stryd_one

You could use those encoders with built-in buttons so that they do one thing when pushed in and turned, and another when just turned... and they light an LED when pushed in so that you have visual as well as tactile feedback... But that still might leave too much room for error?

That's an 8x8 scanning matrix... Maybe you could do the reverse of the code down there to drive it... The 8 lines that go high connect to a DIN, and the 8 lines it scans go to a DOUT. When one of the DIN lines goes high, you can tell that the polysix is scanning that set of 8 keys, so then drive the DOUT pins so that they go high depending on the MIDI Note # received at the MIDI In. Question is, how fast does the polysix scan, and will the PIC keep up?

There are unconfirmed reports of software workarounds but they will have a negative performance impact and so are not practical for realtime use such as the MIDIBox. But then again that's not unusual for USB anyway ;) Search the forums here and be sure to follow the link to the microchip website, and google for PIC18F EUSART bug. The answers you need are there (including the one above) It doesn't send always, read around as above. USB is done by the UART. Maybe you should google UART too :)

And there's the tricky part ;) Yeh I was starting to think that myself :) MY aim was to attempt to find one solution that has all the benefits rolled into one, but if that wasn't possible, to find the most effective hybrid. The facts we're uncovering here are starting to make a clear picture...To exemplify the comparison: Digital = quicker, easier, cheaper, lower sound quality Analog = Time consuming, lots of soldering, expensive, higher sound quality If we could write a framework application (MBFX) which supports controlled resistance via SPI -and- AOUT, along with the hardware side of MBFX, a DCR board (SPI Controlled Digipots) and a VCR board (Voltage controlled OTA's), then people could pick and choose according to their needs... If they want a cheap and easy but 90% functional device they can go the digital route, if they're noise-conscious or want smoother realtime control, then they can choose the analog route... Oh man it's SO not like that, I don't feel you're being stubborn at all, and I really hope you don't feel like I am! ... this isn't an argument or anything :D When I say things like the Analog vs digital "race" I'm not referring to you vs me or anything like that... I'm just taking the facts and using them to find the best solution... And the facts are, digipots are easier and cheaper and have a great deal of other factors that mean that there are a lot of reasons to lean towards them. It's just kinda convenient really that you've been looking into digipots a great deal, so you've been telling us a lot about the digital way, and so I am leaving that to you and talking about CV... But please don't think I'm trying to steer away from digipots, or trying to steer or argue or debate at all, just trying to get all the facts together :) Disclaimers aside ;) Yeh I know what you mean about the 12-bit resolution only really being necessary for smooth sweeps...I wouldn't say it's just filters though (I sweep loooots of things), but I do catch your drift. I didn't realise that the SHX8 board used rare IC's either, thanks for the heads-up on that. It did bring up a matter which I haven't discussed yet, which is expandability. That is one of two matters we haven't really discussed yet, the other being switching... But both are fairly straightforward of course... Now, before I bust my brain trying to create a VCR board and a more easily sourced SHX8 board... There's something that I thought of just now which could eliminate the issues with the large steps between values with the DCR's.... DCR's in series :D Think about it.. Resistors in series add themselves. We can send simultaneous commands to two resistors at once...One resistor for coarse steps, and one for the 'fine tuning' inbetween them If we have a 10KOhm digipot with 256 steps, that's about 400Ohm per step right... We could put another DCR in series with that DCR which holds a varied rsistance between 0 and 400Ohm. Given that the lowest range digipot I can find is 1K, we would only ever use 4/10 of the resistance on that one, that's 100 or so steps inbetween each of the 256 steps of the 10KOhm pot, there's about 25600 steps, that's better than 14 bit! I've literally only just thought about this, so there may be issues, I haven't thought it through at all... Like for example there may be some delay between the SPI commands which would set the two resistors, so we'd have to code some smarts into the firmware so that it didn't make the resistance values jump about or something... I dunno if we could make this work... Maybe we could screw with the SPI clock signals, so we could load the values into the DCR's and then clock them both simultaneously...Maybe TK will know what kind of latency would be involved in sending SPI commands from MIOS (given that AFAIK nobody has used SPI yet), if it's not too great then we might not have any issues (because of the latency in the DCR's) What do you think? Is this idea worth playing with? Is it even possible? Edit: There's another way, we could bit-bang dual channel SPI...

