ComputerVoltageSources

Hi All

I just got signed up and did a quick read of all the posting so far.
As background, I've been involved with programming for a living for
over 25 years, and as a hobby since 1970! I've messed just about
every platform since the original S-100 systems. (Intel 8080 8-bit
'cpu', 100 pin generic buss.)

Might I suggest we be sol bold as to create a reference platform.
Certain minimum requirements and then 'modular' options that may or
may not be included. This could even go so far as to make the cpu
itself modular, allowing different devices to be used, based on the
particular needs of the person building the module at hand. Any given
function would serve a specific purpose and be talked to the same way.
Basic 'cv' output, basic 'cv' input, display options, MIDI options, ...

The PSIM provides a good, overall reference, but it is a 'unified'
platform and not overly flexible in that regard. Maybe we are even
talking using a small buss (say 22 lines, more, less?) to allow
modules to be connected. Now you make a buss with x number of slots,
and populdate it. 1 slot for the CPU, 1 for CV in, 3 for CV out, 1
for display, 1 for MIDI, and so on. How many 'channels' on a CV out
module? How many 'channels' on a CV in? Lots of choices. Want a
'fixed' module, kust combine the reference circuits into a single PCB
and you are on the way.

Comments?

Larry T.

I am getting very tired of references to the PSIM, seeing as how only a few
people have them and it is ³vapor ware² as far as the rest of us are
concerned. While well-intentioned, I think that Larry¹s proposal is too
complicated. In my view, we should stick with something that will appeal to
the broadest constituency first, then, refine later. From my perspective,
the Basic Atom Pro is the way to go ­ a flexible platform that readily will
succumb to subsequent user modifications. DAVID

On 3/7/06 11:20 AM, "Larry T." <larry@...> wrote:

> Hi All
>
> I just got signed up and did a quick read of all the posting so far.
> As background, I've been involved with programming for a living for
> over 25 years, and as a hobby since 1970! I've messed just about
> every platform since the original S-100 systems. (Intel 8080 8-bit
> 'cpu', 100 pin generic buss.)
>
> Might I suggest we be sol bold as to create a reference platform.
> Certain minimum requirements and then 'modular' options that may or
> may not be included. This could even go so far as to make the cpu
> itself modular, allowing different devices to be used, based on the
> particular needs of the person building the module at hand. Any given
> function would serve a specific purpose and be talked to the same way.
> Basic 'cv' output, basic 'cv' input, display options, MIDI options, ...
>
> The PSIM provides a good, overall reference, but it is a 'unified'
> platform and not overly flexible in that regard. Maybe we are even
> talking using a small buss (say 22 lines, more, less?) to allow
> modules to be connected. Now you make a buss with x number of slots,
> and populdate it. 1 slot for the CPU, 1 for CV in, 3 for CV out, 1
> for display, 1 for MIDI, and so on. How many 'channels' on a CV out
> module? How many 'channels' on a CV in? Lots of choices. Want a
> 'fixed' module, kust combine the reference circuits into a single PCB
> and you are on the way.
>
> Comments?
>
> Larry T.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
>
> Music instrument stores
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Music+instrument+stores&w1=Music+instrume
> nt+stores&w2=Electronic&w3=Instruments&w4=Module&c=4&s=74&.sig=sl1GY0kdfizgobJ
> LyCnG4g> Electronic
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Electronic&w1=Music+instrument+stores&w2=
> Electronic&w3=Instruments&w4=Module&c=4&s=74&.sig=lQYNIdCzB9Es_s-ln81AvQ>
> Instruments
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Instruments&w1=Music+instrument+stores&w2
> =Electronic&w3=Instruments&w4=Module&c=4&s=74&.sig=e6Jlo4KGQihWioYCcIZjjQ>
> Module
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Module&w1=Music+instrument+stores&w2=Elec
> tronic&w3=Instruments&w4=Module&c=4&s=74&.sig=sPALVFXECM0JfHcmogn8UA>
>
>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> * Visit your group "ComputerVoltageSources
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ComputerVoltageSources> " on the web.
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * ComputerVoltageSources-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:ComputerVoltageSources-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
> >
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
>




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

Now that's unfortunate, considering that I will be referring to the
PSIM extensively. It is the logical test bed for ideas here. That
said, one of the purposes of this group is to come up with an
alternative to the PSIM given its limitations and its lack of
availability, so references to it may wane as time goes on.

By the way, I have at least one program that I would like to post but
I understand that to be problematic given Brice's insistence on GPL.
Can somebody explain what we can post here and whether or not we're
violating some of that license?

I have a program that implements algorithmic composition, after a
fashion...

Mike

--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, David Kronemyer
<dkronemyer@...> wrote:

>
> I am getting very tired of references to the PSIM, seeing as how

only a few

> people have them and it is ³vapor ware² as far as the rest of us are
> concerned. While well-intentioned, I think that Larry¹s proposal is too
> complicated. In my view, we should stick with something that will

appeal to

> the broadest constituency first, then, refine later. From my

perspective,

> the Basic Atom Pro is the way to go ­ a flexible platform that

readily will

> succumb to subsequent user modifications. DAVID
>

If it is your program you can post it! If you wrote it you can
GPL it if you would like (I wouldn't, I'd just put a notice
at the top to the effect that "this code is now in the public
domain"), but nobody is stopping you from posting it here, even
if you had posted it to the SynthModules site in the past.


