ComputerVoltageSources

Gary Chang told me about the MARF built into the new Buchla triple filter. As always, very
smart. Building a complex envelope generator into a module is relatively easy now using an 8
pin PIC or something. Maybe control voltage recorder/loopers/random sources?

They can be programmed with a different dialect of MBASIC from Basic Micro Inc., pretty
much the same development enviorment as the Basic Atom Pro (but not free).

A synth module can be as analog as anyone wants, just add more functions with a micro.

Actually do-able on a DIY basis at this point in history. It used to require corporate level
resources just a few years ago. But with MBASIC, even young students can write control
software. And an 8 pin PIC is cheaper than a Vactrol, you do the math.

--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Grant Richter"
<grichter@...> wrote:

>
> Gary Chang told me about the MARF built into the new Buchla triple

filter. As always, very

> smart. Building a complex envelope generator into a module is

relatively easy now using an 8

> pin PIC or something. Maybe control voltage recorder/loopers/random

sources?

>

The sheer beauty of the Triple Morphing Filter is how it tricks you
into programming it - it remembers the Frequency, Bandwidth, and Gain
knob settings, associating them with the particular STAGE (1-8) that
you select (you are always in a stage, signified by one of eight leds)
- change the STAGE (button toggles through stages), and you can store
another setting - return to that STAGE, and the three knob values
return to where you left them - no save function necessary, just eight
buckets there to remember what you did the last time the stage light
was lit in that position.

So, entering data is a familiar task, like that of programming a poly
synth with patch memory without the write button - just go and tweak
this stage's gain, then toggle to another stage and tweak that stage's
bandwidth, etc.

Then, in the display, it asks you, "how shall I dish your remembered
crap out? - one stage per trigger?, all stages in a single trigger?
Timed? Stepped? Smoothed? Perhaps a stage randomly selected when
pulsed? Or a continuos loop? Next thing you know, the filter is
spewing like a phoenics teacher and you are still just messing with
it...! A truly fantastic module.

One side note regarding the TMFILTER versus something like the PSIM -
its elegance is that it can't change into something else.... (Imagine
your cell phone rings, but first, you have to remove it from your car,
where it has been doing the ignition management while you are driving,
and then you must reprogram it to be a cell phone once again....

Hopefully, if this group succeeds, we may see many encarnations of
devices that utilize microprocessors in dedicated duties in modules -
not just programs that utilize generalized interfaces that we need to
reprogram each time that we go to do something. We really don't have
practical use for a Swiss Army Toaster/Coffee Maker/Answering Machine.
Personally, I like toast enough to have a toaster.

Gary

--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Chang"
<gchang@...> wrote:

> ...
> Hopefully, if this group succeeds, we may see many encarnations of
> devices that utilize microprocessors in dedicated duties in modules -
> not just programs that utilize generalized interfaces that we need to
> reprogram each time that we go to do something. ...

Yes, indeedy! Having said that, just because the PSIM-1 is
reprogrammable doesn't mean that you can't dedicate it to certain
functions. One question is, how much [extra] does it cost for this
programmability?

This raises what I see as the big decision: Which microprocessor to use?

I've been programmaing for over 25 years but I admit to confusion over
the array of MPUs available. PICs, Basic Stamps, AVRs, BasicATOMs, oh
my!

One major factor that I see is this: Is a development kit required to
program the MPU? I gather that PICs are really cheap but they require a
dev kit/programmer. The BasicATOMPRO needs no such kit but it costs
much more than a typical PIC.

One has to decide (i.e. make a guess at) how many of these puppies s/he
will be using. If the answer is a very small number then the no-dev-kit
units are more attractive. Beyond a certain number, though, and the dev
kit pays for itself. This is why cheap little PICs are great for
production devices (including small volume "cottage" production); one
programming device yields many programmed PICs.

Of course there's also the performance issue. The BasicATOMPRO blows
away the PIC, there.

