FPGA Central - World's 1st FPGA / CPLD Portal

FPGA Central

World's 1st FPGA Portal

 

Go Back   FPGA Groups > NewsGroup > DSP

DSP comp.dsp newsgroup, mailing list

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 01:43 PM
RealInfo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Audio DSP Micro ?

Hi All

I need some suitable DSP oriented microprocessor to do some audio
effects with it like ECHO , FUZZ , TREMOLLO etc .

My question is which DSP micros are popular/suitable in the guitar/audio
effects industry ?

Thanks in advance

ec


Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 03:57 PM
Al Clark
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

"RealInfo" <[email protected]> wrote in news:g0ej5r$so0$1
@news4.netvision.net.il:

> Hi All
>
> I need some suitable DSP oriented microprocessor to do some audio
> effects with it like ECHO , FUZZ , TREMOLLO etc .
>
> My question is which DSP micros are popular/suitable in the guitar/audio
> effects industry ?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> ec
>
>
>


The Analog Devices' Blackfin is great processor for stomp boxes. They are
very fast and low power.

Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing, Inc.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 04:46 PM
Vladimir Vassilevsky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?



Al Clark wrote:


> The Analog Devices' Blackfin is great processor for stomp boxes. They are
> very fast and low power.


BlackFin is not exactly very fast no very low power. It can only do
16x16=32 MACs; the 32x32=64 MAC is PITA with it.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 04:53 PM
RealInfo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

Then what would be your choice/s ?
ec

"Vladimir Vassilevsky" <[email protected]> ???
??????:[email protected] net...
>
>
> Al Clark wrote:
>
>
>> The Analog Devices' Blackfin is great processor for stomp boxes. They are
>> very fast and low power.

>
> BlackFin is not exactly very fast no very low power. It can only do
> 16x16=32 MACs; the 32x32=64 MAC is PITA with it.
>
>
> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
> http://www.abvolt.com



Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 05:08 PM
Richard Dobson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

RealInfo wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I need some suitable DSP oriented microprocessor to do some audio
> effects with it like ECHO , FUZZ , TREMOLLO etc .
>
> My question is which DSP micros are popular/suitable in the guitar/audio
> effects industry ?
>



The Freescale 56xxx series (prev. motorola) are still very popular for
audio. For guitarists a most interesting product is the Line6 "Tonecore"
SDK, which provides a dsp development kit in the form of an effects
pedal plugin module:

http://www.vettaville.nl/page.php?id=100#609



Richard Dobson


Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 05:08 PM
robert bristow-johnson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

On May 14, 10:46*am, Vladimir Vassilevsky <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Al Clark wrote:
> > The Analog Devices' Blackfin is great processor for stomp boxes. They are
> > very fast and low power.

>
> BlackFin is not exactly very fast no very low power. It can only do
> 16x16=32 MACs; the 32x32=64 MAC is PITA with it.


dunno about power consumption, but i thought that Blackfins were
pretty fast. fast enough that some folks do nearly everything in
double precision.

i think the Sigma DSP might become such an effects processor. i know
that is what Source Audio is using.

r b-j
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 05:39 PM
Vladimir Vassilevsky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?



robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>>BlackFin is not exactly very fast no very low power. It can only do
>>16x16=32 MACs; the 32x32=64 MAC is PITA with it.

>
>
> dunno about power consumption, but i thought that Blackfins were
> pretty fast. fast enough that some folks do nearly everything in
> double precision.


I guess what they do is 32x32 = upper 31. This can be done very
efficiently with BlackFin; 32 x 32 = 64 is the different story.

> i think the Sigma DSP might become such an effects processor. i know
> that is what Source Audio is using.


Agreed.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 06:36 PM
chris
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?


> > i think the Sigma DSP might become such an effects processor. i know
> > that is what Source Audio is using.


The Sigma DSP is pretty limited, I have seen it as a good companion
processor. It has built in ADC and DAC, and an efficient little
processor if you had some pre or post filtering that you wanted to
do. Unless you only want to use VisualDSP I believe the SigmaDSP
development environment will be limited.

