Yannovitch

Up Up Up Up Up !!

Hello, My project take a new turn : I think I will exploit a linux embedded system. If I want to do wireless, I must use wifi to have an enough fast solution. But wifi is hard to control, unless I use a linux embedded system. It's more easy to for the graphic solution. I've found an association near to my home : www.armadeus.org , I think I will try the aventure with them What do you think about this ?? Thx Yann

Hello Some news : Finally I want to use AVR32 and a touchscreen interface in my guitar, and why not a audio-to-midi conversion for each string. It begin to be a very interesting and complicated challenge http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=8679.0

Hi every body, I was skiing this last week, excuse me to be late Thanks for your answers. I will see in details the DSP so, and I will try to not build a supratechno guitar but a supersounding guitar I will return here, when my project will be more advanced in conception and realisation.

Ok ... If you're really sure it's not a good idea, even if it's just for the beginning, have you some DSP in idea which can be good for what I want to do, at the lowest price and with the max speed ??? The DSP from TI is expensive and complicated to program, and that's the same for the DSP from Analog Device. Maybe it's a good idea to use the ATMEL AVR32 instead of the dsPIC ?? It's a really powerful chip ! DO you think it's a really bad idea to want to begin on dsPIC ? It's a DSP and uC with 80 instructions ( in RISC ! ) , that's not too big, but I'm not a uC NERD , I'm at my beginning, and I'm afraid to spend a lot of money, and can't do what I want to do , on a linux kernel on AVR32 for example. And you can do more than you think on a DSPIC The digital transmission will take me less resources than a reconversion with DAC. And concerning the midi controller, it's only the core which is based on the pic, (normally a PIC18F452 but it's adaptable to a dsPIC) not all the stuff is done by the PIC. The digital volume and digital tone control can be done by the DSP of dsPIC entirely in one cycle, and it treat not an adjustment of the ADC but a numeric data . I'm not asking for playing a video on a touchscreen lcd (even if it will be really coooool ) but just to use a 2x16 LCD ... If I write a really good library for that, in assembler and not in C, it will be enough little code to not overflow ... On the schematics of ADC we can see we have a buffer so all not the data is not continuously sended . It's clear that the dsPIC will not allow me all my crazy idea, but I prefer to try with less is more than too big... At my beginning ! In one or two years, when I will know how to write a good code for DSP, and that I will have more money, I will try to have fun on big DSP , but now , I'm a poor student

Hello I'm concentrating now on the battery problem. I search DIY project with a good system to reload the laptop battery, or other battery ... If you have some schematics, it will be great Since this morning I've looked around me, search for the price of the developpment board of each chips, and I think the best for me, with my knowledge, is to go with dsPIC, it's the more easy to program, and with the cheaper developpment board. But an other dsPIC , the best of the dsPIC33 (the other was one of the best of the dsPIC30) http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/70165E.pdf because the main problem is the speed of conversion, and this chip can do up to 500 ksps, so with 10 inputs, I have 50ksps at 12 bit, normally (quoted from datasheet) : and In 12 bit, without a multiplex of inputs, I can't so have my 10 inputs, in 10 bit yes, but I will not try to play with 10 bit conversion. With 40 MIPS, maybe I can try with multiplex and one ADC at 24 bit/96 khz like the chip from wavefront, or TI, or analog device, no ?? But if I must do a multiplex in input, I prefer use the inside built 12 bit ADC. Our CD is in 16 bit, and it was less at the beginning, it's not horripiling !! And I've less chip in my guitar, it's better ... Yep, I had not thinked of that, but it's true, I'm building a soundcard Aaaah, it makes me nervous, I don't want to have a treatment of sound, I just want to take and send the signal !!

Hello, Thank you for your very constructive answer !! If we see the ADC diagram of the DSPIC we see effectively that we have 16 physically inpu multiplexed into one ADC, and not 16 simultaneous ADC, I've not seen that :S. And you're right when you say , I'm worrying too about the quality of the sound. But I don't know a lot of chip not very expensive which can have the horsepower for 10 serial inputs from 10 simultaneous 24bit 96khz ADC ... Considering that, I think it will be maybe better to take an AVR32 which is a powerful uC and DSP, more powerful that a DSPIC (the most powerful DSPIC is at 40MIPS, the AVR32 is 210 MIPS at 150 Mhz), but without ADC integrated. I don't want to consider the TI or Analog Devices DSP, too difficult and expensive, and unuseful for the work I want to do. This will be a good option if I would have my effect board in my guitar, but I'm not crazy The advantage of the DSPIC for me is to have all what I need integrated in one chip, to be not very difficult to program, like the 18Fxxx and to have a developpment board not very expensive, around 130 $ ( http://www.mikroe.com/en/tools/bigdspic/). The advantage of the AVR32 is to be a very powerful system, with what I can do everything I want, and to have the compiler & cie free, but the developpment board is really expensive ( around 500 $), and it's really more difficult to program. but as you say , with the Atmel I will not have this problem. An other thing to consider is that if I buy a big developpment board, I want to do a lot of other things with. I know that for normal uC, universal board exist like this http://www.mikroe.com/en/tools/unids3/, what about the compatibility of the STK1000 developpment board with other chip than the AVR32 ? Is it retro compatible with the 8 bit AVR ? If I buy a 500 $ board, and that I can't use the 8bit AVR, grrrrr But why not have one chip by function, yep ... I'm asking myself of having just the PIC for the MIDI controller, and having an other chip which can took all the audio treatment. But I don't know how powerful must be the chip if I want to treat 10 24bit/96khz inputs simultaneously, and simultaneously have the output ... I don't want to have a super big board, and having a guitar with more electronics than wood . I want to have a minimum of Analog to Digital and Digital to Analog conversion,I think for that, less is better =o) And so if I can have a digital wireless transmission, and at the reception, a digital treatment by the effect, it's perfect It's for that I don't want to have many CMOS & cie ... An advantage of the PIC too, is that the midi controller that I want to have is based on PIC, if I must rewrite all the code for the ATMEL, I will have so much work to do The last point is the battery !! Many chip need more battery, and I think it will not be a good idea to have several laptop battery in my guitar

