Wilba

I'm sure there's more than just us three who will do this. I'm sure that there are many of us who have always intended to donate but never got around to it, and this is a convenient reminder. Change the topic to something that will catch people's attention, and everyone, donate a bit more than $1.

You should be measuring the AC voltage between the two pins on either side of the "notch", i.e. between pins 1 and 7. Just checking, as you said you had the ground lead to the ground pin, which is a bit ambiguous, and one could think you meant the ground pin at pin 4 (the ground of the 5v DC supply).

For the SID, you CAN take off the rectifier (X1), bridge across it, ensuring the positive and negative rails are correct. In other words, J1 on the SID board is NO LONGER AN AC INPUT so you must take care which pins are +14v and ground. Optionally, you can do it like in my setup, where C9, C10 and the regulator (IC4) are next to the power supply circuit (aka. the "optimized" version) and I supply 9v to my SID boards instead (which don't have C9, C10 and IC4). But that's only worth doing if you have multiple SID PCBs. For the Core, see the page on the Core module, read about port J2 used as a +5v input.

Sorry if I'm treating you like a complete newbie here, but are you sure you used the "AC" mode on your multimeter when you tested the AC pins? You said you previously had good voltage on the Core using the original circuit... so maybe the PSU isn't faulty.

One problem you might be having is that the non-optimized version is less parts but a bit hard to follow and hard to measure. Go with the optimized version. It might mean desoldering your 5v regulator from your Core PCB, but that's not too bad. The key to the "optimized" design is the 9v AC supply is rectified and regulated into 9v DC and then added to the 5v DC supply coming out of the C64 PSU to make 14v DC. You can see it being added by the GROUND of the 9v regulator connected to the +5v line (between power switch and 2200uF capacitor). From memory, the middle two pins of the switch are either connected to the "front" two pins or the "back" two pins, like two parallel, independant switches. So just test it with a multimeter first to make sure you got it the right way round. 1. Test outputs of C64 PSU... test the 9v AC and 5v DC are coming out of it. 2. Wire it up as per the diagram. 3. The voltage at pin 3 of the 9v regulator should be 9v above pin 2. Remember, the ground of the 9v regulator is not a real ground. The regulator just regulates the output to be 9v above pin 2, which happens to be 5v above the "real" ground, so the result is 14v above the "real" ground, which is the ground of the 5v DC (middle pin of the C64 PSU). Hope this helps....

To explain a bit more... The cap behind the 9v rectifier on the "optimised" PSU is 25v for the same reason as I said before, the peaks are higher than 9v, and there's some rule of thumb that says double that voltage and make sure the cap is rated for that, so use 25v instead of 16v cap. The B80C1500 can handle 1500 milliamps, the B40C800 only 800 milliamps. Each SID will draw at most 40 milliamps of this (through its Vdd pin), so either is fine even up to eight SIDs.

Are you're talking about C9 on the SID module schematic? If you're using the "optimized" power supply that uses a C64 PSU and adds 9v and 5v together to get 14v DC, then yes, you would only need a 16v capacitor. FYI, you also would not need the rectifiers (X1) if using the "optimized" power supply, but you would have to add two bridges (it's pretty obvious where!). I can't see any voltage rating on C9 in the schematic, and the quick view PCB shows it as only 1000uF/25v not 2200uF.... hmm... anyway, the rating of 25v is because if you supplied it with 15v AC, the peaks would be higher than 16v. If you're using 14v DC, then 16v caps are fine.

It's simple, but as I was saying, a dead end if you want to do more than four encoders, or gain some knowledge to use later for other, bigger projects. My comment about parallel ports sucking was more to do with XP getting in the way and the fact that some parallel ports are output only (maybe things have got better since the last time I did hardware using the parallel port). But th0mas is right, I must admit, it is a pretty simple solution and would work just as well...

My suggestion would be to use a PIC with a UART, one of the simple ones, or even a PIC18F452... and a USB to serial converter module like this: http://www.dontronics.com/micro-usb.html which you can use to power the device also. But that's a suggestion if you specifically don't want a MIDIbox solution... for a one-off-not-going-to-sell-it project, I would suggest you use a MIDIbox, and get all the encoder handling and MIDI message code already done... just use the MIDIbox-to-COM interface (and not waste a MIDI port). You could do it with a parallel port, but it would be a lot of old school stuff, I've done that ages ago with an EPROM burner project and you'll be limited to eight bits of input (i.e. four encoders) unless you add some multiplexing (i.e. more chips) or a microcontroller, so you might as well put one smart chip in the box from the start and be able to handle more knobs, buttons, etc. So there's your choices I reckon... come away with useful knowledge in writing assembler for microcontrollers, doing it all yourself on a PIC, making a PIC burner, writing code for a device driver converting it to a virtual MIDI port, etc. OR come away with useful knowledge in making a MIDIbox and a bit of assember. I wouldn't waste time learning the hard way that parallel ports suck and are good for printers and PIC burners and not much else ;)

This has already been done... sidplayer_v1b.zip is firmware that uses the same protocol that the SidStation uses to play SID files, so you can use the ASID player (on a PC) to play SID files through your MB-SID setup. While it would be a nice thing to have this protocol in MB-SID v2 (so you don't need to swap firmware), I'd prefer that memory used for synth features. On a related topic: TK, could the current sidplayer app route the incoming SysEx messages to the slave PICs (in a 2+ SID setup) and thus play SID files in stereo? I'm suspecting it would be just a one line change, but I'm not able to try it out at the moment.

