MOTM

Win 98 and Win 2000. So, break out the Pentium I's.

Paul S.

Here's a really stupid question that keeps nagging me
for a long time:

since both middle pins on the MOTM pwer connectors
carry ground, why not use a 3-pin connector instead?
What's the advantage having the 4-pin, dual-GND
configuration?
I guess the question is mainly meant for Paul, but
maybe some other people are wondering the same
thing...

Best Regards,
Dino



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

There is safety in redundancy.

Moe

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Dino Leone <d_p_leone@...> wrote:

>
> Here's a really stupid question that keeps nagging me
> for a long time:
> 
> since both middle pins on the MOTM pwer connectors
> carry ground, why not use a 3-pin connector instead?
> What's the advantage having the 4-pin, dual-GND
> configuration?
> I guess the question is mainly meant for Paul, but
> maybe some other people are wondering the same
> thing...
> 
> Best Regards,
> Dino
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

- and theoretically, less resistance?

Barry S.

--- In motm@...m, "mate_stubb" <mate_stubb@...> wrote:

>
> There is safety in redundancy.
> 
> Moe
> 
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Dino Leone <d_p_leone@> wrote:
> >
> > Here's a really stupid question that keeps nagging me
> > for a long time:
> > 
> > since both middle pins on the MOTM pwer connectors
> > carry ground, why not use a 3-pin connector instead?
> > What's the advantage having the 4-pin, dual-GND
> > configuration?
> > I guess the question is mainly meant for Paul, but
> > maybe some other people are wondering the same
> > thing...
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > Dino
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
>

my guess is that originally the 4-pin connector was designed to carry 
two grounds, one nice clean analogue one and one dirty digital one.

>- and theoretically, less resistance?
>
>Barry S.
>
>--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "mate_stubb" <mate_stubb@...> wrote:
>>
>>  There is safety in redundancy.
>>
>>  Moe
>>
>>  --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Dino Leone <d_p_leone@> wrote:
>>  >
>>  > Here's a really stupid question that keeps nagging me
>>  > for a long time:
>>  >
>>  > since both middle pins on the MOTM pwer connectors
>>  > carry ground, why not use a 3-pin connector instead?
>>  > What's the advantage having the 4-pin, dual-GND
>>  > configuration?
>>  > I guess the question is mainly meant for Paul, but
>>  > maybe some other people are wondering the same
>>  > thing...
>>  >
>>  > Best Regards,
>>  > Dino
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > __________________________________________________
>>  > Do You Yahoo!?
>>  > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>  > http://mail.yahoo.com
>>  >
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

> since both middle pins on the MOTM pwer connectors
> carry ground, why not use a 3-pin connector instead?
> What's the advantage having the 4-pin, dual-GND
> configuration?

Lower resistance = lower noise.

Paul S.

I really don't see anything *good* about releasing source code for the
'650. In order to even do something with it, you have to complie/assemble
it, then you have to have a devide programmer AND an adapter socket for
the Atmel RD2 part.

If anyone is "just curious" about 'how the code works', I can't help you
there :) I'm curious about my MP3 player, but don't expect to see source
code on the Creative Labs website.

If anyone is worried about longevity: I'll gladly send you another uP
(it's in a socket). If you are worried about 10 years from now: it doubt
Atmel will be making this part in 10 years (shrug). Simple fact of the
market. Which is why I bought *250* of them.

In fact, Atmel may still make the uP, but what if Analog Devices drops the
DAC? Or TI drops the mux?

Paul S.

> I really don't see anything *good* about releasing source code for the
> '650. In order to even do something with it, you have to
complie/assemble
> it, then you have to have a devide programmer AND an adapter socket for
> the Atmel RD2 part.

I thought it could be updated over MIDI?  Then all you'd need would be
a target tool chain and a MIDI interface.

> If anyone is "just curious" about 'how the code works', I can't help you
> there :) I'm curious about my MP3 player, but don't expect to see source
> code on the Creative Labs website.

I've modified *my* MP3 player. :->

It's just a pity that something as inherently malleable as software
needs to be locked down.  In many of your manuals you suggest
component changes based on custom needs.  This unit could be a really
interesting intersection of MOTM quality and custom MIDI flexibility.
 Instead, it's more like the traces on the board.  (Actually, worse
than that, since I can cut a trace and re-route!)

$0.02,
Andy

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006, synth1@... wrote:

> I really don't see anything *good* about releasing source code for the
> '650. In order to even do something with it, you have to complie/assemble
> it, then you have to have a devide programmer AND an adapter socket for
> the Atmel RD2 part.

not interested in the firmware, just the firmware loader protocol. the 
"complicated handshaking" part. i personally would have prefered a sysex 
loader to a custom app to maintain, but no one asked me :D

--mikes

> It's just a pity that something as inherently malleable as 
> software needs to be locked down.  

It's also a pity that I can't pay the mortgage, buy groceries, pay the
utility bills, etc. by giving away the software I write.

--Adam

Is this a troll?

This argument has been had about 1000000 times elsewhere on the
internet.  You make money by giving away the software but selling
support, hosting, hardware, and customization.

Can we not have this argument again, here? Please? Pretty please? With
sugar on top? Please? No, really, I'm begging.

On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 10:36 -0700, Adam Schabtach wrote:
> > It's just a pity that something as inherently malleable as 
> > software needs to be locked down.  
> 
> It's also a pity that I can't pay the mortgage, buy groceries, pay the
> utility bills, etc. by giving away the software I write.

> Is this a troll?

No, just an attempt to present an alternate point of view. Maybe that's a
"troll"?
 
