c0nsumer

I don't like this idea because it leaves the window set a bit back from the flat face of the metal panel. Thus the idea for a stepped piece of acrylic. It just wouldn't look as professional.

Well, after replacing one of the 74HC14's with a socket and a spare rule out a burnt chip, I'm now having different problems. I replaced the 74HC14 to which the DATA lines are connected (IC4 in this schematic) and now Data Out (Pin 10 on the DB25) switches between ~0VDC and 5VDC about once per second. This even happens without the parallel port cable connected. So, at this point I think I should probably assume that I've either burnt out the other 74HC14 as well, or that I keep missing something in my layout of the board. Good thing there's an ICD2 clone on the way via eBay... < sigh > -Steve

I'll give it a try when I get home. Normally I don't socket all ICs, and I haven't had a problem in the past. I'll replace it with a socket and a spare part later this evening. Thanks again for the help.

Values are as described here: [table][tr][td](In VDC)[/td][td]Unchecked[/td][td]Checked[/td][/tr] [tr][td]In[/td][td]0.104[/td][td]3.341[/td][/tr] [tr][td]Out[/td][td]4.999[/td][td]4.999[/td][/tr] [/table] My current thought is that one of the schmitt triggers in the 74HC14 isn't working because I overheated the IC. Does this sound accurate? I'll replace it when I get home and see... Thanks very much. :) -Steve

Okay, some more info: Today I acquired a new fully working DB25 cable, but the problem still isn't resolved. P18 still doesn't recognize the burner. I've noticed that the aforementioned documentation says to use a 100? resistor between pins 2 and 10 to simulate a burner. This works great. However, I have noticed that between pins 2 and 10 on the burner itself there is a resistance of 1.023k? when no PIC is inserted. I've checked again, and my schematic matches the PIC Burner one. Perhaps somehow the 74HC14 I've used isn't quite compatible? The data sheet for it can be found here. Also, the schematic I made (and laid out the PCB from) can be seen here in PNG form. I'm not sure what to say... I can't help but think I screwed something up, but I really don't know what at this point. I'm still not sure why P18 was able to recognize the burner a few times yesterday. At that point it seemed like the faulty cable was completely to blame, but now that's clearly not the case.

Well, it turns out that I've got a bad 25 pin cable. When I would clamp it in place and test the cable, everything seemed to work fine. However, if I move the cable there are intermittant drops in continuity. So, I think that this is the cause of the problem right now. I decided to check this after P18 was able to detect the programmer a few times, but then suddenly wasn't able to. I only have this DB25 M-M cable, so I'm next going to replace the header on the PIC Burner with a female one and try with another cable I have here. And yes, that other cable tests good.

Yes, heh. Sorry. I wrote this right after waking up... I've also corrected it in the original post. 'Daten Feedback' is constantly checked (I think this is what you mean) regardless of the state of 'Datenleitung ein'. Nor can I uncheck it. Hrm, I must have missed this. I also have to apologize, as my Deutsch is not very good. I'm getting by with Babelfish and the memory of classes ~10 years ago. Anyway, I tried this and P18 still doesn't find a burner. I've also tried checking the box in the port's settings (in Device Manager) to be an LPT port, that didn't help. Then I tried the driver from UserPort.zip (found here) both in compatibility mode and natively and that didn't work either. At this point I think it's a problem on the PC. I'll have to dig into it some more... -Steve

Hey everyone. The other night I finished building a PIC burner based on TK's schematic, but I can't seem to make it work. I'm curious if anyone has any suggestions or has seen similar problems... First off, I laid out a new PCB and left off the power supply, as I can just use my benchtop one for it. The problem I am having is that the P18 software fails to recognize the programmer nor a PIC in it. However, I'm able to turn VPP, VDD, etc on and off (using both P8 PBrennerTester) and everything seems to work properly. I've triple-checked the board against the schematic and everything seems to match up. The machine I am trying to use is a Windows XP SP2 box from which (to be certain it wasn't one of them) I've removed all print drivers from. I've also tried the port in both standard parallel and ECP mode with no luck. Might any of you have any suggestions for other things to try? Thanks! -Steve

Wow, a low cost / all-in-one MIDIbox SID is exactly what I'm working on. One board, 158mm x 70mm, midi in/out/thru, audio in/out, etc. All on one board... I should be receiving the first prototype boards next week, and (if I have the inclination) they may actually go into production. -Steve

Ah, okay. I was wondering, since that's the problem I'd yet to solve. I haven't tried to contact a glass company to see if they could mill a lip into a piece of glass... Maybe I should do that. (Note, this is for a non-MIDIbox project.) Or, it may be possible to laminate two appropriately sized pieces of acrylic with a cyanoacrylate glue...