I'm as confused as ever. ;-)
--
john

Hi John
One does not need invest a large amount of resources into
a PIC development kit. I built a programmer and downloaded
free software off the net. I maybe spent 15 USD? About the
same for the AVRs.
Jeri

-----Original Message-----
From: john <jmahoney@...>
To: ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:18:46 -0000
Subject: [ComputerVoltageSources] Re: Microprocessors in analog modules


--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Chang"
<gchang@...> wrote:

> ...
> Hopefully, if this group succeeds, we may see many encarnations of
> devices that utilize microprocessors in dedicated duties in modules -
> not just programs that utilize generalized interfaces that we need to
> reprogram each time that we go to do something. ...

Yes, indeedy! Having said that, just because the PSIM-1 is
reprogrammable doesn't mean that you can't dedicate it to certain
functions. One question is, how much [extra] does it cost for this
programmability?

This raises what I see as the big decision: Which microprocessor to use?

I've been programmaing for over 25 years but I admit to confusion over
the array of MPUs available. PICs, Basic Stamps, AVRs, BasicATOMs, oh
my!

One major factor that I see is this: Is a development kit required to
program the MPU? I gather that PICs are really cheap but they require a
dev kit/programmer. The BasicATOMPRO needs no such kit but it costs
much more than a typical PIC.

One has to decide (i.e. make a guess at) how many of these puppies s/he
will be using. If the answer is a very small number then the no-dev-kit
units are more attractive. Beyond a certain number, though, and the dev
kit pays for itself. This is why cheap little PICs are great for
production devices (including small volume "cottage" production); one
programming device yields many programmed PICs.

Of course there's also the performance issue. The BasicATOMPRO blows
away the PIC, there.

I'm as confused as ever. ;-)
--
john







Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

ahhhhh...General Services...

Hi All

--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Chang"
<gchang@...> wrote:

>

> Hopefully, if this group succeeds, we may see many encarnations of
> devices that utilize microprocessors in dedicated duties in modules -
> not just programs that utilize generalized interfaces that we need to
> reprogram each time that we go to do something.

Because i'm used to writing software , GP programmability is of vital
importance to me but Gary makes a cogent point here. If a user isn't
going to write (and DEBUG) code, then that serial port is just takin'
up knob space! At a minimum though, somebody in the supply chain will
need a 'station' through which these critters pass to get their
personalities assigned ...
am i a complex envelope ?
an LFO??
a quantizer?
do i slew?

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
i don't have any ready answers but it opens up a lot of questions

> The sheer beauty of the Triple Morphing Filter is how it tricks you
> into programming it -

Process is a fundamental issue
patchcords limit my compostion/improvisation choices...
just like frets limit my bass playing. They don't preclude vibrato or
glissando ... they force a particular set of characterictics on the
workaround i have to use to achieve these gestures. Then, they impart
a bonus in a delightful click if i learn to whack the string against
them hard,fast and just so with my thumb.....
y'all are clever folks ... you get the idea-
The tension between unfettered imagination and the highly fettered
realm of acoustic physics*** is one of the main batteries in the
creative process.

Anyone who's worked with the UBER-DAWs out there can tell you about
the paralyzing peril of option-glut. (or you could just read Stephen
St. Croix's column in "Mix" Magagazine, if you can't afford one of
these perilous systems... )

Quirks, and 'poorly designed' features of instruments inspire artists,
the EMS pegboard, no CV on the minimoog resonance, no delay on the
"A" of the ADSR.... we've all got a favorite foible.
this is the danger of over-engineering, if an instrument does
everything the player will spend all their time DOING everything and
never finish SOMETHING.

this is one reason i don't tweak my stuff to the n'th degree...
n is infinite !
and the unborn souls of 10,000 unfinished ProTools projects cluster on
my shoulders like the chains on Marley's ghost!

In fairness to the engineers, there must be balance, if not for the
brilliant and steady attentions of the folks with slide-rules the
Steinway piano would still be a zither.

But with software things can get out of hand TOO EASILY.
How 'bout a piano that sings with pipes too ... the mighty wurlitzer
bolted on to the back!!!! and a built-in LIGHT SHOW!!!