> This argument has been had about 1000000 times elsewhere on 
> the internet.  You make money by giving away the software but 
> selling support, hosting, hardware, and customization.

Works for some kinds software, but not others. E.g. suppose I want to sell a
word-processing program; how do I sell hardware for that? That's a
rhetorical question; nobody has to answer it because...

> Can we not have this argument again, here? Please? Pretty 
> please? With sugar on top? Please? No, really, I'm begging.

...I agree. This will be my last posting on the topic. I promise.

--Adam

> I thought it could be updated over MIDI?  Then all you'd need would be
> a target tool chain and a MIDI interface.

Yes, updates that *customers* will get are in fact downloaded
over MIDI using the Updater program I posted about.

But this is a special, formatted file. It has checksums and other stuff embedded 
in it.
Sort of like the old Xmodem protocol.

And, in order for the Updater to "do its thing", the Atmel uP needs a code 
pre-loaded
called the Boot Loader. This is loaded in with my Xeltek device programmer:

http://www.xeltek.com/product.php?productid=16220

Using a DIP-to-PLCC adapter socket. After I install the Boot loader, *then* it 
can
talk to the Updater.

> It's just a pity that something as inherently malleable as software
> needs to be locked down.

Well, there will be sufficient info in the manual so that anyone can insert 
their own uP
programmed with different code to run the '650. The hardware is not that 
"sophisticated",
it's just quite accurate, DC-wise. Writing to the display is on the 'net already 
(uses industry
standard Hitachi 44100 instructions), the 4 keys are I/O pins, and the DACs are 
just SPI
peripherals. The MIDI in and out  use the internal UART. Piece of cake :)

Paul S.

I can see the title now:  "Hacking the MOTM-650" from O'Reilly 
Publications.  :)

- Richard Brewster

http://www.pugix.com

Paul Schreiber wrote:

>Well, there will be sufficient info in the manual so that anyone can insert 
>their own uP
>programmed with different code to run the '650. The hardware is not that 
>"sophisticated",
>it's just quite accurate, DC-wise. Writing to the display is on the 'net already 
>(uses industry
>standard Hitachi 44100 instructions), the 4 keys are I/O pins, and the DACs are 
>just SPI
>peripherals. The MIDI in and out  use the internal UART. Piece of cake :)
>
>Paul S.
>  
>

If you so believed that everything should be open then why not put the same 
argument to MOTM.  Why shouldn't the gerber files, schematics and bill of 
materials be free and Paul just make money on 
support/software/customization/soldering.  It's rediculous that people think 
that software engineers should make their money off of hardware and support, 
yet nobody thinks hardware engineers should make their money off of 
software.

One of the things you said actually contradicts itself.  You want software 
to be free so you can customize it, yet you say he should give away software 
and charge for customizations.  Doesn't giving away the source impair his 
ability to charge for customizations?


>From: jfm3 <jfm3@...>
>To: Adam Schabtach <adam@...>
>CC: motm@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: RE: [motm] Re: Firmware/source code
>Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 12:52:55 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>>X-Sender: jfm3@...
>Received: from n2a.bullet.scd.yahoo.com ([66.94.237.36]) by 
>bay0-mc12-f3.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 
>24 Mar 2006 09:59:27 -0800
>Received: from [66.218.69.6] by n2.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Mar 
>2006 17:58:13 -0000
>Received: from [66.218.66.36] by t6.bullet.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 24 Mar 
>2006 17:58:13 -0000
>Received: (qmail 61145 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2006 17:58:08 -0000
>Received: from unknown (66.218.67.35)  by m30.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 
>24 Mar 2006 17:58:08 -0000
>Received: from unknown (HELO firey.dreamhost.com) (66.33.193.188)  by 
>mta9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Mar 2006 17:58:08 -0000
>Received: from [192.168.17.137] (wg7-hill012.rutgers.edu [128.6.30.201])by 
>firey.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6CEC16D4B0;Fri, 24 Mar 2006 
>09:57:36 -0800 (PST)
>X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jFMJmT5GGvOeFPZJyJD6KFEb4B/UORQ4cc=
>Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
>DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; 
>d=yahoogroups.com;b=aFwfhEQEBAbCEauLY4ZM1fAFlN1cIz3ZwkFROZYv4u8VWZkRPpN7Ssb9x5AZIoOPrhRrDGsrIO3J6Z2GK159hTwHXlBzA/EeAmV8sP7xKNu0xA6dQbrPJtWLrfqc+Dgo;
>X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email
>X-Apparently-To: motm@yahoogroups.com
>References: <E1FMqD2-0005iW-6L@...>
>Organization: http://www.ouroboros-complex.org
>X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0
>X-Yahoo-Profile: jfm3jfm3jfm3
>Mailing-List: list motm@yahoogroups.com; contact motm-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Delivered-To: mailing list motm@yahoogroups.com
>List-Id: <motm.yahoogroups.com>
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:motm-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
>Return-Path: 
>sentto-88644-27169-1143223092-djarago=hotmail.com@...
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2006 17:59:27.0310 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[B11BF6E0:01C64F6C]
>
>Is this a troll?
>
>This argument has been had about 1000000 times elsewhere on the
>internet.  You make money by giving away the software but selling
>support, hosting, hardware, and customization.
>
>Can we not have this argument again, here? Please? Pretty please? With
>sugar on top? Please? No, really, I'm begging.
>
>On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 10:36 -0700, Adam Schabtach wrote:
> > > It's just a pity that something as inherently malleable as
> > > software needs to be locked down.
> >
> > It's also a pity that I can't pay the mortgage, buy groceries, pay the
> > utility bills, etc. by giving away the software I write.
>
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Don\ufffdt just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/