[sdiy] Autotuning CEM3340/V3340 oscillators

Dave dlmanley at sonic.net
Fri Sep 22 01:02:03 CEST 2017


Right, if that's the goal.  It doesn't provide increased accuracy uniformly across the Vout range. 

In your example you get 4096 steps of 0.488mV from 0->2V, then 3276 steps of 2.44mV from 2->10V.

One advantage of this topology is for many changes in Vout only one DAC needs to be updated.

-Dave 


On September 21, 2017 2:51:30 PM PDT, paula at synth.net wrote:
>Dave, 
>
> which is perfect when you want more resolution at a lower voltage..  
>
>so you could have 4096 steps with a range from 0V to 10V 
>
>then as you get to a lower voltage (say < 2V) you can swap to 4096
>steps
>for that range, which should work well for Tom in his situation as his
>problem is with the resolution at lower voltages. 
>
>Paula
>
>On 2017-09-21 22:24, Dave wrote:
>
>> As long as you don't mind variable step sizes.
>> 
>> -Dave 
>> 
>> On September 21, 2017 11:02:45 AM PDT, Tom Wiltshire
><tom at electricdruid.net> wrote: 
>> 
>> Yeah, using a 4922 with one driving the other's Vref is a good idea.
>That saves doing the weighting of the two DAcs at the VCO's summing CV
>input. Thanks Paula. 
>> 
>> Tom
>> 
>> ==================
>> Electric Druid
>> Synth & Stompbox DIY
>> ==================
>> 
>> On 21 Sep 2017, at 11:56, paula at synth.net wrote:
>> 
>> Tom,
>> 
>> for 008 we used an analog devices 14bit DAC, which is beautiful, but
>is SMD and quite pricey (but SUPER linear and stable).
>> 
>> If you want more bit depth/resolution, why not use two DACs and have
>one driving the Vref of the other?
>> A single MCP4922 should do the trick (available in Through hole too),
>12 bit, dual channel external Vref for each DAC.
>> 
>> Paula
>> 
>> On 2017-09-20 13:19, Tom Wiltshire wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> A little while ago I was asking about setting the lowest frequency on
>> a V3340 oscillator, because I was struggling a bit. In the end, it
>> seemed to be only prototype woes, and the board has been fine since.
>> Since then, I've been experimenting with autotuning the VCO using a
>> PIC (a 16F1778), and I thought some of you might be interested to
>hear
>> a progress report.
>> I have the PIC receiving a MIDI input and producing control voltages
>> for the VCO via both channels of a MCP4822 dual 12-bit DAC. The pulse
>> output of the VCO drives a NPN transistor to pull down one of the
>> PIC's input pins to act as a tuning input.
>> Tuning the VCO isn't too difficult, except at the very low end (I'll
>> come to that in a mo). I'm using the typical "successive
>> approximation" method, which is described nicely in the Prophet T8
>> service manual. In short, you set the highest bit of the DAC, then
>> measure the waveform period. If the waveform period is too short, you
>> clear the bit, and otherwise you leave it set. Then you move to the
>> next bit down, and set that and repeat the test. When you get down to
>> the lowest bit, you have the DAC value that gives you the nearest
>> frequency below your required frequency. Note any errors are always
>on
>> the low side because of the algorithm.
>> There have been some quirks. One is that I'm running the PIC at
>32MHz,
>> and consequently have 32MHz or 8MHz available as 16-bit timer clock
>> frequencies. Even with prescale settings of /2, /4, or /8, this is
>too
>> fast to measure frequencies below 16Hz. I got around this by keeping
>> track of timer overflow, which effectively gives me a 17-bit counter,
>> which is *just* long enough for the job. To be honest, no-one will
>> notice tuning errors way down there anyway - it's on the border of
>> sub-audio.
>> Another quirk is using a cheap SPI DAC with only 12-bit resolution.
>> There are some nice TI 16-bit DACs available in 8-pin DIP, but they
>> cost £10/unit, unlike the one I'm using. Obviously I could go SMD,
>but
>> I'm avoiding that.
>> Twelve bits isn't enough to produce a good CV over the full MIDI note
>> range. 4096 / 128 notes = 32 sub-semitone steps, or about 3 cents -
>> not audible, but borderline. So I'd thought to produce an fairly
>> general "Octave CV" on one channel and a more detailed "Note CV" on
>> the other, which would cover only a part of the full range - say four
>> octaves (4096/48 = 85 steps, much better). This seems to work pretty
>> well, as far as it goes. I can't decide how wide to have the Note CV.
>> Would it make sense for it to only cover a single octave? That's the
>> most efficient in some ways, but by making it wider, I can do larger
>> pitch shifts without having to change the Octave CV. That makes
>> updates quicker and also removes the risk of a glitch at the moment
>> the octave switches. It's "six of one and half a dozen of the other",
>> as we say in English.
>> Another problem is the SPI interface. Since I have to send two bytes
>> to program a 12-bit variable into the DAC (so four bytes for the two
>> CVs) there is a limit to how fast the DAC can be updated. You can
>then
>> reduce that theoretical maximum another chunk to allow for actual
>> calculation time. This is a problem for something like MIDI pitch
>> bend, where the data needs filtering (e.g. more calculation time) and
>> also needs sending out frequently enough no steps are audible. Adding
>> smoothing to the analog CV would be one solution, but if the steps in
>> the Pitch Bend are heavily smoothed by analog filtering, then no
>rapid
>> changes in Note CV are possible. Unless you change things around and
>> use a separate channel for Pitch Bend CV, with the Bend CV filtered
>> and the Note CV not - but then that's three DAC channels for one
>note!
>> Not very efficient!
>> The advantage of that is that *only* the Pitch Bend CV has to update
>> rapidly. The Note and Octave CVs can change only when a new note is
>> played - much simpler.
>> Finding the best way to do this with low-cost and easily-available
>> chips is proving not entirely straightforward. There are a lot of
>> possible ways to arrange things in terms of the range of the various
>> CV channels and the distribution of different data to the CV
>channels,
>> and I'm experimenting to see what gives a decent result.
>> Hope this is of interest,
>> Tom
>> ==================
>> Electric Druid
>> Synth & Stompbox DIY
>> ==================





More information about the Synth-diy mailing list