[sdiy] Proposed DSP board

[Scott Gravenhorst]

madhun2001 at yahoo.com wrote:
>Tom,
>
>I am currently struggling with the codec issue. One possibility 
>is the AD1998. The AD1988 had 6 in/10 out with one interface, but 
>I need to go over it and see if I can bypass all the surround 
>sound stuff. 
>
>As far as the processor goes, you raise a good point. I picked 
>AVR for the good reason of I know it have have used it many 
>times. If I use a non-AVR then I'll be learning 2 new procs. Not 
>sure I want to do that. But as you pointer out, my choice may 
>lead to others having to learn 2 new procs. 
>
>What to do? I could leave the co-proc off and let developers 
>attach their fav uP to it. Or if there was just 1 other proc 
>choice I could put both on the board. But that sounds messy and 
>wasteful. 
>
>What you you think?

IMO, the field of DSP and MCU programming is a constant string of learning
something new.  Each time a company upgrades it's products, there's something
new to learn.  Each time a new product/architecture appears, there's something
new to learn - or you get left behind programming dinosaurs while others enjoy
the features of the new architectures or products.  It never ends.  It
shouldn't end.

Also IMO, if you can learn one, you can learn any.  Quite honestly, I use
cheat sheets, instruction summaries, etc. while I program any device.  I don't
pretend to know any instruction set that well that I can program them in my
sleep.  I learn it's capabilities, and then when I can't remember syntax or
exactly how an instruction works, I look it up when I need that function.  

As always, YMMV.


>--TimR
>
>--- On Wed, 1/21/09, Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net> wrote:
>
>> From: Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net>
>> Subject: Re: [sdiy] Proposed DSP board
>> To: madhun2001 at yahoo.com
>> Cc: "Synth-Diy" <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl>
>> Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2009, 12:21 PM
>> Tim,
>> 
>> It looks pretty good to me. I've got one thought and
>> one question. The thought is that you've only got one
>> codec interface on the dsPIC, so you might be better off
>> looking for a multichannel codec to attach to the one port,
>> rather than connect more than one. But there are two SPI
>> interfaces available, so maybe not. One to investigate.
>> The question is why the coprocessor is AVR if the DSP is a
>> dsPIC. It seems to me that the AVR people won't like it
>> because they'll have to learn something new to use the
>> DSP, and the PIC people won't like it because
>> they'll have to learn something new to use the
>> interfaces. Have you got a good reason for this choice?
>> 
>> Keep up the good work.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Tom
>> 
>> 
>> On 21 Jan 2009, at 18:25, Tim Ressel wrote:
>> 
>> > Yo,
>> > 
>> > Here are the proposed features for a new DSP platform:
>> > 
>> > dsPIC33f256gp710 processor
>> > --External RAM
>> > --At least 1 codec (more if feasible)
>> > MIDI connections
>> > --In, thru
>> > USB for downloads
>> > AVR coprocessor to handle MIDI, USB, and front panel
>> duties
>> > --Optional with jumpers to route midi to dsPIC
>> > 
>> > if you have suggestions for other features please let
>> me know. My goal is to have this in fab as soon as possible.
>> > 
>> > Thanks!
>> > 
>> > --TimR
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Synth-diy mailing list
>> > Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
>> > http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>> >
>_______________________________________________
>Synth-diy mailing list
>Synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
>http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
>

-- ScottG
________________________________________________________________________
-- Scott Gravenhorst
-- FPGA MIDI Synthesizer Information: home1.gte.net/res0658s/FPGA_synth/
-- FatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/fatman/
-- NonFatMan: home1.gte.net/res0658s/electronics/
-- When the going gets tough, the tough use the command line.