Need help for DSP interfacing (newbie)

Jerry Avins wrote:

> Daniele C. wrote:
>  
>> Thank you Jerry! You have been very kind and explanatory, and your
>> patience is great too! I know how bad sound technical terms written by
>> me :)
> 
> 
> You're certainly welcome. Technical terms facilitate communication. We 
> don't seem to suffer for their lack. :-)
> 
> Jerry


Daniele, be aware that many here earn/have earned their livelihood by 
translating between technical fields.

Many years ago I earned my keep translating chemistry to electronics and 
got bailed out of an embarrassing situation by a machinist who knew 
little electronics and less formal chemistry. But he knew what he had 
been asked to build over the previous two decades.

Frame your question in your terms. This group has a broad enough 
background to translate -- or ask *germane* questions if required.

Jerry Avins ha scritto:

> Daniele C. wrote:
> > Jerry Avins ha scritto:
>
>    ...
>
> >>  I suggest that you think through the system you
> >> want to build well enough so that you can draw a block diagram to
> >> represent it. Then we can get down to the business of filling in the
> >> digital blocks.
> >
> > The engineer is already on that...unfortunately I cannot post an URL to
> > the work-in-progress diagram for now.
> >
> >> DSP chips have special hardware to expedite the execution of common
> >> signal processing algorithms, and they tend to use less power than
> >> general-purpose CPUs of the same clock speed. There is nothing they can
> >> do that other processors can't if speed and power are ignored.
> >
> > Their biggest difference is (for me) the parallel execution feature;
> > when programming them (I haven't yet) I will consider the circular
> > buffers too.
>
> Parallel execution need not be a conceptual hurdle. Consider the MAC
> instruction. It fetches two values from locations specified by pointers
> in registers and then increments those registers. It also multiplies
> them and adds the product to an accumulator. Whether those actions are
> performed sequentially or in a single machine cycle is merely a matter
> of how fast is happens and how many instructions are needed to specify it.
>

This is the ""fun"" part of this project

> >> Consider
> >> the software synthesizers that run on desktop computers: one could be
> >> proud to build something as good. If a desktop computer will be part of
> >> the system you envision, it's likely that you'll need nothing more.
> >> (Your sound card has the A/D and D/A you need.)
> >>
> >
> > Uhm...there will be no desktop computer in this system; this system
> > will be a "normal" amplifier with an infrared remote control. The same
> > infrared port will be used to interface with a  PC and transfer small
> > programs into the device. Once finished the program transfer, those
> > little programs will exist on a memory chip inside the amplifier and
> > ready to run on user's selection. Actually, each program will generate
> > a DSP effect.
>
> If the programs are not computed during a performance, why not have the
> programs all permanently resident where they will be used. Memory is
> cheap. People throw away the little 16-Mbyte cards that come in Digital
> cameras to make room for Gbyte cards. Don't think too small.
>

Actually I convinced the engineer to use an external memory because he
wanted to use the on-chip ROM of the main CPU. I won't think small :)

>    ...
>
> > Thank you Jerry! You have been very kind and explanatory, and your
> > patience is great too! I know how bad sound technical terms written by
> > me :)
>
> You're certainly welcome. Technical terms facilitate communication. We
> don't seem to suffer for their lack. :-)
>
> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
> =AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=
=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF=AF

Thanks again!

--
  Daniele