[sdiy] Radfio Shack

[Roy J. Tellason]

On Thursday 21 October 2004 11:31 am, Richard Wentk wrote:

> >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.

Hm.

> >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.

I haven't gotten there yet,  and don't expect to any time soon.

> > 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.

Not necessarily.  I'm thinking here about a smallish "module" that'd have a 
CPU, serial port (to talk to it),  a bit of ram and EPROM,  and a couple of 
parallel ports.  I have a *LOT* of chips that'll support that,  with 
different bases,  some 8085s, some more z80s,  and a great many 6502s and 
6510s.  I've been thinking about the latter in particular lately because it 
can be done so simply.

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

Indeed.  Wire wrap works well too.

> 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.
>
> >So then there's a digital SIDY crowd - where are the projects?  Why are
> > there so few?

Good question!

> 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.

Yes.

> PC and Mac architectures are both closed and trying to do something like
> making your own USB or Firewire peripherals is a *major* project.

How can you call the PC architecture closed?  If it weren't open,  we wouldn't 
have nearly as much as we do in that realm.  And neither USB or Firewire is 
strictly necessary,  it's just as easy to talk to things through serial and 
parallel ports.  I know that they're "going away" in the consumer 
marketplace, but I also have a lot of older hardware in that regard,  and 
find it very easy to interface those two.

The mac,  yeah it's closed.  Apple has had that attitude since well before 
that,  when they came out with the Lisa while still trying to reap the 
benefits of the open architecture of the II series with their IIe and IIgs.  
I read something in Byte way back when,  where they were talking about a 
firmware upgrade for the original 128k mac,  and where you also had to get 
the upgrade to 512k _from them_ for around $700.  And if you'd gone 
third-party for one you were out of luck.  Since then I figure screw 'em...

> I think if the architectures were more open, there would very possibly be a
> lot more interest.
>
> >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.

Are you talking about being able to read actual analog controls?  Or something 
else that gives the same effect?

I like the ease of dealing with ordinary pots,  when it comes to obtaining 
them as a more or less standard item,  although I must admit that I haven't 
shopped for any lately and wouldn't be at all surprised to find that not to 
be the case any more.  And I like the ease of use of slidepots,  though I 
don't even want to think about fabricating a panel to use them,  or the fact 
that they don't keep dirt out,  etc.  But that's all user interface.

> 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.)

An 8-channel BBD?  Shouldn't be that hard to do.  I'd be kind of curious as to 
how you'd provide some input to a circuit where you'd ordinarily use a pot, 
only have the input actually coming from the digital side of things.  I have 
a fair number of chips that could be used for such things.

> There are whole classes of potential modules like that that no one seems to
> be interested in.

Like what?