c0nsumer

As a suggestion, download the Mouser, Jameco, and Digikey catalogs. Look at their enclosure sections, then if you find something remotely interesting, go get the detailed specs from each manufacturer's website. I personally have been finding enclosures from Hammond Mfg and Pac Tec to be nice lately. From those sites I can usually find whatever I'm looking for. Then just use Front Panel Express to get a panel laid out as you need, and you'll be all set. You are also about to find out that a really nice enclosure often costs near the same amount as the rest of the synth. :\ -Steve

Why not just buy them? The 24LC512 (enough room for all presets and your custom patches on a MBSID) only costs $2.09 from Mouser.

So you're talking about a modular front panel, not a single PCB for it? Sorry, I thought you were talking about a single front panel PCB. What parts could you make reusable? Looking at the layout I just don't see what parts really carry over to other MIDIbox projects... -Steve

You're talking about the front of a 3U 19" rack. Figuring a 16" wide PCB, that's 72 square inches. That's an ENORMOUS PCB. If you were to use the KE-20 I linked to earlier you're talking about potentially even more room. Being mostly digital you'll get nowhere near the density of the 9090 boards. (Yes, I do have a set at home. They are amazingly dense, but still not difficult to work on.) Even adding the AOUT with 8 gates wouldn't add much. It could easily be done with plenty of space left over. Really, all you are talking about is a CORE, BANKSTICKs (these can be sprinkled anywhere the IIC lines and 5VDC run), 3x DINX4, simple 5V power supply (hell, use a simple switching one to cut down on heat), 1x DOUTX4, and LCD lines / brightness controls. I'd probably also throw a 74HC00 on there (basically, part of an LTC module) to give real, hardware MIDI LEDs. Although this isn't that important. If I were doing this I would probably use standardized LCDs which will mount directly to (or stand just slightly in front or behind of) the PCB, similar to this. This would, of course, depend on the height of the rotary encoders and buttons and such, but could easily be varied as needed. Going off TK's design there would be plenty of room for the ICs and power around the controls -- even more so if you did it SMT. (This is harder, especially for the PIC, because it'd require either the builder to have a programmer or the PIC-supplier to have an interesting rig for programming them.) -Steve

Yes. Isn't that what you were talking about? It'd be easy to put it all on one panel, and would cost the same to manufacture as the front panel PCB alone. There's plenty of room around the pots and LEDs and buttons to fit everything else. I disagree strongly, and so do many commercial manufacturers. If the board is properly supported there's no reason it should break. And since shipping costs are fairly minimal when figured into the whole of the project, this is a rather moot point. I understand if you do, but I'm just saying what I think would work best. Sandwhich-type construction requires either multiple boards with aligning connectors or cables. You are already planning on laying out a massive PCB for almost all the IO bits. Why not also fit the core and other electronics in there? Orient all the connectors logically along one edge, lay everything out in a documented standard, and poof. An excellent, professional, single board MIDIbox SEQ. If I had a copy of Eagle which would do boards that size I'd do one myself. I think it'd be a fun project. :) -Steve

Ah, sorry. I'm speaking more figuratively if someone else were doing it. Personally, I think it'd be a great idea, provided you also have a pre-laid front panel (.FPD?) and BOM to make a standard item. Personally, what I think would make it even better is if you were to fit it into a standard, off-the-shelf enclosure. If everything was mounted on the one PCB (which is how I envision it) you could do that, and put it all in a ~1" thick case. Maybe something like the <a href="http://www.pactecenclosures.com/Plastic-Enclosures/KE-Series.html">Pac-Tec KE-17 or KE-20</a>? -Steve

Also, remember that any version of Eagle (assuming that is the CAD software used) which can do boards over 100mm x 160mm will cost a few hundred dollars. If I had the software I'd happily lay it out, but I'm a bit constrained size-wise. That said, I personally really like the idea of a single PCB with a nice, standard facilities for everything on it. With some cut-outs or proper engineering with pushbuttons the displays could easily be integrated as well. This is a project I'd love to do and would happily lay out, but I can't afford the software for it at this time. :\ -Steve

Just FYI, the TX-81Z is not like 8 DX100's in a rack. It's about the equivalent of a single DX11. The TX-816 might be what you are thinking of, but it's basically 8 DX7's, and is rather different from a TX-81Z. -Steve

I'm going to echo this sentiment. My MIDIbox SID-NUXX mainboard design does exactly this, and it helps cut down on noise by a great deal. There are five of these in existence and none have had the problem you describe above. -Steve

