[sdiy] Generating a large number of CV outputs

[cheater cheater]

I don't get it. Most of the algorithm is missing.

On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 10:07 PM Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 8 Dec 2023, at 20:30, cheater cheater <cheater00social at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 5:06 PM Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Dec 2023, at 14:41, Matthew Skala via Synth-diy <synth-diy at synth-diy.org> wrote:
>
> If PDM means PWM with bit-reversal before the comparison (such as Richie
> describes), then it does indeed lock you into a lower sampling rate, and
> that's one reason I skipped describing *that* technique.  But PWM with
> bit-reversal seems not to be what you mean when you say PDM.
>
>
> That's not what I meant when I said PDM, certainly.
>
> The way I generated it is using an NCO. The NCO generates a single-shot output pulse everytime the phase accumulator wraps.
>
> Now consider what happens with a simple 8-bit NCO. If our frequency increment is 2, for example, we get a single output pulse every 128 clocks, or 2 pulses per 256 clocks. Notice that they will be nicely spaced apart, not next to each other like PWM. The output frequency would be (clock frequency / 128) in this situation.
> If the increment is 8, we get a output pulse every 32 clocks, 8 pulses per 256 clocks, and again, they're nicely spaced out. The output frequency is now up to (clock /32) so there's been a big improvement, just by getting away from those extreme values a little bit.
> As the increment climbs, the accumulator wraps more and more often. At freq=128, every other clock is an output and we reach our maximum output frequency of (clock/2). As the increment goes above half, we start staying high for more than a single pulse, and the waveform effectively turns the other way up and we get a mirror image of the effect we've seen from 0-128.
>
> HTH,
> Tom
>
>
> I've read this a few times but I'm struggling to understand what's
> going on. Can someone type out an algorithm or something like that?
> Would appreciate it a lot. Thanks.
>
>
> Ok, it'd look something like this:
>
> phase: 16-bit variable (for example)
> freq: 16-bit variable (same as phase)
>
> So we do:
>
> // Increment phase accumulator
> phase = phase + freq
>
> // Did phase wraparound?
> If (phase>65535) { // There are probably better ways to do this test, if it's even required.
> // Ok, phase wrapped
> phase = phase % 65536
> // output a pulse a single clock in length
> <this is implementation dependent!>
> }
>
> All you need to do is run this code at a fast clock rate and you're off. Of course, the better way is if you can hand some of this overhead to hardware, and some modern uPs include NCOs as a peripheral and can be set up for this "single shot pulse output" mode, which means that the while thing boils down to simply updating the "freq" frequency increment variable with your current output. It's dead simple.
>
>
> There's a page about NCOs in general on my website:
>
> https://electricdruid.net/direct-digital-synthesis/
>
> HTH,
> Tom
>
>