Think a general purpose DSP would be better for effects. Some of the
new blackfins have integrated flash can ease hardware design.

Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 06:53 PM
robert bristow-johnson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

On May 14, 11:08 am, Richard Dobson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> RealInfo wrote:
> > Hi All

>
> > I need some suitable DSP oriented microprocessor to do some audio
> > effects with it like ECHO , FUZZ , TREMOLLO etc .

>
> > My question is which DSP micros are popular/suitable in the guitar/audio
> > effects industry ?

>
> The Freescale 56xxx series (prev. motorola) are still very popular for
> audio. For guitarists a most interesting product is the Line6 "Tonecore"
> SDK, which provides a dsp development kit in the form of an effects
> pedal plugin module:
>
> http://www.vettaville.nl/page.php?id=100#609
>


ya know, Richard, that is not a bad idea at all. in the olden days,
one could develop on the 56K using their inexpensive (and now, hard to
find) DSP56002EVM or, alternatively, on a Turtle Beach Tahiti,
Monterey, Fiji, or Pinnacle using a C-based loader/monitor/debugger
thingie i developed.

but if Line6 and Freescale put this together well, i presume this
ToneCore DSP Developer Kit (does it include the 563xx assembler? do
you need a C compiler?) might be precisely what the OP wants.

i *liked* coding on the 56K back in the days that i did (and i was
known here as a 56K partisan). it wasn't the biggest, most powerful
DSP, but it was good enough and general enough to do what one needed
to do. leaving out convolutional reverb and frequency-domain pitch
shifting (or any frequency-domain alg), the 56K could do about
anything one can dream up. it was (or *is*, i guess it actually
didn't die even though i thought it did 5 or 6 years ago) a pleasant
chip to code on (despite a couple of stupidities like how A0 and B0,
the least-significant words in the 56 bit accumulators, were lined up
- it's one bit off, a mistake that Bob Adams didn't repeat in the
Sigma DSP), though not the most powerful nor biggest chip to code on.

r b-j
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 07:00 PM
Randy Yates
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]> writes:
> [...]
> a mistake that Bob Adams didn't repeat in the Sigma DSP)


What is this "Sigma DSP"? Ok, wait - I've got Google. But
it's new to me.
--
% Randy Yates % "Watching all the days go by...
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % Who are you and who am I?"
%%% 919-577-9882 % 'Mission (A World Record)',
%%%% <[email protected]> % *A New World Record*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 09:12 PM
robert bristow-johnson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

On May 14, 1:00 pm, Randy Yates <[email protected]> wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]> writes:
> > [...]
> > a mistake that Bob Adams didn't repeat in the Sigma DSP)

>
> What is this "Sigma DSP"? Ok, wait - I've got Google. But
> it's new to me.


try AD1940 and AD1941. but there might now be even newer chips. i
heard that they are now able to do conditional branching like a decent
computer can do.

r b-j
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 09:53 PM
emeb
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

On May 14, 9:53 am, robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 14, 11:08 am, Richard Dobson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > RealInfo wrote:
> > > Hi All

>
> > > I need some suitable DSP oriented microprocessor to do some audio
> > > effects with it like ECHO , FUZZ , TREMOLLO etc .

>
> > > My question is which DSP micros are popular/suitable in the guitar/audio
> > > effects industry ?

