Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> wrote in
news:fq2b7e$gpv$1@nnews.pacific.net.hk: 

> I think that in the end I think the experience of using kits is a
> pretty sterile one. It takes a lot longer than working with a PC, but
> adds surprisingly little to the experience.


My own experience is that you use a kit for a few days, and then if
you're going to continue with a real circuit:  layout, autorouter, and
PCB.  Believe it or not, layout and autorouter are free these days, and
two-sided boards are about $30 each. 

For implementing DSP on a chip, though, the kits probably don't add that
much value.  You need an analog in and an analog out.  It doesn't make
that much of a difference if you  need to wire in your own clock. 

If you want to have some real fun, get yourself a motor with a quad
encoder, and write a position controller with analog input.  Decode your
quad, control the motor with an H-bridge and PWM, and write a PID.
Output motor position on a DAC.   Write yourself an RS232 port, and use
it to put in control parameter from a terminal emulator.  Light up an
LED or two for giggles.  Limit yourself to fixed point math.  All this
sounds more complicated than it is, especially with a good compiler. 

You would learn register-level programming (depending upon how much your
compiler does for you, but nobody's forcing you to invoke the higher
level functions!), A/D, D/A, driving high power analog circuits from a
low current digital output, PID control, PWM (well, sort of), fixed
point math, basic electronics, board layout, serial communications,
quadrature decoding, board stuffing and soldering, maybe SMT soldering,
speccing out parts, using the right connectors, embedded C, circuit
troubleshooting, etc.  

This stuff is valuable, reachable, and practical-- and when you roll up
your sleeves like this, hardly sterile.  Each component is fairly
modular.  The toughest part would be the interrupt-driven handling of
the quad inputs, so it won't be too long before you upgrade to a
ucontroller that handles quad on its own.  With a coupla hours here or
there, and a few full-time weekends, I think this is a 3-4 month
project, from the day you receive your kit and compiler. The last month
or so would be learning to use the free layout and autorouter tools,
packaging your output up nice for a board house, and waiting to receive
the boards. 

Personally, I'd start with a microcontroller before going to a DSP, but
you could just use a DSP without calling any the DSP stuff -- and its
probably good to take on something not simple with fixed point math
before you get too used to having and FPU around. By the time you're
done, stepping up to a DSP will feel like untying your hands. 




-- 
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
> Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> wrote in news:fpo2oh$11o$1
> @nnews.pacific.net.hk:
> 
>>  What you do mostly, though, is 
>> spend time with the messy ins and outs of a chip that will be obsolete 
>> before graduation.
>>
> 
> You'll learn how to learn how to interface with a chip, and that experience 
> will be quite valuable for the next chip.  You'll learn how to interface 
> with the real world.  You'll learn what the drivers on data acquisition 
> boards are really doing, without Windows hiding all the good stuff that you 
> only need to know if a driver isn't doing what you want it to do.

How accurate is that when you really get down to it? Most kits have all 
the hardware interfacing done for 90% of the things people will try. 
They probably have some basic interface code, too. If you built a board 
from scratch you would start to find all the pain involved in getting a 
nice quiet layout from an economical 2 layer board, and other nastiness 
of getting a real application out the door. However, the time needed to 
do that probably makes it a no-no for most people. Especially since the 
learning process will probably require multiple spins of the board.

I think that in the end I think the experience of using kits is a pretty 
sterile one. It takes a lot longer than working with a PC, but adds 
surprisingly little to the experience.

> Couple this with a good knowledge of digital signal processing technique, 
> and tag on the fact that the whole shebang demonstrates in spades your 
> ability to teach yourself, your motivation, the fact that you're a "self 
> starter".

You sound like the evaluation board marketing department - "Use our 
evaluation board, and jump tall buildings with a single bound". :-\ Such 
a basic step as running simple (all you'll have time for) code on an 
embedded chip is not going to change your life.

> Go for it.  It will pay for itself.

If you set your sights in life low enough, I guess maybe it does. If you 
set your sights higher, you might use the time to address some of the 
things Randy mentioned as important in an engineering career:

"The engineer who can be adept simultaneously in engineering, math, 
business/economics acumen, hardware, software, theory, implementation, 
design, test, and integration is the real winner."

Regards,
Steve

Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org> wrote in news:fpo2oh$11o$1
@nnews.pacific.net.hk:

>  What you do mostly, though, is 
> spend time with the messy ins and outs of a chip that will be obsolete 
> before graduation.
> 

You'll learn how to learn how to interface with a chip, and that experience 
will be quite valuable for the next chip.  You'll learn how to interface 
with the real world.  You'll learn what the drivers on data acquisition 
boards are really doing, without Windows hiding all the good stuff that you 
only need to know if a driver isn't doing what you want it to do.  