If they are unused with working filters, I might be interested. What revision are they?

Well it's nice to know you've really explored (and exhausted) all options. Kudos to you for giving as much time and effort in trying to fix the infamous envelope bug.

I've observed that raising the sustain will cause a decay at a rate relative to the decay value. Can this be exploited somehow? Probably not, I but thought I'd mention it anyway. If the delay is just totally unavoidable, is it possible to reduce it as much as possible by speeding up the clock to the SID during this period?

If a reset from the reset pin doesn't reset these counters, would it be possible to do a reset by temporarily cutting the Vcc (5v) supply, but leaving the Vdd (9v/12v) supply on? I know this is a drastic measure that would involve hardware changes, but it seems like if you're considering a "hardware reset" by toggling the reset pin and having to send all the registers every gate on, then you're willing to consider something as crazy as this. (I am at least, but I'd prefer a second opinion before pulling the 5v supply from my precious SIDs!) Maybe just turning off the Vcc for a millisecond will not cause an audible pop, since the supply to the audio section is uninterrupted. Just a theory based on my limited knowledge of SID internals :-) I know it's not a very elegant solution, and one that would involve wiring a transistor to a spare shift register output perhaps... but maybe some people would think this worth the effort...

After a second listen, the patch starting at 2:25 is very, very cool...

Sorry to interrupt the drool fest, but reading Razmo's ideas about eliminating the envelope bug had me thinking... and an idea popped into my head. If it's only the decay and release not being zero that causes the bug, can you setup the envelope on the SID to have zero decay and release, and max sustain, and then let the PIC lower the sustain value to emulate the decay and release phases? I'm already aware that you can't raise the sustain value while the oscillator is gated on, but you can lower it... i.e. you would set the sustain value to max, wait for the attack phase to finish, then lower sustain down to the "real" sustain value, then when the release phase should start, drop sustain down to zero. This would be much like the ENV2->Vol solution, except controlling sustain after the oscillator's attack phase is finished. From memory, I think my experiments with dropping the sustain value didn't suffer the clicking that dropping the volume register produces... plus this idea would have the added advantage of being per oscillator. (You would still need the "no gate off" option, and need it a little smarter, so it does gate off just before the gate on to trigger a new attack phase). I'm not able to try some experiments with a wavetable controlling sustain right now, (i.e. I would have preferred to prove the theory before mentioning the idea)... so please excuse me for rambling on if it turns out not to be a feasable idea.

Nice demo... I particularly like it at 3:58 and after... It's also nice to know that my 8580 setup is just as noisy... the high-pitched digital noise that is...

I just had a play with this ENV2->Vol option and it's fantastic! Now I can do things that were just too hard or impossible to do by modulating the volume register with the wavetable. Now you can modulate ENV2 depth (or just sustain) using a wavetable... and the effects are so cool... Here's something similar to the Trancegate patch (in Wavetable Sounds Tutorial #2) to use ENV2 depth instead of filter cutoff. Enable ENV2->Vol option. Assign track 1 of the Wavetable to CC#79 (ENV2 Depth). Set ENV2 Depth to 32, Atk 13, Dec 0, Sus 127, Rel 65. Adjust the Wavetable Rate to 94 and enter following sequence: STEP CMD #1 00 Play +20 01 Play -20 02 Play +20 03 Play -20 04 Play +20 05 Play +00 06 Play +00 07 Play -20 08 Goto 00 [/code] Now you can tweak the filter for your own purposes, and get fading in and out, since you can now use attack and release phases. Unfortunately, the combination of leaving the gate on and poly mode doesn't work well... if you play three notes, and then just one, you'll hear two of the notes previously played. P.S. I hope for MB-SID v2, it's possible to just add the volume register as a modulation target, so any envelope or LFO can modulate it.

This place has a lot of screws... it might be in there... http://www.fastener-express.com/

When you want to upload new firmware to your MB-SID slave PICs (see bottom of this page here), you either do it using "the Newbie method" way (put PIC into a core with optocoupler and MIDI In/Out connected to PC, or move optocoupler and MIDI In/Out connections to the slave core) or using "the Expert method" (select the "Don't use feedback from core" option in MIOS Studio, enable MIDI merger with the Link button, and pray it doesn't get corrupted). However, you can use the "Expert method" and use feedback from the core if you simply move your MIDI Out cable to the MIDI Out port of the slave. In theory, you could also use this method to upload a new MIOS version, if you're able to reset just the slave after enabling the MIDI merger with the Link button on the master, even using the "Wait for upload request" feature.

"Free to a good home" means they're free, no need to trade. You'll have to pay for postage from Australia though... I'll send a private message with the details.

Do you just want the keyboard part? i.e. keys, PCB with switch contacts? I have five. Free to a good home.

I got corrected today, but since there's more than one way of saying it, what's most common? And is the "tim" in "multitimbral" a "tam" or a "tim"?

I should also add that there's no consistent rule regarding the "value" versions not having YMF262 chips, or the non-"value" versions having YMF262 chips... visual identification seems to be the best way (i.e. don't even trust the CTxxxx model number!)

Where did you get your SID chips? You cannot assume that all your chips aren't dead.