May I ask how you are planning on doing the window in front of the LCD? Without a milled piece of lexan / perspex / glass (with a stepped edge) and some milling around the edge of the opening for the LCD, I've been at a bit of a loss to come up with a cheap, durable, attractive window. -Steve

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are asking for, that's exactly what I would be planning. -Steve

Thorsten, Thanks for replying. At this point I'm not certain if I want to invest the time into the kits, but I'll go ahead and add the changes you suggested. I'll reply to this thread if/when I have new information for your review. Thanks... -Steve

TK, Since I've put together the SIDbox PCB design, I'm thinking that others might be interested in purchasing the PCBs (for which they will have to source most of the components -- likely from Mouser) or kits. If I do sell the kits they will include everything except the enclosure. The enclosure the board is sized for is available from Mouser, and the front / rear panels can be ordered from Front Panel Express or Schaeffer Apparatebau KG. I would include them in the kit, but people will likely want a vareity of silver / black / whatever parts. Additionally, the cost of the enclosure and panels would likely more than double the final cost of the kits. And, some people just might not want to use my enclosure. If sold as kits, the proper components for using either a 6581 or 8580 synth would be provided. My desire would be to sell the PCBs (or kits), have the parts list (BOM), schematic, and .FPD (Front Panel Designer) files be freely downloadable. After I've sold through all the PCBs (or kits) I'll release the Gerber / Excellon files and the actual board layouts so others can order (or etch at home) boards if they so desire. 'Licensing' for my work would be a general Creative Commons license which permits unrestricted usage. Basically, I'd just want to let it go so that others may use it as they desire. To recap, the 'SIDbox' that I've been working on for myself and a few friends is the MBHP_CORE, MBHP_SID, MBHP_IIC_MIDI, and MBHP_BANKSTICK all implemented on a single 158mm x 70mm board. As the my intention is to have everything controlled remotely, I've stripped off a good portion of the MBHP_CORE in my implementation. I've also added a MIDI THRU. This is designed to be used with the newer PIC18F4620 and provides a header to allow ICSP while the chip is socketed in the SIDbox. More information (including the schematic and board layout) which I currently have being produced (the 'prototype', as it were) is available at http://www.nuxx.net/gallery/v/stuffivemade/sidbox/. If these are sold as either PCBs or kits, I would change a few things on the board, most notably clarifying the layout in a few places, and adding screw-sized through-holes should someone wish to mount the board in another enclosure. If you have any other questions about this, please let me know... Thanks! -Steve

At this point they aren't for sale. Three of the PCBs are going to me, and friends currently have reservations on the other three. That's if it all works, even. I'm considering offering the PCBs (or even whole kits) for sale, but I'm not certain if this is a path I want to go down yet. -Steve

In case anyone is still following this, I sent off the gerbers and drill file yesterday to order six PCBs. The remaining parts for the first prototype (and the PIC programmer) are on the way from Mouser. An updated schematic, freedfm.com results, PNG export of the board, etc are all available here. So, hopefully within two weeks or so I'll have the first prototype put together. Suffice to say, I'm excited. Now it's time to start laying out the front and rear panels of the enclosure. :D -Steve

TK & Synapsys, Thanks very much for the input... At this point I'm most likely going to go with the PIC18F4620 and incorporate IIC_MIDI (without ID selection, obviously) on the board. I just need to finish laying out the board for the PIC burner and order some more parts before I keep going on the project. Thanks very much. :) -Steve

I just can't afford one of those for the amount of PIC work I currently do. :\ Thanks very much for the offer. I'll let you know... The other problem is I'll need 5-6 chips if I go this route... I'm making two of these for me, and three for friends. Hmm, I was planning on making a 20-pin socket like the one on the PICkit2, but after further investigation, it seems that the demo 16F690 isn't pin-compatible. I think instead I'll just stick with an 18-pin on the board specifically for the 16F688. I'll also throw a 1x6 header on there like the Microchip one, that way I can use this with other devices if need be, just by making a adapter board. By the way, given the choice, would you use a PIC18F452 or PIC18F4620 if you were making a stand-alone SID sound module? I'm still at the point where I can elect to use either. I've actually got the board layouts done for both the 18F452 w/ part of MBHP_LTC for MIDI LEDs and the PIC18F4620 w/ IIC_MIDI.

