[TK.]

Well, it was silent around Swinkel's SwinSID project in the last weeks, but this doesn't mean that we gave up - far from it! Meanwhile this project is probably the most powerful AVR based DIY synth you can find in the web! :)

And it's especially a very interesting extension for MIDIbox SID - either as SID replacement, or sound extension (each core can control two SIDs and one Stereo-SwinSID in parallel).

I finally wrote down my personal impressions: SwinSID Review + Sound Demos

New schematic, a PCB layout and the firmware will be published soon.

Thanks to Swinkels for giving us this new toy! :)

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[Pascal]

Thats great :-) Thx for this information!

[baconjuice]

This is great news, I was wondering what happened to this project. I for one am exited about using SwinSID as an extesion for my MBSid. Thanks for the update and as usual all your hard work TK. And many thanks to Swinkels as well.

[Jack]

Can't wait to build a MB6582 based SwinSID.

@TK:
Antialising because of Atmel 8Bit?


:-X Have you checked the Parallax Propeller (PDIP 40pin and MB Core compatible).  :-X
:-X http://www.youtube.c...h?v=kA8sq_7nYlE  :-X

[Sasha]

Wonderful news Thorsten!
You say "probably the most powerful AVR based DIY synth you can find in the web" I and KokiPsiho just talked last night of getting the PCBs for AVR-X but after this i doubt we`ll do it. I love the demo sounds! Especially FM, and drums are very nice too. Thank you and Swinkel for this nice new synth. I listened to samples, now I go to read your review.

[TheProf]

Comparing AVRx to SwinSID is a bit "Apples and Oranges". AVRx is more comparable to  something like MonoWave, because it's a hybrid: digital wave generation, with analogue VCA and Filter.

AVRx can also process external signals.

I'll have to do a review myself, once I get my AVRx loaded and into it's case. Until another big (non musical) job is done, I'm just stuffing boards and sorting panel designs.

One point: AVRx is not an easy assembly job; it's nearly all SMD.

@Jack. Propeller is powerful for certain jobs, but having actually done some work with it, helping a student friend with a robotics job, I can't see it as very suited to audio work. If I was looking at a next generation chip, I would be going ARM for controller, (that's a no-brainer, it is de-facto the industry standard 32 bit controller), and Blackfin for audio work. Both have got extensive public domain support. example "BlackStamp"

best wishes

Mike

minor edit for typo

[Sasha]

Quote

Comparing AVRx to SwinSID is a bit "Apples and Oranges". AVRx is more comparable to  something like MonoWave, because it's a hybrid: digital wave generation, with analogue VCA and Filter.

Ooops :-[

Quote

One point: AVRx is not an easy assembly job; it's nearly all SMD.

I really need to start with SMD already. I am planing to buy some chips for practicing and when I be satisfied I can start with real soldering. Much people that do SMD say that it is not to difficult at all. I think I have very good skills in trough hole soldering so I should try SMD at some point.

[TK.]

Quote

Comparing AVRx to SwinSID is a bit "Apples and Oranges". AVRx is more comparable to  something like MonoWave, because it's a hybrid: digital wave generation, with analogue VCA and Filter.

AVRx can also process external signals.

I'll have to do a review myself, once I get my AVRx loaded and into it's case. Until another big (non musical) job is done, I'm just stuffing boards and sorting panel designs.

I agree, that they are not directly comparable, but not because AVRx is an hyprid synth (with the SwinSID/MIDIbox SID/AOUT combination you can add analog components as well), but mainly because it's an "all-in-one" solution, and the synthesis concept allows waveform shaping.

My oppinion is mainly based on demos and specs (so far provided). E.g., there is no word about the sampling rate at AvrX site, but when I listen to the demo samples, and consider that the CPU is loaded with user interface and modulation tasks in addition, I guess that it cannot be so high.

And speaking about "expandable synthesizer platform": I think that SwinSID approach has more potential compared to AvrSynth and AvrX - especially because alternative synthesis/filter/modulation routines can be integrated into the firmware on a straightforward way without taking care for multitasking and complex realtime requirements. You only need to take care, that the new sample word is calculated within 32 uS (=ca. 768 AVR instructions minus IRQ and DAC/Slave transfer overhead). And if 32 uS are too short for certain sound processing algorithms, you are free to reduce the number of oscillators, and/or the sampling rate of course :)

I could change my oppinion about the "superiour project" once I read your review! :)

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[stryd_one]

Really excellent stuff guys, keep it up!  :D

[TheProf]

Quote

Quote

Comparing AVRx to SwinSID is a bit "Apples and Oranges". AVRx is more comparable to  something like MonoWave, because it's a hybrid: digital wave generation, with analogue VCA and Filter.