Gary makes a good point....
General Purpose is not inherently superior to single (and perhaps even
slightly idiosynchratic) purpose.

in fact some of those bugs just might be FEATURES
in the right hands

-doc

(***which includes electrons marching around in stately audio
frequency processions)

--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "john" <jmahoney@...>
wrote:

> This raises what I see as the big decision: Which microprocessor to use?
>
> I've been programmaing for over 25 years but I admit to confusion over
> the array of MPUs available. PICs, Basic Stamps, AVRs, BasicATOMs, oh
> my!
>
> One major factor that I see is this: Is a development kit required to
> program the MPU? I gather that PICs are really cheap but they require a
> dev kit/programmer. The BasicATOMPRO needs no such kit but it costs
> much more than a typical PIC.
>
> One has to decide (i.e. make a guess at) how many of these puppies s/he
> will be using. If the answer is a very small number then the no-dev-kit
> units are more attractive. Beyond a certain number, though, and the dev
> kit pays for itself. This is why cheap little PICs are great for
> production devices (including small volume "cottage" production); one
> programming device yields many programmed PICs.
>
> Of course there's also the performance issue. The BasicATOMPRO blows
> away the PIC, there.
>
> I'm as confused as ever. ;-)
> --

Me too John!
i'm (obviously) already heavily invested in MBASIC on the AtomPro.
Debug techniques, learning curve, proprietary features etc....(that
floating point vs integer thing was a REAL trip through the looking
glass for an OLD guy!)
so of course, i'd like to stick close to that
Grant made the point about the code being didactic in order to give
nonprogrammers at least a SHOT at writing code and i favor BASIC in
that regard. The folks at basicmicro aren't stupid. They've done some
homework and made their choice accordingly.
i've done musical apps in C and Forth and i can see great potential in
both of them but.... TRANSPARENCY to a non-programmer?
fuggeddaboudit!

For my part i'm most focused on the development environment ... IOW
i'm agreeing with you in that this should be a key area of focus.

-doc

Assuming we want a new module to retain compatibility with PSIM programs, I
believe that limits us to the Hitachi/Renasas and PIC microcontrollers
suppported by BASIC ATOM and BASIC ATOM PRO. BASIC ATOM PRO is compatible
with BASIC ATOM, according to the Basic Micro site, even though two
different processors are used.

As Gary mentioned, I can see where having programmable functions embedded in
otherwise analog modules is very desirable. I assume PICs would be better
for this task since they come in hundreds of flavors and are very
inexpensive. The PIC in the BASIC ATOM system is fairly expensive though,
as PICs go...

Here's the microcontroller info I dug out of the Basic Micro docs:

Basic Atom 24/28/40 Micro: Microchip PIC16F876, 20 MHz DIP part is $7.70
from Digi-Key
Basic Atom Pro 24/28 Micro: Hitachi/Renasas 3664, 16 MHz 64 LQFP part is
$9.50 from Digi-Key

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of john
>
> This raises what I see as the big decision: Which microprocessor to use?
>
> I've been programmaing for over 25 years but I admit to confusion over
> the array of MPUs available. PICs, Basic Stamps, AVRs, BasicATOMs, oh
> my!
>
> One major factor that I see is this: Is a development kit required to
> program the MPU? I gather that PICs are really cheap but they require a
> dev kit/programmer. The BasicATOMPRO needs no such kit but it costs
> much more than a typical PIC.
>
> One has to decide (i.e. make a guess at) how many of these puppies s/he
> will be using. If the answer is a very small number then the no-dev-kit
> units are more attractive. Beyond a certain number, though, and the dev
> kit pays for itself. This is why cheap little PICs are great for
> production devices (including small volume "cottage" production); one
> programming device yields many programmed PICs.
>
> Of course there's also the performance issue. The BasicATOMPRO blows
> away the PIC, there.
>

"John Loffink" <jloffink@...> wrote:

