[sdiy] Radfio Shack

[Scott Gravenhorst]

Richard Wentk <richard at skydancer.com> wrote:
>At 06:13 21/10/2004 -0700, Scott Gravenhorst wrote:
>
>> >Still, I'm disappointed that there isn't more interest in microcontrolled
>> >and DSP based synth DIY. The perception that it *has* to be analogue, and
>> >it also has to be an analogue copy of an existing module, is holding DIY
>> >back significantly.
>>
>>It's a completely different way of thinking.
>
>True, but so is RF vs audio and valves vs op-amps. I don't think that's 
>enough to explain the lack of interest.

Yes, but it's part of the reason.

>>With analog, you have a
>>single design that performs a single function and interaction can usually be
>>easily eliminated, whereas with digital, the temptation is to force
>>multitasking to provide more functions than one from a single device - adding
>>to the design complexity.
>
>This is true. But the pay off is potentially you get a lot more bang for 
>your buck. And a much richer feature set too.

Right, but how many of us are prepared to code a DCO, LFO, VCA and 4 pole filter
all running in the same chip?  These things are difficult at best when allowed
to hog the chip, throw in multitasking and you're in a new world.  I'm not
saying that more richness isn't available, just that it adds to complexity which
may be offputting to many of us.  In an analog world, bang for the buck has
traditionally been based on the fact that the parts we need are cheap as dirt. 
So to attain the richness desired, we add a few bucks and a small amount of
time.  The same cannot be said for creating the same functionality using
multitasking.

>>Many of the SDIY crowd were baptized in analog, it's
>>concepts are hard to forget.  When I look at digital as a means to an end, I
>>sigh heavily and say "perhaps not" since it requires things I either can't do
>>or don't desire to do - such as either making or paying for a circuit board
>>professionally etched.  If I need a VCO or a filter, I can cobble one up in a
>>couple of hours on stripboard.  For digital, I need to do many hours of work
>>before I can even think about the code problems I'm about to have.
>
>I've breadboarded digital and it's worked fine. A PCB always helps, but 
>it's never essential.
>
>I'm reading what you're saying as 'I'm used to analogue and I don't have 
>the interest in learning a new skill now.' Which I think is partly what I 
>was saying.

I don't believe that's the case.  In fact, I didn't know a whole lot about
analog really, until I joined this list.  My career formative years involved
nothing but digital systems, so I actually started with a greater understanding
of them than I did analog.  And I spent some time attempting to create musical
devices with microprocessors, but I was never as satisfied with the results as I
have been with what I've done with analog.  Add to this that I _am_ a coder, I
never was much of an analog designer.  I have a better than average
understanding of math and have no problem conceptualizing sound creation
algorithmic details and I can code them.  

>>So then there's a digital SIDY crowd - where are the projects?  Why are there
>>so few?
>
>There are very few *hardware* projects because most of the people who are 
>interested in music DSP code VST and Direct X plugins instead of building 
>things with a soldering iron. One problem is there's a huge gap between the 
>neat and tidy world of code and the hands-on world of solder flux, and 
>there's no easy path between the two. PC and Mac architectures are both 
>closed and trying to do something like making your own USB or Firewire 
>peripherals is a *major* project.
>
>I think if the architectures were more open, there would very possibly be a 
>lot more interest.

Perhaps, but I think that there should be or could be more in the way of "I did
this all myself" and there isn't.  If creating DIY digital systems is more or
less trivial (I quote you here:)

   I've breadboarded digital and it's worked fine. 
   A PCB always helps, but it's never essential.

Then why are there so few of these?  To use a PC or Mac may simplify things in
some ways, but in others complicates (eg. either on is a general purpose
processor that does everything, but nothing well).  USB, for example, by it's
very name "Universal" indicates that it's more of the same PC mentality, can be
used for anything, but does nothing particularly well.  I've also noticed from
banter on this list that there is a stubborn concern over standards.  Why?  Why
not just make it work?  If it does, you will have created a standard that might
easily be replicated.  In analog, the only standards seem to be those of module
interconnection.  I've seen more than one digital synth project get tanked
because we can't agree on a bus type or some protocol.  These arguments never
stopped any of us from tying to design yet another CCO core, ADSR or VCF.

>>I would think that many SDIY people on this list would have developed
>>many interesting things, and there are _some_, but certainly not the plethora
>>that came from analog designs.  I don't believe that's because those people
>>thought that it has to be analog or has to sound like analog.  And if it is, I
>>suppose it's their own fault.  It may be that there's more of a sheep 
>>mentality
>>at work than we want to admit.  There is a good reason why so many synths have
>>those "boring" presets that copy the sounds we've heard on the radio.  It may
>>just be that it's less common to "think outside the box" than we might wish to
>>believe.
>
>That's pretty much where I am with it. (That and having the ideas but no 
>resources to develop them.) For example - hybrid approaches make things 
>like analogue control memories fantastically easy. I don't mean in the 
>patch memory sense, but in the sense of providing 8 channels of control or 
>audio voltage recording for playback or even editing later. (Like a BBD on 
>steroids. :-) But without the noise or other limitations.)
>
>There are whole classes of potential modules like that that no one seems to 
>be interested in.

I'm not sure what you're pointing at here, but I'm certainly interested.

>> >I can imagine in some future world exotic nano-technology giving everyone a
>> >custom chip fab at home, but in the intervening century or so DIY is going
>> >to have to deal with the problem that these parts just don't exist any more
>>Nice fantasy, but I do have my doubts, after all, even digital methods are not
>>being persued to the fullest extent of their usefulness and that stuff is
>>available right here and now.
>
>Possibly. I can imagine nano could make it possible to revive and reinvent 
>electronic design in ways that aren't possible today. It would probably be 
>more a case of building 'digital' models of your hardware and then letting 
>the goo loose on the raw ingredients, rather than actually making 
>individual components and hand soldering them together. Although - who 
>knows? - some people might enjoy doing that as a hobby even when other 
>approaches are available.

---------------------------------------------------------
- Where merit is not rewarded, excellence fades.
- Hydrogen is pointless without solar.
- What good are laws that only lawyers understand?
- The media's credibility should always be questioned.
- The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.
- Governments do nothing well, save collect taxes.

-- Scott Gravenhorst | LegoManiac / Lego Trains / RIS 1.5
-- Linux Rex         | RedWebMail by RedStarWare
-- FatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/fatman/
-- NonFatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/electronics/
-- Autodidactic Master of Arcane and Hidden Knowledge.