I agree, that they are not directly comparable, but not because AVRx is an hyprid synth (with the SwinSID/MIDIbox SID/AOUT combination you can add analog components as well), but mainly because it's an "all-in-one" solution, and the synthesis concept allows waveform shaping.

I this is a bit of where I was coming from too. A good set of VCO's in a modular are amazing - but on their own they are not a synth, I agree, SwinSID is an amazing component, but it is a component, not a complete synth.

Comparing SwinSID to AVRsynth ia  little unfair too, AVRsynth is intended to be a simple, very  cheap to build  basic synth. Like AVRx the control surface load takes a lot away from the sound generating. A pair of AVR's might have a chance, which is what you effectively have with SwinSID/MIDIbox SID

A dedicated sound generator,whether a real or modelled SID, will usually beat a single processor stand alone. Paul Maddox was able to model the whole of the MonoWave in a Chameleon, but that had a Coldfire for control and a DSP for the sound work.

Quote

My oppinion is mainly based on demos and specs (so far provided). E.g., there is no word about the sampling rate at AvrX site, but when I listen to the demo samples, and consider that the CPU is loaded with user interface and modulation tasks in addition, I guess that it cannot be so high.

I have to agree here - with the exception of the 'dementor' waveshaper stuff, a lot of it sounds a bit clean and simple. Well if it's that limited, some lucky member of the group can get a ready built..... We'll see once I finish it up

Quote

And speaking about "expandable synthesizer platform": I think that SwinSID approach has more potential compared to AvrSynth and AvrX - especially because alternative synthesis/filter/modulation routines can be integrated into the firmware on a straightforward way without taking care for multitasking and complex realtime requirements. You only need to take care, that the new sample word is calculated within 32 uS (=ca. 768 AVR instructions minus IRQ and DAC/Slave transfer overhead). And if 32 uS are too short for certain sound processing algorithms, you are free to reduce the number of oscillators, and/or the sampling rate of course :)

No real argument here, apart from one factor I do know from personal experience. Filters. Doing filtering on an 8 bit controller is a bit of a lost cause. Not even limited recursion really,and only the more basic filter elgorithms. Now add and external filter, and straight away you've got a potential monster. I think qw'ew bith in solid agreement that the component approach wins.

Quote

I could change my oppinion about the "superiour project" once I read your review! :)

I'm not suggesting AVRx is superior to a MIDIbox SID - in fact I think a multi SID beats an AVRx hands down, but I do think it's a good addition to the world of synth DIY. Review wise, I'm more interested in how it squares up to my MonoWave, which I still haven't managed to chase up the rest of the weird pots for. If anyone here is building one, my suggestions are to either buy the whole front panel kit from Elby Designs, or to forget the front PCB and loose wire it. To me they are very similar devices: Lead/Bass synths with hardware generators and analogue processing. But I know need to reverse the old cliche and put my mouth (or ears!) where my money has been.....

A minor thought. With MIDIbox, you've perhaps created a new class of synth. Somewhere between a full repatchable modular, and stand alone: "The Component Synth".

Best wishes

MIke

(If this doesn't make too much sense it's because  I've been laid low by that virus - I should be out running an event tonight!)

[/tilted/]

Quote

each core can control two SIDs and one Stereo-SwinSID in parallel

By this, do you mean the same control signals go to each of say, left SID and left of SwinSID?

So the SwinSID is essentially pin-compatable with the 6581/82/8580 pinout?

Also TK, during the design/testing/beta phase with MBSID V2, you briefly mentioned the capacity for extending the number of SIDs to 8 stereo pairs, but the ucApps page now shows 4 pairs as a maximum. Is there still a possibilty this figure might go higher? Or is there a specific limitation in the way?

Very nice work...

[TK.]