>
> Assuming we want a new module to retain compatibility with PSIM

programs, I

> believe that limits us to the Hitachi/Renasas and PIC microcontrollers
> suppported by BASIC ATOM and BASIC ATOM PRO. BASIC ATOM PRO is

compatible

> with BASIC ATOM, according to the Basic Micro site, even though two
> different processors are used.
>
> As Gary mentioned, I can see where having programmable functions

embedded in

> otherwise analog modules is very desirable. I assume PICs would be

better

> for this task since they come in hundreds of flavors and are very
> inexpensive. The PIC in the BASIC ATOM system is fairly expensive

though,

> as PICs go...
>
> Here's the microcontroller info I dug out of the Basic Micro docs:
>
> Basic Atom 24/28/40 Micro: Microchip PIC16F876, 20 MHz DIP part is

$7.70

> from Digi-Key
> Basic Atom Pro 24/28 Micro: Hitachi/Renasas 3664, 16 MHz 64 LQFP

part is

> $9.50 from Digi-Key
>
> John Loffink

John (and everyone),

Here is my comment on the higher expense of the Basic Atom Pro system,
FWIW....

A few years ago, Grant was besieged with overhead cost issues relative
to front panel fabrication, and the financial and managing costs of
having to order several units at once to keep costs down, etc. - now
he is using .fpd files and Front Panel Designer to fabricate his front
panels - each panel costs more, but can be ordered piece by piece,
including customizations.

I believe that the Basic Atom Pro is like front panel designer in this
scenerio - more expensive, but it offers many more people an
opportunity to contribute.

In fact, using the PSIM as a developement platform, we have a fairly
evolved forum for testing new ideas and applications; with both
sophisticated writers and end users having the same hardware, trouble
shooting, modifications and revisions can easily be done between
author and beta tester very efficiently.

For example, when Woody Wall created the Shift Register Program, I
made some suggestions, based on how I used my pair of Serge ASRs; he
made a few adjustments for me and sent me the new file, and that
application is STILL in one of my PSIMs - the other is Mike's
quadrature oscillator. I could easily see creating permanent,
dedicated modules for these programs....


Gary

Gary and group,

I probably wasn't clear enough. I believe we're in a agreement. Use the
BASIC ATOM PRO as the heart of a generalized programmable synthesizer
module.

Microcontrollers other than the Hitachi 3664 or PIC can't be supported with
BASIC ATOM or PRO was my other point.

My additional point is that microcontrollers within a dedicated analog
module like the Buchla Triple Morphing Filter may not need all the bells and
whistles of full fledged 3664 or PIC16F876 processors. In this case an
individual might choose to use MBASIC and a less expensive PIC part as long
as it supported the necessary IO and memory space.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> John (and everyone),
>
> Here is my comment on the higher expense of the Basic Atom Pro system,
> FWIW....
>
> A few years ago, Grant was besieged with overhead cost issues relative
> to front panel fabrication, and the financial and managing costs of
> having to order several units at once to keep costs down, etc. - now
> he is using .fpd files and Front Panel Designer to fabricate his front
> panels - each panel costs more, but can be ordered piece by piece,
> including customizations.
>
> I believe that the Basic Atom Pro is like front panel designer in this
> scenerio - more expensive, but it offers many more people an
> opportunity to contribute.
>
> In fact, using the PSIM as a developement platform, we have a fairly
> evolved forum for testing new ideas and applications; with both
> sophisticated writers and end users having the same hardware, trouble
> shooting, modifications and revisions can easily be done between
> author and beta tester very efficiently.
>
> For example, when Woody Wall created the Shift Register Program, I
> made some suggestions, based on how I used my pair of Serge ASRs; he
> made a few adjustments for me and sent me the new file, and that
> application is STILL in one of my PSIMs - the other is Mike's
> quadrature oscillator. I could easily see creating permanent,
> dedicated modules for these programs....
>
>
> Gary
>
>

I see at least one practical application of the Swiss Army Module
(PSIM) for this group: as a test bed for ideas and a prototype
platform. My PSIM gets a lot of use as an algorithmic composition
device, too. That said, specific, dedicated device as in the
aforementioned filter are the bees knees, too...