Couple this with a good knowledge of digital signal processing technique, 
and tag on the fact that the whole shebang demonstrates in spades your 
ability to teach yourself, your motivation, the fact that you're a "self 
starter".

Go for it.  It will pay for itself.

-- 
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Steve Underwood wrote:
> Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
>> Steve Underwood wrote:
>>
>>> There is probably a 10000:1 ratio between the number of people who 
>>> can quote you a few concepts from their college course on DSP, and 
>>> those who can build a real physical system. However, its pretty much 
>>> the same ratio between those who can quote the course and those that 
>>> put together a real working application on a PC.
>>>
>>> Its real ability that is priceless.
>>
>>
>> Don't be lost in reverie. The real abilities have their value, however 
>> it is not priceless by any means :)
> 
> 
> Quite true. I only used that word, as its the one the original poster 
> used. Its more accurate to say it has a high value, though an all too 
> often unrecognised one.

The common corporate problem is that those who can judge about the 
abilities of a person do not have enough of power to encourage that 
person. This creates a situation of the adverse selection. So the 
creative folks either have start on their own or put their zeal into 
hobbies, contributing to the free opensource world.


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

Vladimir Vassilevsky wrote:
> 
> 
> Steve Underwood wrote:
> 
> 
>> There is probably a 10000:1 ratio between the number of people who can 
>> quote you a few concepts from their college course on DSP, and those 
>> who can build a real physical system. However, its pretty much the 
>> same ratio between those who can quote the course and those that put 
>> together a real working application on a PC.
>>
>> Its real ability that is priceless.
> 
> Don't be lost in reverie. The real abilities have their value, however 
> it is not priceless by any means :)

Quite true. I only used that word, as its the one the original poster 
used. Its more accurate to say it has a high value, though an all too 
often unrecognised one.

Steve

Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bogus@hotmail.com> writes:

> Steve Underwood wrote:
>
>
>> There is probably a 10000:1 ratio between the number of people who
>> can quote you a few concepts from their college course on DSP, and
>> those who can build a real physical system. However, its pretty much
>> the same ratio between those who can quote the course and those that
>> put together a real working application on a PC.
>>
>> Its real ability that is priceless.
>
> Don't be lost in reverie. The real abilities have their value, however
> it is not priceless by any means :)

I agree. The engineer who can be adept simultaneously in engineering,
math, business/economics acumen, hardware, software, theory,
implementation, design, test, and integration is the real winner. I'm
having a hard time being adept (and maintaining it) in any one!...
-- 
%  Randy Yates                  % "Bird, on the wing,
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC            %   goes floating by
%%% 919-577-9882                %   but there's a teardrop in his eye..."
%%%% <yates@ieee.org>           % 'One Summer Dream', *Face The Music*, ELO
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

Steve Underwood wrote:


> There is probably a 10000:1 ratio between the number of people who can 
> quote you a few concepts from their college course on DSP, and those who 
> can build a real physical system. However, its pretty much the same 
> ratio between those who can quote the course and those that put together 
> a real working application on a PC.
> 
> Its real ability that is priceless.

Don't be lost in reverie. The real abilities have their value, however 
it is not priceless by any means :)


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

steve wrote:
> On Feb 22, 7:09 pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
>> Ron N. wrote:
>>> On Feb 22, 7:06 am, Jim Thomas <jtho...@bittware.com> wrote:
>>>> nrclark wrote:
>>>>> I'm a college student interested in doing some hobby DSP. I've had some
>>>>> classes in DSP theory, but none of them actually went into the hardware
>>>>> and tools available out there for embedded DSP hobby projects.
>>>>> What is a good platform for a hobbyist to do fairly simple DSP sorts of
>>>>> things ...
>>>> A PC is actually pretty good for this.
>>> I you want to experience the hardware and tools side of DSP,
>>> using a modern PC will rarely expose issues involving limited
>>> memory footprint, available processor cycles, interrupt
>>> latency, how fast a particular algorithm drains the battery,
>>> low level driver or direct hardware interfaces, & etc.; as
>>> well as tools issues such as development/OS compatibility
>>> issues; minor, seemingly legal, source code changes which
>>> result in the code not compiling, or building with a 10X code
>>> bloat or performance hit, & etc.
>>> And, yes, I've done some of the above for self-education and
>>> hobby purposes, writing audio DSP software for some of my
>>> PalmOS handhelds (although demoing one random
>>> experiment to an acquaintance ended up leading to several
>>> business opportunities...  Learn something new, and you
>>> never know when it might come in useful.)
>> The problem with using a chip sold as a DSP for education is you learn
>> mostly throw away knowledge. DSP on a PC is about basic signal
>> processing. Knowledge that will last a lifetime - remember, most basic
>> analogue signal processing knowledge carried through pretty well into
>> the DSP era,. Basic knowledge has staying power. Compare that to what
>> you learn with a DSP kit. You learn a bit about how architectures are
>> crafted to do polynomials real quick. You might also learn a bit about
>> how problems need to be structured to exploit the parallelism of the
>> hardfware, especially for a VLIW machine. What you do mostly, though, is
>> spend time with the messy ins and outs of a chip that will be obsolete
>> before graduation.
>>
>> Chip specific knowledge is only worth learning the week before you start
>>   your first application with that chip.
>>
>> Steve- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
> 
> There's probabaly a 10000 to one ratio of people who know basic signal
> theory vs someone who can build a small DSP board with, say a gyro,
> and tape it to a football and process and display it's motion in a
> meaningful way. That type of knowledge is priceless.

