TK.

Hallo, zu 1) weil bei Conrad das 100ter Tuetchen 10k Widerstaende 1.33 EUR kostet, und ein zusaetzliches 100ter Tuetchen 20k nochmals 1.33 EUR kosten wuerde? Weiss nicht. Vielleicht aber auch nur, weil es einfacher ist, passende 10k Widerstaende zu selektieren, als aufeinander abgestimmte 10k/20k Widerstaende Wenn die Widerstaende von der gleichen Charge kommen, ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit hoeher, dass ihre Werte identisch sind - da muss man dann auch eigentlich nicht mehr nachmessen. zu 2) nicht mein Gebiet, aber andere Freaks koennen sicherlich mehr zu dem Thema beitragen. :) Gruss, Thorsten.

you will see it when you are trying it out on your MBSID. Since software can be changed and uploaded very fast, I think that there is no real need to doublecheck this (I don't know this part of the firmware so well anymore, it's three years ago where I programmed this...) no, when you hold SID1, and press SID2 at the same time, you will select both and can edit both. The link button just only opens the MIDI gate to the slave SIDs (disabled by default to avoid feedback loops with your sequencer software, if MIDI loopback is enabled there as well) Yes, changes will be made to all selected OSCs and all selected SIDs. E.g., if you select all 4 SIDs, and all 3 OSCs, and change the portamento parameter, you will do this change on all 12 oscillators at the same time. This is a very important feature for polyphonic sounds, therefore I implemented this yes, modifying two ENVs at the same time hasn't been implemented For the LFOs it is not possible as well. Maybe I can add this possibility into MBSID V2 (such changes have to be done considered at the beginning, it's too difficult to do this later) Best Regards, Thorsten.

Congratulations to France for the great match yesterday against Brasilia! Hope to see you in the final :) Best Regards, Thorsten.

Yes, you should at least get random MIDI events when you touch your finger on these ungrounded pins. This is a very basic function, there is no reason why the analog pins shouldn't work (assumed that you haven't changed the firmware). Could it be, that you've destroyed the analog stages inside the PIC during some experiments? Best Regards, Thorsten.

MBSID is not a C application, therefore I've moved the article to the right section. In general you can get some useful tips in these articles, because there are users who did customizations before. Although these are no specific examples for your purposes, I think that they should give you enough input to understand, where changes have to be made... It would be great, if you could write a summary in the Wiki, because this is a frequently asked question, I spent the effort to explain this in the past, but I'm tired to do this again and again... http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=6387.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=5039.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=5020.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=3655.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=5261.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=4198.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=4948.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=6674.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=7084.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=3925.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=6252.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=3642.0 http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=1212.0 Best Regards, Thorsten.

Here the test results: 8580: - first impression was, that the sounds are more crispy with 6.8 nF caps - but this only depends on the filter envelope settings which are used. If the envelope depth is slightly increased when 22nF caps are stuffed, then you will get identical results - from the mathematical point of view, this behaviour makes sense. - I tried 100 nF caps, and the result is, that between 0..20 CutOff frequency (the "stepiness range") you won't hear any sound, and that within 21..127 the cutoff can be controlled with absolutely best resolution (-> no stepiness) - with 100 nF caps, it is not possible to set the cutoff frequency so high, that the filter has no effect... on the other hand: this is no problem if you want to play bass sounds. E.g., also the original TB303 doesn't allow to open the filter completely (if you want to take this old gear as reference... ;-)) 6582: - I don't really hear a big difference to the 8580, considered that e.g. on a filter sweep via envelope, the depth has to be adapted to get the same "crispiness" So: are 100 nF better for your purposes, or 47 nF, or 22 nF as a compromise (still filter stepiness in the low range, but filter can be completely opened) - or does it make sense to add a manual switch for different sets of caps? ;-) Best Regards, Thorsten.

Ja, dies ist sogar die empfohlene Loesung Gruss, Thorsten.

What happens, when you remove the 4051 and connect a pot input (e.g. AIN::J1:A0) directly with a Mux output (AIN::J5:A0) - if this doesn't behave like if you connect the pot directly to CORE::J5:A0, you know, that there is a problem with your PCB Best Regards, Thorsten.