--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Chang"
<gchang@...> wrote:

> Hopefully, if this group succeeds, we may see many encarnations of
> devices that utilize microprocessors in dedicated duties in modules -
> not just programs that utilize generalized interfaces that we need to
> reprogram each time that we go to do something. We really don't have
> practical use for a Swiss Army Toaster/Coffee Maker/Answering Machine.
> Personally, I like toast enough to have a toaster.
>
> Gary
>

I have used two AtomPro's for some specific designs as well as several
different sizes of AVR processors. You can program the AVR
processor via serial / usb for ~$20-$30. Not much of an investment.

However, for a general purpose module that beginners can program, and
for portability and understandability of code, I think the
AtomPro is a good choice. It's got plenty of performance for my
MIDI programs. My bass pedals is one of the projects that I used this
processor. I wanted to reuse my code and not have to develop it again
(which I eventually did on an AVR). It's merging MIDI data from my
keyboard, scanning and encoding the bass pedals, doing arpeggiation
sequences, updating a display, and using timer interrupts. I've had
no issues with performance.

When you add a display and MIDI, this is much more than a computer
voltage source. I've been really pleased with using external voltage
inputs to control program change, notes, and velocity in MIDI gear -
something I am unable to do with any of my MIDI synths. In addition,
I've done some very limited audio generation with the AtomPro. I did
a sequencer / audio (limited to square waves) that worked reasonably
well for bass.

Speaking of which - any interest in a display / MIDI upgrade to the
PSIM? I really use my display a lot if nothing more than to remember
what program is loaded and what mode it is in.

Dave


--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "john" <jmahoney@...>
wrote:

> This raises what I see as the big decision: Which microprocessor to

use?

>
> I've been programmaing for over 25 years but I admit to confusion

over

> the array of MPUs available. PICs, Basic Stamps, AVRs, BasicATOMs,

oh

> my!
>
> One major factor that I see is this: Is a development kit required

to

> program the MPU? I gather that PICs are really cheap but they

require a

> dev kit/programmer. The BasicATOMPRO needs no such kit but it costs
> much more than a typical PIC.

I'll delurk for a minute to say that what Dave has done with the PSIM
is one great way to take this thing (in addition to many of the other
suggestions). Adding MIDI and display capabilities to the "standard"
CVS would be phenomenal improvements over the PSIM.... not to mention
the Speakjet chip ;)

On Mar 6, 2006, at 9:18 PM, djbrow54 wrote:

> I have used two AtomPro's for some specific designs as well as several
> different sizes of AVR processors. You can program the AVR
> processor via serial / usb for ~$20-$30. Not much of an investment.
>
> However, for a general purpose module that beginners can program, and
> for portability and understandability of code, I think the
> AtomPro is a good choice. It's got plenty of performance for my
> MIDI programs. My bass pedals is one of the projects that I used this
> processor. I wanted to reuse my code and not have to develop it again
> (which I eventually did on an AVR). It's merging MIDI data from my
> keyboard, scanning and encoding the bass pedals, doing arpeggiation
> sequences, updating a display, and using timer interrupts. I've had
> no issues with performance.
>
> When you add a display and MIDI, this is much more than a computer
> voltage source. I've been really pleased with using external voltage
> inputs to control program change, notes, and velocity in MIDI gear -
> something I am unable to do with any of my MIDI synths. In addition,
> I've done some very limited audio generation with the AtomPro. I did
> a sequencer / audio (limited to square waves) that worked reasonably
> well for bass.
>
> Speaking of which - any interest in a display / MIDI upgrade to the
> PSIM? I really use my display a lot if nothing more than to remember
> what program is loaded and what mode it is in.
>
> Dave
>
>
> --- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "john" <jmahoney@...>
> wrote:
> > This raises what I see as the big decision: Which microprocessor to
> use?
> >
> > I've been programmaing for over 25 years but I admit to confusion
> over
> > the array of MPUs available. PICs, Basic Stamps, AVRs, BasicATOMs,
> oh
> > my!
> >
> > One major factor that I see is this: Is a development kit required
> to
> > program the MPU? I gather that PICs are really cheap but they
> require a
> > dev kit/programmer. The BasicATOMPRO needs no such kit but it costs
> > much more than a typical PIC.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Music instrument stores Electronic Instruments
> Module
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> Visit your group "ComputerVoltageSources" on the web.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> ComputerVoltageSources-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>

Yes, I would be very interested. MIDI was one of the things that
Brice had talked about early on that I've been waiting for...

