On May 17, 4:46 pm, Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_brad...@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:49:48 -0700 (PDT), emeb <ebromba...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On May 16, 12:02 am, boB <boB@> 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 by Ben Bradley●May 17, 20082008-05-17
On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:49:48 -0700 (PDT), emeb <ebrombaugh@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On May 16, 12:02 am, boB <boB@> 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/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=SYMPH_STUDIO&nodeId=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 by emeb●May 16, 20082008-05-16
On May 16, 12:02 am, boB <boB@> 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/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=SYMPH_STUDIO&nodeId=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 by boB●May 16, 20082008-05-16
On Wed, 14 May 2008 12:53:19 -0700 (PDT), emeb <ebrombaugh@gmail.com>
wrote:
>O
>
>Freescale also has a fairly inexpensive ($150) development system for
>the DSP56371 processor. It includes a free Eclipse/GCC/GDB development
>IDE and a USB connection to your PC for code download & debug. 8
>channels audio in, 8 channels audio out (two of which can be optical
>SPDIF) and a few dip switches and LEDs. More info here:
>
>http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=SYMP_SOUNDBITE&nodeId=0127952D4A2D79
>
>The DSP56371 has a nifty filter accelerator built-in that can offload
>some of the DSP from the main processor. Good for FIRs mostly, but
>also has some IIR features.
>
>Eric
Freescale (ex Motorola) has great parts, but your still stuck,
unfortunately, having to use Code Terrorist and very little and slow
support.
That was my last experience anyway.
boB
Reply by Al Clark●May 15, 20082008-05-15
"RealInfo" <therightinfo@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:g0hjkl$gh5$1@news4.netvision.net.il:
>
> 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 by RealInfo●May 15, 20082008-05-15
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" <therightinfo@yahoo.com> ���
������:g0hj3j$f1h$1@news4.netvision.net.il...
> ''''
> "emeb" <ebrombaugh@gmail.com> ???
> ??????:f9f69a59-4c21-443c-901d-ef5a01f51f95@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 14, 9:53 am, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On May 14, 11:08 am, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>> 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/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=SYMP_SOUNDBITE&nodeId=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
>>
>
>
> On May 14, 9:53 am, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com>
> wrote:
>> On May 14, 11:08 am, Richard Dobson <richarddob...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>> 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/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=SYMP_SOUNDBITE&nodeId=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 by Chris Felton●May 15, 20082008-05-15
> The AD1940/41 didn't seem to have any ADCs or DACs
>
> What parts are you looking at?
On 15 Mai, 08:39, "RealInfo" <therighti...@yahoo.com> 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 by RealInfo●May 15, 20082008-05-15
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" <tony@nowhere.com.au> ???
??????:e3dn24dvfa8mqi8c14jbqvrnhd3imppqu8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:57:18 GMT, Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com>
> wrote:
>>Vladimir Vassilevsky <antispam_bogus@hotmail.com> wrote in news:NVCWj.7174
>>$3O7.4048@newssvr19.news.prodigy.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
>>
>>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?