Code is coming your way. Probably best not to start conversation about rip-offs...

PS Please send me the schematics and source code for that motorbooty ;)

Yeh but the trick is to find a way that works well for you... I mean, if you never modulate the frequency and depth at the same time then that way will work OK... You could do something like this if you never change EQ gain and frequency at the same time: -------------------------------------------------- EQ3: Bypass (Button) Gain Low (Encoder) Freq Low (Encoder) Low In/Out (Button) Gain Mid (Encoder) Mid In/Out (Button) Gain High (Encoder) Freq High (Encoder) High In/out (Button) ---------------------------------------------------- Becomes -------------------------------------------------- EQ3: Bypass (Button) Freq/Gain Selector (Button) Freq/Gain Low (Encoder) Low In/Out (Button) Gain Mid (Encoder) Mid In/Out (Button) Freq/Gain High (Encoder) High In/out (Button) ---------------------------------------------------- And if you only ever change one frequency band at a time you could save lots of controls and space by doing something like this: -------------------------------------------------- EQ3: Bypass (Button) Low/Mid/High Band Selector (Button) Freq/Gain Selector (Button) Freq/Gain (Encoder) In/Out (Button) ---------------------------------------------------- Of course this might be a pain, pushing a button to scroll low-mid-high, so you could replace it with a set of buttons to select -------------------------------------------------- EQ3: Bypass (Button) Low Band Selector (Button) Mid Band Selector (Button) High Band Selector (Button) Freq/Gain Selector (Button) Freq/Gain (Encoder) In/Out (Button) ---------------------------------------------------- Or you could use an encoder to scroll through them -------------------------------------------------- EQ3: Bypass (Button) Low/Mid/High Band Selector (Encoder) Freq/Gain Selector (Button) Freq/Gain (Encoder) In/Out (Button) ---------------------------------------------------- Of course if you want, you don't have to limit yourself to only moving a single band at a time.... You could do combinations, like having low and mid both change together, or high and mid, or low and high, or all three bands at once. In fact, if you want to, you could do something where when you select all three bands simultaneously, either by holding down all three buttons, or by selecting 'All' with the encoder. Having an 'All' setting for the frequency band selector encoder (or holding down all three buttons) means you don't need the bypass button any more, because you could use the In/Out button: -------------------------------------------------- EQ3: Band Selector (Encoder) Low Low+Mid Mid Mid+High High Low+High All Freq/Gain Selector (Button) Freq/Gain (Encoder) In/Out/Bypass (Button) ---------------------------------------------------- We're now down to two buttons and two encoders, vs 4 and 5 of each before, and have added functionality .... But as I said before, personal taste will play a great part in this. What will work for one DJ will suck for the next. I think that the main point of what I'm trying to say here is to think outside of the box... Just because your software offers you a certain feature set, doesn't mean that you have to be restricted to it... MIDIBox is power!

That's been prophecised for many years now :( I was hoping it wouldn't be true but feared the worst... But at least now, we know for sure! Thanks for trying it! I'm sure it was a pretty intense "Hello World" but hopefully you will benefit from it, as the community has, by learning stuff :)

---------------------------------------------------- Auto Filter: Bypass (Button) Freq (Encoder) Reso (Encoder) Filter Type (Button) Env Depth (Encoder) Release (Encoder) ---------------------------------------------------- Becomes ---------------------------------------------------- Auto Filter: Bypass (Button) Freq/Env Depth (Encoder) Reso/Release (Encoder) Filter Type (Button) Freq&Res or Env&Release Selector (Button) ---------------------------------------------------- By giving those two encoders a dual use, you save 4 DIN's, and lose one DIN to switch between them, so all up you save 3 DIN's per channel That way seemed least intrusive to me but obviously personal taste is a big factor here. Hope that helps :)

Thanks for checking it out guys :) .....You're our Dutch Mafia ;)

Good call mate

AWESOME!!! In awe of your work as always :D [glow=red,2,300]THANKS TK!![/glow] Edit: WOW wow WOW I've just read a bit and WOW TK you really have been busy!