The reason why the caps are not specified like in the original schematic is, that at the time where I created the MBHP_SID module (4 years ago) it was assumed that each SID needs different caps anyhow and the best specific values have to be found out by the user due to the variance between the revisions. Nowadays we know, that this mainly is true for the 6581, but not for the 6582 and 8580. Due to the fact, that at this time the 8580 filter was controlled with the same curve like the 6581, the 6.8nF value which can be found in the 6582 datasheet was more advantegous. After I changed the control curve based on the Razmo's great (!) suggestion (see his detailed description above), I never spent so much attention on testing different caps again. Ok, to end this thread I've just tested my 8580 with 22nF caps. As mentioned several times before by other people, the cutoff frequency goes deeper, this has the advantage, that in between the typical frequency range where the resonance plays a role when bass notes are played, there is less stepiness than with 6.8nF caps. I've tested some sounds which are using bandpass and highpass as well, and don't hear any restrictions in the sounds So - are 22nF caps really better, what are your oppinions? For the 6581 I still believe, that the 470pF caps (taken from the original C64 schematic) are better. For the 6582 I will test this now (thanks to Wilba for providing me two of these chips! :)) Best Regards, Thorsten.

Hi Trent, it's already possible to connect a FT232 without changing bootloader and firmware, just select the MIDIbox-to-COM interface (baudrate: 38400) in the PIC ID header (bit 8 ), the FT232 can handle this. Much higher baudrates than 38400 are not recommented from my side, because this could lead to unexpected side effects in MIOS applications - a MIDI In buffer overflow could happen if data is received much faster than with normal baudrate. However, if you just want to try faster baudrates regardless of this warning, then just use the search function of your operating system (Windows: search button within the explorer), and search for "baudrate" Best Regards, Thorsten.

Kopie von http://www.ucapps.de/midibox_sid_csB.html This function activates the CC mode. If enabled, manual parameter changes from the control unit will be sent out as CC MIDI events over the MIDI Out port. If this port is connected to your computer, you are able to record these events with your recording software in order to automate parameter changes (e.g filter sweeps or portamento slides)[/code] Du koenntest erstmal Step A aufbauen, also Control Surface mit 2x20 LCD, 6 Tastern und einem Encoder. Wenn Du dann in das FIL Menu wechselst, kannst Du den CutOff mit dem gleichen Feeling ansteuern wie mit einem dedizierten Encoder fuer diesen Parameter Gruss, Thorsten.

Ja, wenn Du die CC Taste drueckst... Wenn die MBSID nur einen SID im Master Betrieb ansteuert, dann ist das ohne grosse Aenderungen in der Firmware moeglich. In MIOS_AIN_NotifyChange muss lediglich der Poti-Wert an die SID_CCIN_Set Funktion weitergeleitet werden. Eine entsprechende Anleitung findest Du hier irgendwo im Forum Fuer den Master/Slave Betrieb gab es ebenfalls mal eine Loesung, doch die ist mittlerweile nicht mehr kompatibel zur aktuellen Firmware. Doch ich vermute mal, dass Du die MBSID sowieso nur mit einem SID betreiben moechtest... Gruss, Thorsten.

You are the copyright owner of the logo, it's your decision! :) Best Regards, Thorsten.

ja - allerdings hast Du in diesem Fall ja keine Rueckantwort -> Parameterspruenge. So kannst Du auch gleich ein Poti an J5 anschliessen, das kostet dich nur 1 EUR, bietet aber echtes "analoges" Feeling weiss ich nicht, ich bezweifle es aber. Probiere erstmal den internen encoder handler aus - evtl. gefaellt er Dir besser, als Du momentan annimmst (fuer meine Beduerfnisse ist er voellig ausreichend). Gruss, Thorsten.

IIC is a synchronous protocol, which means: the master controls the baudrate. In general I don't know why you want to decrease the baudrate, maybe this is the wrong solution for your intentions...? Best Regards, Thorsten.

wenn sie eine niedrige aufloesung haben: ja. MBSID verhaelt sich eher wie ein Waldorf, eine hoehere Encoder-Aufloesung wuerde einen weiteren Mikrocontroller (und etwas zusaetzliche Programmierarbeit) erfordern. Die meisten bevorzugen den 8580 wegen des besseren Filters - dieser SID ist im C64-II (helles Gehaeuse - nicht den Brotkasten) eingebaut Gruss, Thorsten.

Hallo Marc, ich habe einen Walkthrough geschrieben, hast Du den schon gefunden? -> http://www.ucapps.de/midibox_sid_walkthrough.html Gruss, Thorsten.

mios_iic.inc - you need to insert some additional NOPs into the MIOS_IIC_Delay_600ns_Stretch and MIOS_IIC_Delay_600ns function Best Regards, Thorsten.