--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@...>
wrote:

>

> Speaking of which - any interest in a display / MIDI upgrade to the
> PSIM? I really use my display a lot if nothing more than to remember
> what program is loaded and what mode it is in.
>
> Dave

Dave,

How much cost does the LCD display add? What number of characters and lines
is the display?

I feel that some display is necessary, if only to indicate which set of
parameters have been selected.

John Loffink
The Microtonal Synthesis Web Site
http://www.microtonal-synthesis.com
The Wavemakers Synthesizer Web Site
http://www.wavemakers-synth.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of djbrow54
>
> Speaking of which - any interest in a display / MIDI upgrade to the
> PSIM? I really use my display a lot if nothing more than to remember
> what program is loaded and what mode it is in.
>
> Dave
>

... while I recently did a little research on this:
Anyone cares about OSC (Open Sound Control)?
I didn't dig into this so far but my co-musician is using that between
his Lemur and Max/MSP on a PowerBook with great success.

http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu/OpenSoundControl/

In our case OSC <-> CV is more likely the target configuration.
http://www.smartcontroller.com.au/smartController/smartController.html
(also have yet to read it)

Just a thought, Michael.

Mike Marsh wrote:

> Yes, I would be very interested. MIDI was one of the things that
> Brice had talked about early on that I've been waiting for...
>
> --- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@...>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Speaking of which - any interest in a display / MIDI upgrade to the
>>PSIM? I really use my display a lot if nothing more than to remember
>>what program is loaded and what mode it is in.
>>
>>Dave

I'm going to check this out; it looks mighty interesting...

--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Zacherl (aka
TonTaub) " <egroups@...> wrote:

>
> ... while I recently did a little research on this:
> Anyone cares about OSC (Open Sound Control)?
> I didn't dig into this so far but my co-musician is using that between
> his Lemur and Max/MSP on a PowerBook with great success.
>
> http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu/OpenSoundControl/
>
> In our case OSC <-> CV is more likely the target configuration.
> http://www.smartcontroller.com.au/smartController/smartController.html
> (also have yet to read it)
>
> Just a thought, Michael.
>
> Mike Marsh wrote:
>
> > Yes, I would be very interested. MIDI was one of the things that
> > Brice had talked about early on that I've been waiting for...
> >
> > --- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "djbrow54" <davebr@>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Speaking of which - any interest in a display / MIDI upgrade to the
> >>PSIM? I really use my display a lot if nothing more than to remember
> >>what program is loaded and what mode it is in.
> >>
> >>Dave
>

Hi Michael
--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Zacherl (aka
TonTaub) " <egroups@...> wrote:

> Anyone cares about OSC (Open Sound Control)?
> I didn't dig into this so far but my co-musician is using that between
> his Lemur and Max/MSP on a PowerBook with great success.
>
> http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu/OpenSoundControl/
>
> In our case OSC <-> CV is more likely the target configuration.
>

http://www.smartcontroller.com.au/smartController/smartController.html

> (also have yet to read it)
>
> Just a thought,

these are good topics to keep in mind....
MBASIC code is not going to be everyone's cup of tea.
Graphic "connect-to-dots" environments are a very attractive
alternative to obsessing about the loading precedence of C include-libs!

In collaboration with some buddies, i have tinkered with gadgets that
finagle CV's out of MAX MSP. National Instruments makes low-end Data
Acquisition I/O boxes that, with LabView software, can do some very
good tricks. The advantage is the intuitive nature of the graphic
programming interface.