Thanks TK :) So as far as MBFX would be concerned, it looks like those digipots we looked at may not cut the mustard... Because if 8-bit is not enough for good analog filtersweeps, then we would need a digipot with more steps that 256. There are digipots with more steps (1024) but they are more expensive and 2-channels is the most available on 1 IC.... but they could be chained of course. I've looked at the MAX5250, it is more widely available than the 525, half the price, and completely compatible, it just ignores the 2 bits that it can't convert, so we wouldn't even have to change the existing code (not that it would be hard anyway). This will give us 1024 steps too, but more channels going out... And if you want 12-bit, you just drop in a 525 :) I think that the digipot vs CV race is neck-and-neck at the moment :) For digipots to work, we need a quiet solution that does not involve modifying the FX circuitry (eg ground planes) For CV to work, we need a cheap OTA or FET based linear voltage-resistance circuit... Illogik, I was wondering if you might pipe up about the LM13700 ;) I've looked at the datasheet and it's got example schematics for a VCR in there already which is great, do you know if anyone has tried to adapt it yet? Those IC's are under $2 each... But the digipots still work out much cheaper and simpler because you don't have to build the AOUT.... But then again CV allows for better resolution. It seems there's two degrees of resolution with each method... with a really rough price estimate: 6 X 256-step (8bit) SPI Digipots $10 <$2 per channel 2 X 1024-step (10 bit) SPI Digipots $10 $5 per channel 8 X 1024-step (10 bit) 5250 DAC+VCR $40+20=60 $7.50 per channel 8 X 4096-step (12 bit) 525 DAC+VCR $60+20=80 $10 per channel I don't think the 2nd one is worth it... For a little more money the CV option could be used, which is upgradeable too, and because it's only 2-channel you'd probably need a lot of them. Edit: Fiinished now... I hit save instead of preview hehehe

Thanks man :) Ta for being understanding about it, and as I said, don't take it personal... It's just that some other people choose to ruin it for the rest of us. Can't wait to see the JunkBox in effect!

Ahh Thanks TK, now I understand... I know that the array functions will be called frequently, but even so, if I start with C code, I can make it work easily in C, and then port to ASM later, when I know that the algorithms work... Thanks mate!

Yay! <code removed> Cheers! :D

Hi TK, I hope I can ask your advice, forgive me as I have asked this question before, but I came across something on the forum today: I was originally going to do the seq in ASM but you suggested C, but I was planning on using arrays fairly heavily (which I didn't mention at the time) so I'm now thinking that ASM might be better after all? Danke :)

Hey Sasa can I be honest with you? Good, cause I'm going to. Don't take it personal, I'm just not the type to think it and not ask you. When I am apprehensive about playing with the copywrite screen, which you seem so damn keen to do, and you are completely uninterested in doing the same or greater things, right after the moment you intended to, but not sitting with the copyright, that says to me that what you really want to do is not put JunkBox on there, but change the first screen. Say it ain't so. Hey TK could you please break this one up? What do you think, it's your project! :) Is it OK to change the MIOS copyright screen by adding text to it, but not taking any text away?

