[sdiy] TipTop Z DSP fuss!

[Eric Brombaugh]

I believe you've got it backwards. Based on statements here earlier today and on MW over the last few weeks, my understanding is that the TTA Z-DSP uses the Spin FV-1. The TTA Z5000 Reverb module probably uses the Alesis chip, but that design is closed (note that the DSP portion is even potted!) so it probably doesn't matter since you can't get into the guts of that one.

As far as the business of IP protection and NDAs, that's a bit murkier. The scuttlebutt on MW seems to be that some form of IP protection was a contractual matter between Spin and TTA in order to allow TTA to distribute development hardware. Apparently Spin is concerned about 3rd-party developers distributing copyrighted code that they lifted from Spin or others, but the exact mechanisms aren't clear to me.

I'll note that there were no NDAs involved in purchasing an FV-1 development system from Spin's distributor, and that includes all the hardware necessary to develop assembly applications and burn I2C EEPROMs with run-time code. Spin gives away example code and development software on their website, again without any apparent stipulations on how it's used.

Eric

On Dec 16, 2009, at 9:17 PM, karl dalen wrote:

> Whats all the fuss about over at muffwiggler?
> 
> What DSP does the TipTop Z Dsp module use?
> I assumed it used the Alesis/Wavefront chip 3102 with a 
> added control MCU for display and pot scan? but now im unsure! 
> 
> There are lots of strange things told att muffwiggler by midiwall around
> this, hes referring to the FV1 wich are used in the Z5000 module and as far
> as i know there is no need or obligation to sign any NDA with Spin Semi,
> code are left open to users at will, and there is no way to protect EEPROM
> content. Anyho since the Z Dsp are not using, (asumes) the FV1 chip im
> till supriced to read that NDA and license from manufacturer over code that TTA does for its customers, in what way should a end user have any obligations to the chip manufacturer over code he or she writes for
> something they already paid for?