>
> > The Freescale 56xxx series (prev. motorola) are still very popular for
> > audio. For guitarists a most interesting product is the Line6 "Tonecore"
> > SDK, which provides a dsp development kit in the form of an effects
> > pedal plugin module:

>
> >http://www.vettaville.nl/page.php?id=100#609

>
> ya know, Richard, that is not a bad idea at all. in the olden days,
> one could develop on the 56K using their inexpensive (and now, hard to
> find) DSP56002EVM or, alternatively, on a Turtle Beach Tahiti,
> Monterey, Fiji, or Pinnacle using a C-based loader/monitor/debugger
> thingie i developed.
>
> but if Line6 and Freescale put this together well, i presume this
> ToneCore DSP Developer Kit (does it include the 563xx assembler? do
> you need a C compiler?) might be precisely what the OP wants.
>
> i *liked* coding on the 56K back in the days that i did (and i was
> known here as a 56K partisan). it wasn't the biggest, most powerful
> DSP, but it was good enough and general enough to do what one needed
> to do. leaving out convolutional reverb and frequency-domain pitch
> shifting (or any frequency-domain alg), the 56K could do about
> anything one can dream up. it was (or *is*, i guess it actually
> didn't die even though i thought it did 5 or 6 years ago) a pleasant
> chip to code on (despite a couple of stupidities like how A0 and B0,
> the least-significant words in the 56 bit accumulators, were lined up
> - it's one bit off, a mistake that Bob Adams didn't repeat in the
> Sigma DSP), though not the most powerful nor biggest chip to code on.


Freescale also has a fairly inexpensive ($150) development system for
the DSP56371 processor. It includes a free Eclipse/GCC/GDB development
IDE and a USB connection to your PC for code download & debug. 8
channels audio in, 8 channels audio out (two of which can be optical
SPDIF) and a few dip switches and LEDs. More info here:

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...0127952D4A2D79

The DSP56371 has a nifty filter accelerator built-in that can offload
some of the DSP from the main processor. Good for FIRs mostly, but
also has some IIR features.

Eric

Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 12:57 AM
Al Clark
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

Vladimir Vassilevsky <[email protected]> wrote in news:NVCWj.7174
[email protected]:

>
>
> Al Clark wrote:
>
>
>> The Analog Devices' Blackfin is great processor for stomp boxes. They are
>> very fast and low power.

>
> BlackFin is not exactly very fast no very low power. It can only do
> 16x16=32 MACs; the 32x32=64 MAC is PITA with it.
>
>
> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
> http://www.abvolt.com


It's very fast when you consider the requirements of a stomp box. If I used
it for this purpose, I would probably run the core at low voltage and run
well below its maximum core clock. This reduces the power consumption
significantly.

SigmaDSP is very compact since it includes data converters. I'm not sure its
flexible enough. Maybe Bob Adams will comment?

Maybe a new 56K part would be reasonable but I can't see using an old 56002
for anything new. I know of designs that used an old ADI ADSP-2105 for this
kind of application, but I wouldn't do a new design this way either. They are
both from the same era.

Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing, Inc.

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 01:41 AM
Vladimir Vassilevsky
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?



Al Clark wrote:

> Vladimir Vassilevsky <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Al Clark wrote:
>>
>>>The Analog Devices' Blackfin is great processor for stomp boxes. They are
>>>very fast and low power.

>>
>>BlackFin is not exactly very fast no very low power. It can only do
>>16x16=32 MACs; the 32x32=64 MAC is PITA with it.
>>

> It's very fast when you consider the requirements of a stomp box. If I used
> it for this purpose, I would probably run the core at low voltage and run
> well below its maximum core clock. This reduces the power consumption
> significantly.


Not too long ago I measured the power consumption of BF-534 at 24MHz
bus/core clock, with the core in the idle most of time. It drains about
80mA from 3.3V. I didn't adjust the core voltage; however 80mA is no
small current.

> SigmaDSP is very compact since it includes data converters. I'm not sure its
> flexible enough. Maybe Bob Adams will comment?


The audio processors with ADCs/DACs are offered by TI, AKM, NXP.

> Maybe a new 56K part would be reasonable but I can't see using an old 56002
> for anything new. I know of designs that used an old ADI ADSP-2105 for this
> kind of application, but I wouldn't do a new design this way either. They are
> both from the same era.


There are some neat new parts in the 56k family. On the low end, there
are also dsPIC and TMS24xx.

> Al Clark
> Danville Signal Processing, Inc.



Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 06:00 AM
Tony
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:57:18 GMT, Al Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
>Vladimir Vassilevsky <[email protected]> wrote in news:NVCWj.7174
>[email protected]:
>> Al Clark wrote:
>>> The Analog Devices' Blackfin is great processor for stomp boxes. They are
>>> very fast and low power.

>>
>> BlackFin is not exactly very fast no very low power. It can only do
>> 16x16=32 MACs; the 32x32=64 MAC is PITA with it.
>>
>>
>> Vladimir Vassilevsky
>> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
>> http://www.abvolt.com

>
>It's very fast when you consider the requirements of a stomp box. If I used
>it for this purpose, I would probably run the core at low voltage and run
>well below its maximum core clock. This reduces the power consumption
>significantly.


Perhaps I'm on the wrong track here, but the AD1940/41 seemed to operate on 2.5-5V. I
would be very surprised if such a processor could match the MIPS/mW of a 1.2V or lower
core.

>SigmaDSP is very compact since it includes data converters. I'm not sure its
>flexible enough. Maybe Bob Adams will comment?


The AD1940/41 didn't seem to have any ADCs or DACs

What parts are you looking at?
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 08:39 AM
RealInfo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Multi Effect Core ?

Originally I was asking info for building a MULTI EFFECT pedal , meaning
that SEVERAL
effects can be active and chained at the same time , for example delay > eq
> noise gate etc .


So my question is which dsp core can do that multi effect ?

Thanks in advance .

ec



"Tony" <[email protected]> ???
??????:[email protected] ..
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:57:18 GMT, Al Clark <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>>Vladimir Vassilevsky <[email protected]> wrote in news:NVCWj.7174
>>[email protected]:
>>> Al Clark wrote:
>>>> The Analog Devices' Blackfin is great processor for stomp boxes. They
>>>> are
>>>> very fast and low power.
>>>
>>> BlackFin is not exactly very fast no very low power. It can only do
>>> 16x16=32 MACs; the 32x32=64 MAC is PITA with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Vladimir Vassilevsky
>>> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
>>> http://www.abvolt.com

>>
>>It's very fast when you consider the requirements of a stomp box. If I
>>used
>>it for this purpose, I would probably run the core at low voltage and run
>>well below its maximum core clock. This reduces the power consumption
>>significantly.

>
> Perhaps I'm on the wrong track here, but the AD1940/41 seemed to operate
> on 2.5-5V. I
> would be very surprised if such a processor could match the MIPS/mW of a
> 1.2V or lower
> core.
>
>>SigmaDSP is very compact since it includes data converters. I'm not sure
>>its
>>flexible enough. Maybe Bob Adams will comment?

>
> The AD1940/41 didn't seem to have any ADCs or DACs
>
> What parts are you looking at?



Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 09:36 AM
Rune Allnor
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Multi Effect Core ?

On 15 Mai, 08:39, "RealInfo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Originally I was asking info for building a MULTI EFFECT pedal , meaning
> that SEVERAL
> effects can be active and chained at the same time , for example delay > eq
> *> noise gate etc .
>
> So my question is which dsp core can do that multi effect ?


While there may be enough computational power available
in cutting-edge DSPs to achieve lots of stuff, the logistics
of chaining lots of demanding and different operations in
one core might become a little bit too much for DSP cores.

And then there is the flexibility issues involved by the user
wanting to exclude some effects, or chain them in a different
order than the programmer considered. Such logistics issues
can easily account for 90% or more of the programming effort.

The reason why systems are built up as simple modules is
that it is easy to make them interact robustly and have
the user chain them as he wants.

Rune
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 01:57 PM
Chris Felton
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?


> The AD1940/41 didn't seem to have any ADCs or DACs
>
> What parts are you looking at?