Excellent :) now on to greater things...velocity sensitive matrix things... ;D

Yes, the F.B.A.P. has taken me many hours to master ;) Observe, my FBAP skills in action! ..... Sorry I didn't mean to imply that desoldering was a problem, just trying to explain what is involved...I actually added a bit of stuff in after I was finished so that the concepts could be more comprehensible to the recently arrived or uninitiated... I mean, I tried to make it more noob friendly ;) Like, you and I know what a digipot is, but not everyone will, and not everyone will understand what the purpose of the digipot is, so I figured hey, with all that work and typing I might as well add in 3 more sentences to help explain to noobs wtf us geeks are toying with this time ;D My post was not so much about doing what we need for our particular applications, because in that case I am in the same situation as you... I'm just trying to think about flexibility so people who come along in future have an easy way to MIDIfy FX, no matter what the effect they want to use... It's very often requested, it goes way beyond just this handful of us I think...Of course that doesn't mean we all have to do it the same way, we could all try different methods which suit our needs and then people could apply whichever one they decide would suit them by adapting the notes on the forum/wiki to their particular design.... But of course all of us teaming up has advantages for development because many hands makes light work, and a single solution might reduce support requests on the forum... I'll keep talking in the context of searching for a universal solution for the time being... I believe that it should be possible to find a solution where it will meet everyone's needs, maybe I'm just being an optimist but hey ;) AOUT_LC is an option but I think 2 CV outs is a little too limiting for many FX machines... 12bit is 4x as many steps, maybe it's to avoid stepping so sweeps are smoother? Maybe it's something to do with the capabilities or existing code for his CEM3378, that's what his is connected to (or it was in the doco) But of course there's always the jumper to split the resistor ladders evenly over the 595's and use 8 + 8 bit, so who knows... At the end of the day, it's just resolution, I'm sure MIOS can handle it, so I think the only ill effect would be the stepping... But I think those digipots are only 256 steps which is only 8-bit... I only just thought of that, if anything the digipots will be more subject to zippering... And you said they're fine in capt hastings' mp3, so 10bit shouldn't be an issue... Although I just listened and it sounds OK to me, I don't know if a distorted delayed filtered guitar is the best specimen for checking for quiet noises and stepping... Agreed, I am not keen on vactrols... Too slow, too inaccurate, too sensitive, just too messy... Just trying to be non-biased and present all the available options but...mm, nah. yuck. All signs point to no. go directly off the drawing board, do not pass go, do no collect $200 ;) heheh I do really prefer the digipots idea... If we can just find a cheap and easy way to implement them with no noise or stepping, that doesn't involve altering the FX circuitry, it is definitely the way to go... But if we have to mess with the ground busses in the FX then it would be no good for some people - I don't think that's the case by the sounds of things which rocks :D For those who want to modify existing gear, they could keep the manual pots and install digipots, and switch between the two sets of connections, so it works there too, and the digipots are pretty small so they should fit into small spaces... Definitely, and possibly cheaper than those with CV inputs cause of the DACs. That's exactly what I mean :) All those in and out jacks, I'd just line them up near each other so they could be easily patched into one another, which is why I said 'patchbay'...Sorry for being confusing. If we can get the digipots to work without digital noise or zippering/stepping and without having to do strange things to the FX circuitry then definitely that's the way to go. You sound pretty confident man, is there anything you need for the prototype? Help? Parts? Moral support? ;) Well there won't be much point in toying with the CV stuff for our purposes if you're right about the digipots. Although for the sake of curiosity, I do wonder... I mean, the MAX525 is a barrier for some people against having CV control, it would be great for the community if we could find a full-featured DAC for AOUT which is also cheap. TK would you mind advising us on this one... Can DACs of a lower resolution be used? Why is it that you have used 12bit for AOUT_LC and your 3378, is it there a need for 12-bit signal resolution or is it for compatibility reasons or was it something else like 16bit was too much and 8bit not enough or....? Assuming for a moment that lower resolution DACs are OK, this opens some interesting opportunities. the 5250 at 10-bit is interface-compatible, pin-compatible, code compatible (check out the datahseets, it's like a game of 'spot the difference'), is half-price of a 525.... and even cheaper still, if you can deal with lower resolution and surface mount packaging you could go the 5258, at 8-bit and get 8 channels, twice as many, for 1/4 the price of the MAX525... Now 8-bit, 256 steps, immediately conjures images of 1983 or something, but if you think about the fact that much of the time we are using MIDI CC's or Note Numbers (0-126, 7 bit) to control these things, we've still got 1 bit to spare. Could be food for thought, AOUT at better than MIDI resolution for 1/8 of the current cost per channel :) And that's the same resolution as the digipots... I should add that the 5258 is listed as being QSOP packing but the 525 is listed as SSOP and it didn't look like it to me. Maybe I've gotten my packages confused but anyway.... Hopefully we can get the digipots sorted and it won't be a big deal, but it might be of interest to someone, and if we can't get the digipots working, well it could be very handy!

