[sdiy] pre Uprocessor schematics with ADC/DAC?

[Dan Snazelle]

dont worry i am really more interested for fun, and from a historical perspective

those eventide schematics were very different than most things i have seen




--------------------------------------------
check out various dan music at:

 http://www.myspace.com/lossnyc  

(updated monthly)

http://www.soundclick.com/lossnyc.htm



http://www.indie911.com/dan-snazelle

(or for techno) http://www.myspace.com/snazelle

ALSO check out Dan synth/Fx projects:

AUDIO ARK:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJRpvaOcUic

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqIa_lXQNTA&feature=channel_page

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4nJPjGgOcU&feature=channel_page

and soundtrack/design work:

NEW: check out Dan's sound design from the 1998 award winning film SAFARI by catherine chalmers

http://www.catherinechalmers.com/videos.cfm 




> CC: synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
> From: tom at electricdruid.net
> Subject: Re: [sdiy] pre Uprocessor schematics with ADC/DAC?
> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:47:27 +0100
> To: subjectivity at hotmail.com
> 
> 
> On 21 May 2009, at 14:28, Dan Snazelle wrote:
> 
>>
>> this might be a strange request but i am very interested in ANY  
>> information/links/ideas on finding old schematics from the 70's  
>> (audio related but not just necessarily synth) that use Analog to  
>> Digital Converters AND Digital To Analog converters but which use  
>> logic instead of a microprocessor to control them.
>>
>> all the synths i have looked at that have ADC/DAC setups have a  
>> programmed brain of some kind controlling them (prophet 5, etc)
>>
>> but i know there were some that used TTL or CMOS to send commands.
>>
>> anyway....one particular example is the EVENTIDE H910.
>>
>> i think i could learn some interesting things, such as how they got  
>> the Audio In and Out, how they used multiplexers or sample and  
>> holds, and also what types of clocks, and if they had presets,etc.
> 
> If you thought learning uProc programming was complicated, you'll  
> soon find out that it's a lot easier than trying to do similar things  
> (presets etc) *without* a uP!
> 
> That's not to say that it can't be done, but there was a reason that  
> uPs became so ubiquitous.
> 
> T.
>