Example the ADAU1401
http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,765...1401%2C00.html

TI has some similar parts, like the TAS3103A (??)
http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folder.../tas3103a.html

I believe there is a blackfin part with a built in ADC/DAC as well.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 06:00 PM
RealInfo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

''''
"emeb" <[email protected]> ???
??????:[email protected]m...
> On May 14, 9:53 am, robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> On May 14, 11:08 am, Richard Dobson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > RealInfo wrote:
>> > > Hi All

>>
>> > > I need some suitable DSP oriented microprocessor to do some audio
>> > > effects with it like ECHO , FUZZ , TREMOLLO etc .

>>
>> > > My question is which DSP micros are popular/suitable in the
>> > > guitar/audio
>> > > effects industry ?

>>
>> > The Freescale 56xxx series (prev. motorola) are still very popular for
>> > audio. For guitarists a most interesting product is the Line6
>> > "Tonecore"
>> > SDK, which provides a dsp development kit in the form of an effects
>> > pedal plugin module:

>>
>> >http://www.vettaville.nl/page.php?id=100#609

>>
>> ya know, Richard, that is not a bad idea at all. in the olden days,
>> one could develop on the 56K using their inexpensive (and now, hard to
>> find) DSP56002EVM or, alternatively, on a Turtle Beach Tahiti,
>> Monterey, Fiji, or Pinnacle using a C-based loader/monitor/debugger
>> thingie i developed.
>>
>> but if Line6 and Freescale put this together well, i presume this
>> ToneCore DSP Developer Kit (does it include the 563xx assembler? do
>> you need a C compiler?) might be precisely what the OP wants.
>>
>> i *liked* coding on the 56K back in the days that i did (and i was
>> known here as a 56K partisan). it wasn't the biggest, most powerful
>> DSP, but it was good enough and general enough to do what one needed
>> to do. leaving out convolutional reverb and frequency-domain pitch
>> shifting (or any frequency-domain alg), the 56K could do about
>> anything one can dream up. it was (or *is*, i guess it actually
>> didn't die even though i thought it did 5 or 6 years ago) a pleasant
>> chip to code on (despite a couple of stupidities like how A0 and B0,
>> the least-significant words in the 56 bit accumulators, were lined up
>> - it's one bit off, a mistake that Bob Adams didn't repeat in the
>> Sigma DSP), though not the most powerful nor biggest chip to code on.

>
> Freescale also has a fairly inexpensive ($150) development system for
> the DSP56371 processor. It includes a free Eclipse/GCC/GDB development
> IDE and a USB connection to your PC for code download & debug. 8
> channels audio in, 8 channels audio out (two of which can be optical
> SPDIF) and a few dip switches and LEDs. More info here:
>
> http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...0127952D4A2D79
>
> The DSP56371 has a nifty filter accelerator built-in that can offload
> some of the DSP from the main processor. Good for FIRs mostly, but
> also has some IIR features.
>
> Eric
>



Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 06:09 PM
RealInfo
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Many thanks !!!


Many thanks to all those who took time to answer my question and to send
away the fog ...
Looks to me that since multi effect with multi chaining options is my goal ,
the best approach wolud be
implementing each effect kind - fuzz, tremollo , reverb , eq , noise gate
etc... with traditional
good old analog discrete ics and transistors and diodes .
Some control unit that is FPGA or some simple uc like 8051 that will do the
user interfacing and the
chaining etc would be best option .
If multi chaining is not needed then implementing the desired effect would
be best done with
the good old way ..

Relying on a single DSP core for that will be waste of time and effort .
What do you think ?

