stuff is interesting.