Hey welcome aboard. The vX will do this one day, but I think it could maybe be implemented in the MBSEQv2 by using a certain step length parameter to jump to the next step instead. Hey you can always learn how to program it! I would take it on board, but I'm already currently working on a keybaord matrix and FX controls and the vX and a seqv2 and a quad SID and an MBFM... aaand a partridge in a pear tree ;)

Hey illogik, hope you're having a better day :) I was looking at some of those Bucket Brigade Delay IC's ... I'm not so choosy, I put more weight in the value of composition than whether I'm using this thing or that to make it :) I just think it would be good to have a midi controlled delay, then I can play with different types. As far as MBFX goes, I had thought that it would be good if there were some kind of framework that could be used for lots of different effects, so people could, for example, go to diystompboxes.com and make an effect, then midi it up using MIOS, or MIDI up their favourite bought stompbox or amp or something... The trick with this is making a single solution that would work well in many different applications. I would like to hope that we could all work out a way to do this which would be cheap, electronically quiet, and easy to do. If we can all work together, it will be a good way to go because we have strength in numbers. But the question is, can we find a way that is flexible enough to be suitable for us all? It seems at present we have three options. I've summarised as much information as I was able to find by literally studying all day and part of last night, I hope it will help us all to compare the options at hand by summarising the pro's and con's of each... Mechanical Motorpots attached to analog pots - This way uses motorised pots or rotary motorfaders (depending on what you want to call them) to move analog pots like an abolute servo. It is completely noiseless because the MB and FX circuits are electrically isolated and only coupled mechanically, but could be expensive, as motorpots aren't cheap, and it could also be harder to do mechanically. This way would mean that the price would vary depending on how many knobs you need but we would need the additional MF module for this. It would also mean that if you were midifying existing gear, you could keep the existing controls in place, so the MIDIBox wouldn't have to be active to use the gear - this is of course assuming that there is room inside the case of your gear to add the motorpots. This method would also introduce support issues with MBFX users coming here for mechanical support on how to link up their pots etc... Also Implementing switches/buttons with this method would probably involve either analog or digital solutions which might defeat the bonus of total electrical isolation, unless using a servo to flick the switch... Cheap - Quiet + (Doesn't get any quieter than that, it's a robot hand turning the knobs for you, just like your hand would do) Easy to Design - Easy to Build - Easy to Support - Flexible Implementation - Digital Digipots/DCR's, CMOS - This method means desoldering and replacing existing pots with digitally controlled variants, or switching between digitally controlled and physically controlled resistors, and switches would be CMOS controlled switches. It seems a fairly easy solution at first and digipots are not quite so expensive as motorfaders, but as we know, the digital signals can make things a bit messy. There are concerns about noise from the digital control buss leaking into the audio signal, but that might be worked around by heavy shielding and perhaps a separate ground plane. The separate ground could be tricky to implement though, and that implementation would vary greatly from one device to another, increasing support requirements. One upside with this is that little additional hardware is required. Cheap + Quiet - Easy to Design + (already done by Capt. Hastings) Easy to Build + Easy to Support - Flexible Implementation + or if we try to find a quiet way Cheap ? (Need to see what the design is like) Quiet - Easy to Design - Easy to Build ? (Need to see what the design is like) Easy to Support - Flexible Implementation + Analog Vactrols/FETs/OTAs, Relays - This way converts a control voltage to a resistance or uises it to switch a relay. It is analog so it eliminates the noise problems, but it introduces other problems - cost, because you need the AOUT with the expensive MAX525 to control a number of pots. This method is basically about converting existing designs to CV control, and using the existing MBCV hardware, so means no design issues to deal with from the MIOS end, it's a matter of using any DIY effect design with CV control, or adding CV control to existing gear. When adding to existing gear, you could build the CV controls, and use a switch to select internal control (wired to pots) or CV control (wired to the CV Ins) I notice the MAX5250 is available and about half the price, seems to be the same thing, but it is 10 bit resolution, not 12-bit. This would reduce the price fairly well, but I'm not fantastic with hardware and haven't read the entire datasheet yet (just the specs and features) so it may not work. I'll look into that further shortly but if anyone else knows or is interested please let me know what you think :) But I don't see the harm in 10-bit control.... 