Hi, the PIC doesn't provide special mechanisms for measuring the load (e.g. like performance counters), but you could just count the number of Tick() calls over a certain period (e.g. one second) - than higher the counter value, than less the load Best Regards, Thorsten.

This request is: DENIED Please don't see this as a personal attack, it is my error, that I haven't spent enough thoughts on the general approach for sale requests like yours. I haven't considered the consequences good enough - e.g., the consequence, that it won't be so easy anymore to make small but incompatible changes in the circuits, module interconnections or firmware if they improve the project with an acceptable documentation effort. At the end, I would loose the motivation to do any useful changes in future (partly this is already the case). But even more I haven't considered that SmashTV and Mike, who have already spent a lot of money and effort to provide PCBs for best prices to the community, will hang on their preinvestions if other people are trying to do sell PCBs and kits as well. The only right way is to work together with these guys, to distribute new PCBs over the already existing channels, and not to go into competition with people who have already helped the community so much in the last years! And even if they are not interested in the PCB (maybe because it's too much customized to your own needs, and not flexible enough for others), you can still contribute by releasing the layout and the documentation for free - midibox.org has a lot of filespace. The board could be a nice inspiration for others to improve your work, maybe the results will inspirate you as well, and at the end we will maybe find the perfect solution, which is really worth for a PCB batch order, and where I also would be willing to support the variant in future. I've now written an addendum to the rules to make my intentions more clear: http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=5758.msg45977#msg45977 Best Regards, Thorsten.

I planned to reply your posting once I have enough time to give you an adequate answer. But if you want to have some quick thoughts, here they are: Great to read that somebody customized the MBSEQ firmware for drums! I'm really happy about it! My intentions for sale requests were not formulated clear enough, I've now written an addendum: http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=5758.msg45977#msg45977 Of course, it's no problem for myself when you are selling kits/PCBs for the analog circuits And for the MBHP based modules you could mention in your documentation, that they can be purchased from SmashTV and Mike if the user doesn't want to built them on a breadboard, or etch himself If a special DIN/DOUT module combination with the possibility to mount the buttons/encoders/LEDs directly is required, I guess that the best way would be to discuss this with potentional users first (how should the case look like), and thereafter maybe to ask SmashTV/Mike, if they could distribute the PCB over their shop Best Regards, Thorsten.

Addendum: In the meantime I realized, that there is no advantage for the community and for myself, when somebody unknown intends to sale MIDIbox/MIOS based projects in any form (PCBs only, kits or completely prebuilt products), when he never distributed his creations to the public for free before, when he hasn't proved over a long time, that he is willing to support MIDIbox users, and not at least: when I don't really know him personally. Some of us have spent a lot of time and money to contribute, so that they really have deserved a (mostly very small) profit for their effort. For these noble guys it is very demotivating, when greenhorns are trying to make quick money with their work. It's like a sellout. If you are now thinking, that I'm blocking interesting projects, or that I don't want to encourage user distribitions, then you're just at the wrong website, keep searching for a similar project which fits your attitudes. To say it clearly: everybody is very welcome to make contributions to the projects, so long it is for free. But if he wants to sell anything, he has to gain my trust first - this is a long term process. Best Regards, Thorsten.

It's still difficult for me to make the final decision, there are many pros and cons, some of them will be propably mentioned later once I'm very sure... However, I've an important question: are you using a legal copy of Eagle? Because the freeware version is limited to 100x80 mm size and only allowed for non-profit projects. The commercial version is very expensive. Best Regards, Thorsten.

I started the wrapper at a time where this documentation was not available... so the approach was very easy: I compiled a dummy function with the same parameter list, and had a look into the resulting .asm file. I copied the generated code 1:1 to ensure that I don't oversee any side effects. I think that the compiler uses FSR2 as a temporary pointer to ensure, that a function never returns with an unbalanced stack pointer in FSR0. However, for the C wrapper we have some potential for optimizations here - with the disadvantage, that there will also be a lot of additional debugging effort ;-) Best Regards, Thorsten.

Hi Shum, could it be that you forgot the first modification I mentioned (setting the display type) The information on LCD setting are in the main.asm file (the comments...). I know that some can be really confused, but nobody took the time for writing a user documentation into the Wiki yet... Best Regards, Thorsten.