Quote

By this, do you mean the same control signals go to each of say, left SID and left of SwinSID?

yes

Quote

So the SwinSID is essentially pin-compatable with the 6581/82/8580 pinout?

yes - you can use it in an original C64 as well, it should even work with other SID synths like HardSID

Quote

Also TK, during the design/testing/beta phase with MBSID V2, you briefly mentioned the capacity for extending the number of SIDs to 8 stereo pairs, but the ucApps page now shows 4 pairs as a maximum.

I cancled this quick idea, and designed the firmware for 4 stereo pairs only.

Quote

Is there still a possibilty this figure might go higher? Or is there a specific limitation in the way?

You could use two MBSID stuffed with 16 SIDs - it would require two control surfaces, and multi poly wouldn't work over two boxes. However, do you really think that you need so many SIDs?
Just waiting for the guy who demands for a 32 SID option, but only to have some soldering fun instead of making music. And the next guy, who thinks that 64 SIDs would be even more cool, because he likes the supersaw sound ;)

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[/tilted/]

Do I really need more than 4 pairs?
No, not really, but I often use a guitar with GR pickup for input.
It puts out a signal for each string, and converts these into seperate MIDI channels (to allow for 6x pitch bend).
So, 6 pairs would be great... but as you say, I can always just build two boxes.
I could also use the MIDI connection to transfer patches between boxes via sysex, so I wouldn't have to re-invent patches.

[Jaicen]

I use a GR-20 as well, best thing i've ever bought bar none!! I can actually get my synths to make the sounds I want now without my ham fisted attempts at keyboarding. Plus, there's something more organic sounding when you can get pitch bend on all the strings rather than globally. That said, only my CZ3000 actually supports that at the moment. For the others, I stick with chromatic mode (usually I play an organ patch)on the GR-20, which tidies up the pitch bend info  sent to the ext synth (adds pitch quantisation), which really reduces pitch glitches.
I did enquire about a 6x SID solution prior to the release of V2, but no joy. Even the present 8xSID doesn't really accomodate a 6xpoly option all that comfortably from my perspective. That's why i'm going with a stereo SID option, which will allow for a stereo 'mono' mode, and 6 x Osc poly mode. I can't see me using that often anyway, it's going in a stompbox style floor unit with an FM so...

[crisp]

Hi TK, could you please tell more about how the 2 AVRs are connected, you mentioned on the SWINSID Site something like a free parallel port of both AVRs? Do you have a shematic to share? Maybe Eagle like?  ;)

I already completed a single SWINSID, and I also miss the Information that you have to Burn the AVR FUSE (low=c0) to recognize the external 24MHz Oscillator... so there is definitly more Info to spread for people to build this thing.

Thanks in advanced

Crisp

[puddingbrumsel]

:D :D

[TK.]

Swinkels is currently very busy @work, therefore the documentation (schematics, etc...) hasn't been updated yet on his website, and the latest firmware isn't available as well.

I recomment you to inform him about your interest, this can be very motivating :)

In addition, somebody could support him by creating (and testing) a PCB layout for the stereo option? (I don't find the time for this, I built SwinSID on a veroboard...)

Additional wiring

Quote

Both AVRs runs with the same clock source and the same firmware.
Port A, C and D of both AVRs are conneted pin by pin. Port E is used for sync and port A for data transfer. Please connect pairs of input-output pins as described below:

Master:
E0 - WRITE (input)
E1 - SYNC (output)
E2 - N/C

Slave:
E0 - Slave mode flag (hard connected to low level)
E1 - WRITE (output)
E2 - SYNC (input)

Fuse settings:
I'm using CLKSEL=1111, SUT=11

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[crisp]

http://rapidshare.co...D-DEMO.mp3.html

just listen an tell which channel plays the Original SID and which Plays the SWINSID

I made a PCB which holds em both and recoded this SID Tune which was originally a mono tune,

so I had coded it to play on both SIDs at the same time.

Best Regards

Crisp

http://www.forum64.d...b69afdd7a1f3e38

[crisp]

Hi I have drawn a Shematic for the SWINSID STEREO option... so where should I load it up... or who wants to have it for checking and maybe testing...

::)

[baconjuice]

Hey Crisp,

That demo mp3 was great, Thanks! I would be interested in checking out that schematic. I was going to build one of these but I was waiting to see if the schematic was going to be updated on swinkel's site. thanks in advance...

Julio