EC





"RealInfo" <[email protected]> כתב
בהודעה:[email protected]
> ''''
> "emeb" <[email protected]> ???
> ??????:[email protected]m...
>> On May 14, 9:53 am, robert bristow-johnson <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>> On May 14, 11:08 am, Richard Dobson <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > RealInfo wrote:
>>> > > Hi All
>>>
>>> > > I need some suitable DSP oriented microprocessor to do some audio
>>> > > effects with it like ECHO , FUZZ , TREMOLLO etc .
>>>
>>> > > My question is which DSP micros are popular/suitable in the
>>> > > guitar/audio
>>> > > effects industry ?
>>>
>>> > The Freescale 56xxx series (prev. motorola) are still very popular for
>>> > audio. For guitarists a most interesting product is the Line6
>>> > "Tonecore"
>>> > SDK, which provides a dsp development kit in the form of an effects
>>> > pedal plugin module:
>>>
>>> >http://www.vettaville.nl/page.php?id=100#609
>>>
>>> ya know, Richard, that is not a bad idea at all. in the olden days,
>>> one could develop on the 56K using their inexpensive (and now, hard to
>>> find) DSP56002EVM or, alternatively, on a Turtle Beach Tahiti,
>>> Monterey, Fiji, or Pinnacle using a C-based loader/monitor/debugger
>>> thingie i developed.
>>>
>>> but if Line6 and Freescale put this together well, i presume this
>>> ToneCore DSP Developer Kit (does it include the 563xx assembler? do
>>> you need a C compiler?) might be precisely what the OP wants.
>>>
>>> i *liked* coding on the 56K back in the days that i did (and i was
>>> known here as a 56K partisan). it wasn't the biggest, most powerful
>>> DSP, but it was good enough and general enough to do what one needed
>>> to do. leaving out convolutional reverb and frequency-domain pitch
>>> shifting (or any frequency-domain alg), the 56K could do about
>>> anything one can dream up. it was (or *is*, i guess it actually
>>> didn't die even though i thought it did 5 or 6 years ago) a pleasant
>>> chip to code on (despite a couple of stupidities like how A0 and B0,
>>> the least-significant words in the 56 bit accumulators, were lined up
>>> - it's one bit off, a mistake that Bob Adams didn't repeat in the
>>> Sigma DSP), though not the most powerful nor biggest chip to code on.

>>
>> Freescale also has a fairly inexpensive ($150) development system for
>> the DSP56371 processor. It includes a free Eclipse/GCC/GDB development
>> IDE and a USB connection to your PC for code download & debug. 8
>> channels audio in, 8 channels audio out (two of which can be optical
>> SPDIF) and a few dip switches and LEDs. More info here:
>>
>> http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...0127952D4A2D79
>>
>> The DSP56371 has a nifty filter accelerator built-in that can offload
>> some of the DSP from the main processor. Good for FIRs mostly, but
>> also has some IIR features.
>>
>> Eric
>>

>
>



Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2008, 08:36 PM
Al Clark
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Many thanks !!!

"RealInfo" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> Many thanks to all those who took time to answer my question and to send
> away the fog ...
> Looks to me that since multi effect with multi chaining options is my
> goal , the best approach wolud be
> implementing each effect kind - fuzz, tremollo , reverb , eq , noise
> gate etc... with traditional
> good old analog discrete ics and transistors and diodes .
> Some control unit that is FPGA or some simple uc like 8051 that will do
> the user interfacing and the
> chaining etc would be best option .
> If multi chaining is not needed then implementing the desired effect
> would be best done with
> the good old way ..
>
> Relying on a single DSP core for that will be waste of time and effort .
> What do you think ?
>
> EC


I was an analog engineer long before I did my first DSP application. One of
the first things I even built that actually worked was a fuzz box for my
guitar when I was a teenager.

I bring this up because I think I have perspective on both sides of the
situation.

From a strictly signal processing point of view, I would do the whole
project with a dedicated DSP that controls everything. Obviously, DSP
experience is helpful here. The specific DSP can be just about anything as
has already been pointed out. This would be the most flexible and alllow
you to easily experiment with new ideas. I don't see any real benefit of an
FPGA in this application. Certainly a small microcontroller (AVR or PIC)
and some analog switches could be used in an analog implementation.

The larger question is what is your motivation? It's cheaper to just buy a
commercial stomp box so I assume you want to learn something, enjoy
building stuff, etc. I think you need to answer this question.

Al Clark
Danville Signal Processing, Inc.



Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2008, 09:02 AM
boB
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

On Wed, 14 May 2008 12:53:19 -0700 (PDT), emeb <[email protected]>
wrote:

>O
>
>Freescale also has a fairly inexpensive ($150) development system for
>the DSP56371 processor. It includes a free Eclipse/GCC/GDB development
>IDE and a USB connection to your PC for code download & debug. 8
>channels audio in, 8 channels audio out (two of which can be optical
>SPDIF) and a few dip switches and LEDs. More info here:
>
>http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...0127952D4A2D79
>
>The DSP56371 has a nifty filter accelerator built-in that can offload
>some of the DSP from the main processor. Good for FIRs mostly, but
>also has some IIR features.
>
>Eric



Freescale (ex Motorola) has great parts, but your still stuck,
unfortunately, having to use Code Terrorist and very little and slow
support.

That was my last experience anyway.


boB

Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2008, 08:49 PM
emeb
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

On May 16, 12:02 am, boB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Freescale (ex Motorola) has great parts, but your still stuck,
> unfortunately, having to use Code Terrorist and very little and slow
> support.
>
> That was my last experience anyway.


Err... I know you're being ironic, but what's "Code Terrorist"? The
development software they're shipping now is called "Symphony Studio"
and it's available here:

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...0127952D4A2D79

It's a completely free download (about 58MB) and is based on open
source tools (Eclipse/GCC/GDB/OpenOCD). I don't know what the issues
with "Code Terrorist" were, but the current stuff seems to work OK.

Eric

Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 05-18-2008, 01:46 AM
Ben Bradley
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:49:48 -0700 (PDT), emeb <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On May 16, 12:02 am, boB <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Freescale (ex Motorola) has great parts, but your still stuck,
>> unfortunately, having to use Code Terrorist and very little and slow
>> support.
>>
>> That was my last experience anyway.

>
>Err... I know you're being ironic, but what's "Code Terrorist"? The


That would surely be CodeWarrior:

http://www.freescale.com/codewarrior (which expands to some longer URL
when you go there...)

It was originally a separate software development-tool company.
Motorola bought it in 1999, and is of course part of Freescale since
it was spun off from Motorola.
I'm using Codewarrier stuff for a Freescale microcontroller, it
appears to work well for what little I've been doing with it. It's a
"free" license code-limited to about 2k, then it's supposed to be a
$2,500 license to generate larger code.

Here's a history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CodeWarrior

>development software they're shipping now is called "Symphony Studio"
>and it's available here:
>
>http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/...0127952D4A2D79
>
>It's a completely free download (about 58MB) and is based on open
>source tools (Eclipse/GCC/GDB/OpenOCD). I don't know what the issues
>with "Code Terrorist" were, but the current stuff seems to work OK.
>
>Eric


Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 05-18-2008, 05:05 PM
emeb
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Audio DSP Micro ?

On May 17, 4:46 pm, Ben Bradley <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:49:48 -0700 (PDT), emeb <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 16, 12:02 am, boB <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> >> Freescale (ex Motorola) has great parts, but your still stuck,
> >> unfortunately, having to use Code Terrorist and very little and slow
> >> support.

>
> >Err... I know you're being ironic, but what's "Code Terrorist"? The

>
> That would surely be CodeWarrior:


Ah - OK. I used to use CW on Mac back in the 68K days. I knew that
they got sucked into Motorola and were supporting a lot of the current
Freescale parts. Never noticed it targeting 56K, although I confess I
haven't paid much attention to that niche for the last, oh, decade or
so.

Anyway, CW is not what they're using for the 56K lately.

Eric
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Freq Estimation w/ a Micro. -Kal DSP 5 01-19-2005 01:41 PM
What is the price of the micro-blaze, ... ? Lawrence D. Lopez FPGA 4 08-09-2004 09:07 PM
Micro : Bus it FPGA 0 05-18-2004 11:57 AM
vhdl toolkit without micro$oft? Jesper C VHDL 4 10-06-2003 10:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright 2008 @ FPGA Central. All rights reserved