There is probably a 10000:1 ratio between the number of people who can 
quote you a few concepts from their college course on DSP, and those who 
can build a real physical system. However, its pretty much the same 
ratio between those who can quote the course and those that put together 
a real working application on a PC.

Its real ability that is priceless.

Steve

On Feb 22, 7:09&#4294967295;pm, Steve Underwood <ste...@dis.org> wrote:
> Ron N. wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 7:06 am, Jim Thomas <jtho...@bittware.com> wrote:
> >> nrclark wrote:
> >>> I'm a college student interested in doing some hobby DSP. I've had some
> >>> classes in DSP theory, but none of them actually went into the hardware
> >>> and tools available out there for embedded DSP hobby projects.
> >>> What is a good platform for a hobbyist to do fairly simple DSP sorts of
> >>> things ...
> >> A PC is actually pretty good for this.
>
> > I you want to experience the hardware and tools side of DSP,
> > using a modern PC will rarely expose issues involving limited
> > memory footprint, available processor cycles, interrupt
> > latency, how fast a particular algorithm drains the battery,
> > low level driver or direct hardware interfaces, & etc.; as
> > well as tools issues such as development/OS compatibility
> > issues; minor, seemingly legal, source code changes which
> > result in the code not compiling, or building with a 10X code
> > bloat or performance hit, & etc.
>
> > And, yes, I've done some of the above for self-education and
> > hobby purposes, writing audio DSP software for some of my
> > PalmOS handhelds (although demoing one random
> > experiment to an acquaintance ended up leading to several
> > business opportunities... &#4294967295;Learn something new, and you
> > never know when it might come in useful.)
>
> The problem with using a chip sold as a DSP for education is you learn
> mostly throw away knowledge. DSP on a PC is about basic signal
> processing. Knowledge that will last a lifetime - remember, most basic
> analogue signal processing knowledge carried through pretty well into
> the DSP era,. Basic knowledge has staying power. Compare that to what
> you learn with a DSP kit. You learn a bit about how architectures are
> crafted to do polynomials real quick. You might also learn a bit about
> how problems need to be structured to exploit the parallelism of the
> hardfware, especially for a VLIW machine. What you do mostly, though, is
> spend time with the messy ins and outs of a chip that will be obsolete
> before graduation.
>
> Chip specific knowledge is only worth learning the week before you start
> &#4294967295; your first application with that chip.
>
> Steve- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There's probabaly a 10000 to one ratio of people who know basic signal
theory vs someone who can build a small DSP board with, say a gyro,
and tape it to a football and process and display it's motion in a
meaningful way. That type of knowledge is priceless.

"Rick Lyons" <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote in message 
news:cah1s3l1phrmphogvlpgejsghl0blbigdf@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:09:05 +0800, Steve Underwood <steveu@dis.org>
> wrote:
>
>  (snipped by Lyons)
>>
>>The problem with using a chip sold as a DSP for education is you learn
>>mostly throw away knowledge. DSP on a PC is about basic signal
>>processing. Knowledge that will last a lifetime - remember, most basic
>>analogue signal processing knowledge carried through pretty well into
>>the DSP era,. Basic knowledge has staying power. Compare that to what
>>you learn with a DSP kit. You learn a bit about how architectures are
>>crafted to do polynomials real quick.
>
>
> Hi Steve,
>   Your words "Basic knowledge has staying power"
> sound to me like a universal truth.  Neat!
>
> [-Rick-]
>
>
FORTRAN knowledge also... ;-)

 --Phil Martel