Here are the points i see that must be considered

These solutions tether the hardware to a PC. Is the additional
'overhead' worth it to the user?

(speaking from my experiences with MAX MSP) I compare graphic modular
development and low-level code development to the difference between
writing a poem with 400 of theose magnetic refrigerator words and
writing a poem with a typewriter.
Both can yield good poetry.

But having used the typewriter for many years , i prefer it. I always
end-up feeling a little hobbled by biases that the designers of
'elements' build-in to them.
Add that to the worry about the sheer number of tiny moving, humidity
-sensitive parts in a laptop and the DIY'er in me just sorta takes over!
;'>

but that's just me,

I'm sure that BasicMicro ain't ABOUT to write a graphic code
development environment for the BasicAtoms.... but somebody (with a
lotta time on their hands) could!

i think it's worthwhile to ask how many folks would prefer graphic
development to low-level MBASIC or C or Forth coding.***
The number might justify the effort of a (ie) graphic-to-MBASIC
compiler .... to someone!



That's my $.04

best
-doc

***and then just to be a smartass we should ask how many people would
prefer to develop direcly in assembler .... or.... OR THE PROCESSOR
CODE.... WOW!!!!!! that stuff's REALLY FAST!!!!!
uh....
MBASIC still gets my vote BTW
;'>

Hi there,
my posting obviously was a bit misleading:
I'm just pondering over digital interfaces other than MIDI, USB, RS232,
etc.
It's not my intention (for the time being) to involve a computer w/ Max
or such. Connecting a controller which supports OSC could be a
application, for instance.
I'm saying this to leave some doors open, or IOW you get my vote for an
"open system" (whatever the precise definition will be).

;-) Michael. (off to the airport)


drmabuce wrote:

> Hi Michael
> --- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Zacherl (aka
> TonTaub) " <egroups@...> wrote:
>
>>Anyone cares about OSC (Open Sound Control)?
>>I didn't dig into this so far but my co-musician is using that between
>>his Lemur and Max/MSP on a PowerBook with great success.
>>
>>http://www.cnmat.berkeley.edu/OpenSoundControl/
>>
>>In our case OSC <-> CV is more likely the target configuration.
>>
>
> http://www.smartcontroller.com.au/smartController/smartController.html
>
>>(also have yet to read it)
>>
>>Just a thought,
>
>
> these are good topics to keep in mind....
> MBASIC code is not going to be everyone's cup of tea.
> Graphic "connect-to-dots" environments are a very attractive
> alternative to obsessing about the loading precedence of C include-libs!
>
> In collaboration with some buddies, i have tinkered with gadgets that
> finagle CV's out of MAX MSP. National Instruments makes low-end Data
> Acquisition I/O boxes that, with LabView software, can do some very
> good tricks. The advantage is the intuitive nature of the graphic
> programming interface.
>
> Here are the points i see that must be considered
>
> These solutions tether the hardware to a PC. Is the additional
> 'overhead' worth it to the user?
>
> (speaking from my experiences with MAX MSP) I compare graphic modular
> development and low-level code development to the difference between
> writing a poem with 400 of theose magnetic refrigerator words and
> writing a poem with a typewriter.
> Both can yield good poetry.
>
> But having used the typewriter for many years , i prefer it. I always
> end-up feeling a little hobbled by biases that the designers of
> 'elements' build-in to them.
> Add that to the worry about the sheer number of tiny moving, humidity
> -sensitive parts in a laptop and the DIY'er in me just sorta takes over!
> ;'>
>
> but that's just me,
>
> I'm sure that BasicMicro ain't ABOUT to write a graphic code
> development environment for the BasicAtoms.... but somebody (with a
> lotta time on their hands) could!
>
> i think it's worthwhile to ask how many folks would prefer graphic
> development to low-level MBASIC or C or Forth coding.***
> The number might justify the effort of a (ie) graphic-to-MBASIC
> compiler .... to someone!
>
>
>
> That's my $.04
>
> best
> -doc