MTE, I wouldn't worry. I didn't mention you directly. I just emailed the file to CADsoft and after an introduction specifically asked: [tt]Can you tell me if these files are simply corrupt, or if they were created with a cracked key? I've attached the files, zipped, as I acquired them. The files attached were originally downloaded from http://people.freenet.de/mte/Floorboard/Floorboard-V2.zip. [/tt] So, I wouldn't worry. I made no mention of this forum. Just some info for you, it appears that CADsoft regularly looks around for new cracks and/or compromised keys for Eagle, making it so that new versions refuse to work with files edited with *any* version which used these keys. To make this happen, when a file is edited with any version of Eagle, licensing information is embedded in it. Because such restrictions are added to new versions of Eagle, the appearance is sometimes given that upgrading versions corrupts files, when in reality new restrictions (due to compromised keys) are added to the app. I ran into a problem with this when I made an early design for the MIDIbox SID-NUXX in v4.16 starting with a schematic I downloaded from some random electronics discussion board. (I wasn't too familiar with Eagle at that point and I started learning from something else, which eventually had all its parts replaced with my design.) When I upgraded to v4.16r1 I could no longer use the file, even though I have an actual Eagle license. (Non-profit, specifically.) CADsoft also refused to fix the file, so I had to redraw the design. :\ This explains why I'm sort of paranoid by people posting such files -- because it caused me problems in the past. (Note, I was able to recover the custom parts I drew... Turns out there's a bit of a way around that. Anyway...) So, yes. I apologize if I caused any confusion or worried anyone, I just don't like to see data out there created with the cracked versions, because due to Eagle's licensing restrictions it just makes things difficult down the line. -Steve

Yep, but in my experience working with Eagle the problems are never due to upgrades, but solely with people using cracked copies of Eagle. I've send the v2 file linked above off to CADsoft to ask their opinion on the situation. I would like to see this schematic / layout, but with my (legal) copy of 4.6r1 I'm not able to open it, receiving the same error I do when trying to open any other file created with a cracked older version. -Steve

These files were created with a cracked copy of Eagle. Please, either buy the software or keep the files to yourself. -Steve

As mentioned earlier by TK, that is not an accurate document. Therefore having a copy of it would likely be less useful to me than what is currently available. -Steve

I was hoping for a small chart listing the particular portions of the sysex data and what registers contain which data. If it's not available, though, I understand. Thanks. :) -Steve

Hopefully. That'd be excellent. I'd happily archive it elsewhere, too... -Steve

Can anyone point me to documentation on the ASID Protocol as is implemented in the SID Player for the MIDIbox SID? I'm wanting to add MIDI out support to SIDPLAY for Mac OS X, but I'm having a really hard time finding either any documentation of the protocol itself or OSS apps which implement it and aren't written in ASM. Thanks very much... -Steve

IIC is a bus which can be shared amongst a few devices. So, yes, the IIC_MIDI module is connected to the same pin(s) as the BankStick module. To see a schematic of a full MIDIbox SID implementation which includes both BankStick and IIC_MIDI modules, take a look here: PNG, PDF. Also, I think this is the wrong area for this kind of question. It's not related to the topic at hand. -Steve

That's not really my question. I'm curious if you (and whomever else) agree that these are functionally equivalent electrically. I'm not trying to use a PC-900, I'm trying to replace one with a 6N138 and I'm wanting confirmation that this circuit will work as a replacement. -Steve

Hey everyone. I hope this is an okay place to ask this. What you see up above is a schematic for two MIDI inputs, one using a PC-900 optoisolator, the other using a 6N138. The one on top is from a schematic I'm reimplementing, and the bottom is from my MIDIbox SID-NUXX. I believe that the two should be functionally equivilent, with each holding the MIDI IN line at +5V, and then MIDI data causing brief pulses before it returns back to 5V. (This is also what was observed on the scope.) Just so I can rule out this portion of my design as being flawed, can someone confirm that these two will work similarly? Thanks... -Steve UPDATE: Just to make things a bit clearer, I want to replace the top schematic with the bottom implementation. I'm looking for confirmation that it will work, or someone to tell me that I'm dumb and need to try again. And maybe a suggestion as to where I went wrong, if that's the case.

Well, if I hung a bandpass filter and a freq counter off of it... Actually, they are Electrix boxes, so they sent their position via MIDI, but I don't think it was accurate enough to reproduce this. The devices are weird and you could tap the knob to change the sound, even though they didn't move enough to send a new position out via MIDI.

That reminds me quite a bit of some of the most fun I've had musically. That is, taking some analog filters, feeding them back on themselves, throwing in some additional effects, and making simply interesting thumpy bouncy dancy sounds. Which were completely impossible to reproduce nor sync with anything. :D I need to get / build more analog stuff soon...

Hey everyone, a friend pointed me to this link: Commodore C64 Modifications :: Adding A Feedback Loop Thought you all might find it interesting... There's some good samples in there, too. -Steve

Darn. Well, there goes the idea mentioned in the previous replies. Ah well. -Steve