--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Marsh"
<michaelmarsh@...> wrote:

>
> Now that's unfortunate, considering that I will be referring to the
> PSIM extensively. It is the logical test bed for ideas here. That
> said, one of the purposes of this group is to come up with an
> alternative to the PSIM given its limitations and its lack of
> availability, so references to it may wane as time goes on.
>
> By the way, I have at least one program that I would like to post but
> I understand that to be problematic given Brice's insistence on GPL.
> Can somebody explain what we can post here and whether or not we're
> violating some of that license?
>
> I have a program that implements algorithmic composition, after a
> fashion...
>
> Mike
>
> --- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, David Kronemyer
> <dkronemyer@> wrote:
> >
> > I am getting very tired of references to the PSIM, seeing as how
> only a few
> > people have them and it is ³vapor ware² as far as the rest of us are
> > concerned. While well-intentioned, I think that Larry¹s proposal

is too

> > complicated. In my view, we should stick with something that will
> appeal to
> > the broadest constituency first, then, refine later. From my
> perspective,
> > the Basic Atom Pro is the way to go ­ a flexible platform that
> readily will
> > succumb to subsequent user modifications. DAVID
> >
>

Hi Mike
--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Marsh"
<michaelmarsh@...> wrote:

> By the way, I have at least one program that I would like to post but
> I understand that to be problematic given Brice's insistence on GPL.
> Can somebody explain what we can post here and whether or not we're
> violating some of that license?
>

the moderators have the autoritative say-so here of course, but my
understanding is that, in this group, the author* (and only the
author) of the software retains (or waives) all rights to his/her code.

Thus if you elect to post code here , you will have sole discretion
(and responsibility) for the dissemination and provenance of the code
in your folder. I also understand the intention to be that different
folders may have different strings attached. But the point is that no
one's insistences, intentions or otherwise extraneous poistions matter
in your folder .... only the Author's

I apologize to the moderators if i've mis-stated the current policy
and hope to stand corrected in such case.

best,
-doc


*(or authorS)

Hi David
The consensus (so far) appears to be that all software-driven analog
voltage I/O's, as a class of devices, are on-topic. The PSIM is
definitely a member of the this classification but there are certainly
many others in this class too. I may post some photo's of a few of my
early DIY attempts but not until the whole group is VERY desperate for
comedy.
This is only an opinion, but , please hang tight...i think the
disussion here will move FAR beyond PSIM-specific posts soon. This is
a very fertile field.

best,
doc



--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, David Kronemyer
<dkronemyer@...> wrote:

>
> I am getting very tired of references to the PSIM, seeing as how

only a few

> people have them and it is ³vapor ware² as far as the rest of us are
> concerned. While well-intentioned, I think that Larry¹s proposal is too
> complicated. In my view, we should stick with something that will

appeal to

> the broadest constituency first, then, refine later. From my

perspective,

> the Basic Atom Pro is the way to go ­ a flexible platform that

readily will

> succumb to subsequent user modifications. DAVID
>

> I am getting very tired of references to the PSIM, seeing
> as how only a few people have them and it is "vapor ware"
> as far as the rest of us are concerned.

Dude, please... First of all, the PSIM-1 is not vaporware, it is just an
endangered species. ;-) While I really do understand your perspective, the
PSIM is extremely relevant to this group as a common point of reference. We
are also (as far as I can tell) aiming for code compatibilty with it,
because we can take advantage of its existing code base.

Note that at least one of this group's founders had a major role in its
design. Meanwhile, Dr Mabuse has (a) written lots of code and (b) extended
the PSIM in ways that shine a light on some paths that we may take -- such
as adding MIDI and an LCD display (and yes, I want those options!).

I've never seen a Buchla Marf, nor am I likely to ever see one, and it's
also a rare beast. Yet, I still want to read about it. Rarity is not a good
reason to ignore something, IMHO.

I agree that Larry T's reference platform concept is overly cmoplex for the
job at hand.
--
john


P.S. I would hazard a guess that Grant would just as soon never hear about
the PSIM, either!

I ended up putting the following header in my programs. I felt the
urge to put in a disclaimer since I had no idea where this code may
end up in the future. I have sent my template to people on the
BasicMicro forums for use in totally non-music applications.

Comments / opinions? Seems pretty tame.

Dave


Program: name
Developed by David J. Brown
Copyright (c) date David J. Brown
Email: address
Web site: http://modularsynthesis.com

LICENSE AGREEMENT:
This program is free software. You can redistribute it and/or modify
it. However, no part of this code may be used in any commercial
application without prior written permission.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


--- In ComputerVoltageSources@yahoogroups.com, "Michael A. Firman"
<maf@...> wrote:

> If it is your program you can post it! If you wrote it you can
> GPL it if you would like (I wouldn't, I'd just put a notice
> at the top to the effect that "this code is now in the public
> domain"), but nobody is stopping you from posting it here, even
> if you had posted it to the SynthModules site in the past.

I got a good email from a group member that convinced me how
complicated all of this is and the need to simplify. As such, I have
removed the commercial application statement from all of my code and
have uploaded versions without this statement. Thanks for the
feedback. Now let's advance this hobby forward!

Dave

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

>
> I ended up putting the following header in my programs. I felt the
> urge to put in a disclaimer since I had no idea where this code may
> end up in the future. I have sent my template to people on the
> BasicMicro forums for use in totally non-music applications.
>
> Comments / opinions? Seems pretty tame.
>
> Dave
>
>
> Program: name
> Developed by David J. Brown
> Copyright (c) date David J. Brown
> Email: address
> Web site: http://modularsynthesis.com

>
> LICENSE AGREEMENT:
> This program is free software. You can redistribute it and/or modify
> it. However, no part of this code may be used in any commercial
> application without prior written permission.
>
> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
> WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY, without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.