1024 steps is a fair amount, I can't imagine the zipper noise being a problem... Meanwhile there's the AOUT_LC option which uses reduces the cost, but only allows for 2 CV channels. Cheap - (+? what about the 5250?) Quiet + Easy to Design + Easy to Build + Easy to Support + Flexible Implementation ? (Can we make a simple and flexible CV-to-resistance circuit?) So going by the information I have been able to find, here's the nutshell: Mechanical is the best possible way audio-wise, but not much good elsewhere. Digital is great but noisey, so it will not fit the needs of some people (like illogik and I who sweep everything). We could work on methods to reduce noise, but that will always be something of a struggle and effective methods of reducing the noise will vary from one circuit to the next, which increases support efforts. Analog is good but has two drawbacks. The first is cost, but I am confident that the MAX5250 will get around that. The second is flexibility of implementation. We need a way to get CV into the devices and controlling resistance. It seems that if we could make a simple, cheap and flexible CV-to-resistance (VCR) and relay switching circuit, we would make this cheap while keeping a good number of CV outs, and an easy way to implement it in various devices, then have the best of all the options. A few issues have arisen with VCR's - they need to be able to match the various different types of pots in the analog gear we're converting, so they need a variable range of resistance. Also, they would need to have a variable resistance curve characteristic - linear, log, neg log, etc etc. I would imagine that we could design a board that has all these characteristics and the ability to select which ones fit your needs, or a series of cutdown boards which would each have a different characteristic each eg Linear VCR, Logarithmic VCR etc etc I was thinking that I could try adapt some existing designs I have seen, but I'll probably need some help as my strength is not hardware, so I won't start that unless I know that others are interested. I do know that vactrols are less accurate and they are slow, so I think that FET or OTA would be the way to go... Please add to this or correct me, I'm by no means an expert, more of a librarian in this case :) Just while I'm typing massive posts here's some more about why I mention this ;) What I was thinking of doing was making a set of analog effects, and stacking them all into a rack-mount case (you could do desktop just as easily) with a small patchbay of in's and outs, so they could be run independently or in series, or sidechained or whichever, and you could repatch them manually as required in the audio chain, and use the MIDIBox to save presets and use MIDI automation for each module. A screen and encoders could be used for editing the FX parameters, as well as a feature to enter the configuration of the manual patch panel for saving an 'image' of it with a set of FX presets to a bankstick or sysex. I'd really like to do an audio switch matrix instead of a patch bay but that gets a bit complex ;) So I figured stick with a manual patchbay and make a record of it's connections. aaaand last but not least, a collection of links if you feel like an information junkie and a summary is just not enough ;) Capt Hastings Digipot Driver: http://compiler.kaustic.net/fm_offline/fm_006/aout_AD5204.inc http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=2556.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=2186.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=3132.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=4065.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=3373.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=5749.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=6245.0 FET as VCR: http://freespace.virgin.net/ljmayes.mal/comp/vcr.htm http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~lanterma/sdiy/datasheets/transistors/vcr2n4n7n.pdf'>http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~lanterma/sdiy/datasheets/transistors/vcr2n4n7n.pdf http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~lanterma/sdiy/datasheets/transistors/vishay_fet_cvr_an.pdf'>http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~lanterma/sdiy/datasheets/transistors/vishay_fet_cvr_an.pdf appnotes for above device http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~lanterma/sdiy/datasheets/ also mentions "Aaron's note: It seems to me that this "FET as variable resistor" trick really only works easily if one side of your "resistor" is tied to ground, or at least a constant voltage; otherwise your V_GS will move around as V_S moves around, even if you're keeping V_G constant, and taking care of that requires some thought" Good links there! OTA as VCR: http://et.nmsu.edu/~etti/winter98/electronics/grise/wrg.html http://www.uni-bonn.de/~uzs159/ota3080.html Vactrol (LED->LDR) as VCR: http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~lanterma/sdiy/datasheets/vactrol/perkinelmer_vactrol.pdf http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~lanterma/sdiy/datasheets/vactrol/vtl5cx2.pdf So what do you think guys? Could the MBFX be a module which does configurable analog CV-controlled-resistance and analog gate-controlled-relay? Could the MAX5250 be used in the MBCV to reduce costs?

No worries. You should always read ucapps.de, the forum, the wiki, the portal, and google for these things, many times you will find the answer there first, or at least something that will give you specific questions to ask here :)

Why would they, it's been superseded by other things... The SID hasn't been superseded yet, that's why I use it :) Then again, in 50 years, those FPAA's might be fully in action, in which case the SID may be superseded, and I'll use those instead :)

lol Seriously though, FPGA is never going to sounds exactly like a SID, but trust me, when all the SIDs are gone, you'll be very glad that TheMaXX has gone to this effort. In 50 years he will be a hero! Saviour of SID junkies the world over! ;D heheh