That'll work, I just don't have one yet. I'm actually in the middle of laying out a board for it now. I'm just going to put 40-pin and 20-pin sockets on the same board, though. That way I can do both chips (and other PICs) with the same board.

Hrm, now this is a bit confusing... The PIC16F88 is listed as a device in the 'PICkit 2.dvs' file, but I can't find any documentation stating that it actually works. Regardless, the new layout is done. Mind if I ask how you all programmed your PIC16F88s? I can't try it myself with the PICkit2 until I get one...

Hmm, thanks. :D That's good to hear... It would also likely be quite a bit easier for me to just use the 18F4620. No need to build another PIC programmer, only a mild design change to make to the board. I think I'll get to work laying out the board with the IIC_MIDI module for both MIDI IN and OUT. I don't think this will be too great of a change. (I need to nudge some parts around based on some measurements I made of the actual enclosure for the board, anyway...) Thanks very much. :) -Steve

Ah, thanks for clearning that up. I really did read it wrong... Hrm. So, it sounds like at this point I can either use my existing design with a PIC18F452, or add the MBHP_IIC and use the newer PIC. Adding the IIC module doesn't sound too bad. Since it can be used to provide MIDI IN/OUT LEDs I could just replace the stripped down LTC portion of the board with that. Or, I can go with the existing design and just put together a different PIC programmer. Given the choice between both (since I'm still laying out the board) which would you go with: A PIC18F4620 + IIC module, or a PIC18F452. It seems to me like the PIC18F4620 might be a bit more useful down the line?

I'm not that familiar with it, but I've done some basic stuff with the dev hardware which came with the PICkit2. I'm hoping to use this for playing around and learning... That's my worry about flashing via MIDI. If I break the bootloader, I'm screwed unless there's an easy way to flash the PIC. I guess what I'm not understanding is why it's a harder path. In the v1.9 portion of the MIOS changelog there seems to be a workaround for the current hardware bug in the 4620. Or am I misreading that? Or maybe I should just leave the ICSP stuff in place before sending the boards off to be made, then it can be used once the 4620 is better supported, or I've got a better way to program the 452? (I'll probably just assemble a parallel port programmer with a header on it similar to the PICkit2 one.)

Thanks for the offer, but it's only $50 for the programmer and a dev board. I've actually used it quite a few times, and programming PICs isn't the problem. It's just my... Well... Complete screwup. heh. The reason I put the ICSP on the MIDIbox SID PCB design I'm working on was because I've got the programmer, and I don't want to have to worry about flashing it via MIDI, or what to do if that fails. (If you'd like to see the board layout and schematic as of this afternoon, it can be seen here. I'll share the EAGLE files if you'd like...) Maybe what I'm asking is if there is any reason why I shouldn't use the PIC18F4620? -Steve UPDATE: I should add that if you want one of the PICkit2 Programmers, you can get them from Digi-Key for that price. It's part of the Microchip PICkit2 development kit thing. It's a nice programmer which is completely open source / documentation.

Due to an oversight on my part†, it appears that it would be most useful for me if I were to use a PIC18F4620 on a MIDIbox SID implementation I am working on. While I understand that the firmware is still beta, can any of you see any reason why I shouldn't use a PIC18F4620 instead of the 'normal' PIC18F452? The device I am putting together is a simple MIDI-controlled SID-based sound module. It's the MB_CORE, MB_SID, and MB_LTC modules stripped down to just what I need and squished on to one board. So, do you all think the PIC18F4620 would work fine for my application? Thanks very much... -Steve †That oversight being, I built a DIP40 adapter for my PICkit2 and overlooked the PICkit2's lack of support for the PIC18F452. (I must have seen the PIC18F452X family support and thought that also applied to the PIC18F452... But I digress.) I've also included ICSP support in my board design, but (obviously) this will be unusable with the PIC18F452 and the PICkit2...