Hello, Some more idea. I thought of the DSP and ADC, because of the 12 bit resolution of the DSPIC and the 100ksps with 16 inputs, where as I have 200ksps with 8 inputs. But if I use only 8 inputs, maybe 10, the shannon theorem is OK and so it's only the 12bit resolution which is a problem. I'm afraid of the 12 bit resolution with the dithering problem & cie, but I think it will be good if I don't want to do too much. So I think I will stay with the DSPIC solution, because if I buy a developpment board, I can do a lot of other things, and the developpment board for the DSP from T.I or Analog Devices is really expensive, and 8 ADC in 24bit/96khz too, with the power problem too I don't find how resolve the problem of the battery and the power source for all this things. Someone can say me how to extract properly the 48 V from a phantom power to reload all the battery ???

loooool Yep, the best of the 30 MIPS dsC, the 6014A http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?I...ocName=en024766 , but the idea of having a 12 bit ADC do not enjoy me. I'm considering the "true" DSP now, because they have true 24 bit ADC ... But it's more complicated and with less possibilities. Because, I still want to have the midi controller implemented in my guitar (I'm bold, I know ) and normally, the DIY controller I want to use (uCapps http://www.ucapps.de/ ) is based on PIC 18Fxxx, and the DSPIC is very similar to the PIC so I can use the DSPIC to do my pickup controller+ADC to wireless AND the MIDI controller, the DSPIC can do multitask and the DSP oftently not ... But I can too use specialized ADC, like the ADC of Analog Device like this http://www.analog.com/en/prod/0,,760_789_AD1871%2C00.html, and then attack a DSPIC or a good AVR like ATMEGA 128. WHAT do you think about this idea ? A DSPic or specialized ADC/DAC and uC+DSP ?? The only things which are very expensive is the pickups, and the developpment board but the developpment board of a DSPIC for example can serve for developpment of many others applications on DSPIC and PIC , and the other things is rarely expensive ( a ADC cost max 5 $, a uC max 7$, and I can have several DSPIC for free) The time ... You know I have in my life, the time for my study, around 35 hours, and the rest (especially the nights ) is for my passion and my friends Yeah, it was the first thing that I have considered but the PRS is a SE model that was not specially expensive, and I've not a lot of money to buy many experimental guitars ... If I find in flea market a 1$ guitar, why not .. I must have more cavities in the body for all the electronics, even if I want to have just one more pickup, so it's not a problem

Hello curtisa Yhank you for your quick answer, it's really constructive to come write and read in this forum Yeah sure, but after a long discussion yesterday, my friend thought that the best thing to do is maybe to have a memory of all the possible combinaison, with 5 knob to recall the most used combinaison, but with all the controls fully adjustable if I want. Do you not agree ?? Yeah, it's my problem, with the 12 bit resolution ... But having a 24bit resolution is really very expensive to implement and develop. The DSPic have a dedicated DSP with audio codec built inside, and it's more powerful that all the PIC or AVR. No, it's honestly fully realisable, I don't want to implement over wireless ethernet, but over wireless OR over ethernet ... I don't want my guitar to become a wifi access point I will use the same principe that the UHF transmission which is implemented in the UHF Sennheiser or Shure, and if it's too complicated, the principe of a Radio transmission ... The DSPic for example have a multiplexer, so I make the ADconversion, and I send all the 5ms a different input to the wireless module for example, or I use the same principe that for the telecommunication, with a modulation which allow me to send 10 canal at the same time. If I find a really secured way, I have just to do the inverse processus at the reception, and if I want, I can have a full digital system, with no more conversion D/A, for example with implementation of an ADAT link in the receptor (but it begin to be very, very, very complicated =o)). I want to have the minimum of work to do with my feet, it's really more complicated for me to switch and control from my feet that from my hands, and when I want to control FX with my foot, switching within the menu with the knob to have the chorus and not the delay under my feet, is the bes thing to have a poor performance for me:D I want to use the guitar in the studio and in live performance ... I want my guitar to allow me all the experimentation I want to do ... I want to create a new type of instrument (mode megalomaniac ) I admit I'm a little bold, and I agree that all this stuff begin to be more complicated than I expected. If I could do without uC & cie, I will be the first to do it, but I want to have a really simple way to control all this **** But I'm fed up to cancel all my project, because it's too difficult ... Heeeelllppp me please, and if it's good at end, before making copyright I will give you the full cpu code and the electronic PCB

Okay, Thank you for taking time for my crazy idea I thought of push/pull pots for the volume and tone control, and a switch for each pickup, but I don't want to have 10 knobs & pots on my guitar, like here http://web.mac.com/doug.theriault/iWeb/Site/Instruments.html After discussion with friends, I think more and more to use a DsPIC ( mix of DSP & PIC) to have 10 inputs in the CAN of my DSPIC, and to make a real digital wireless transmission, and to have the capabilities to control all of the combination of pickups and tone and volume for each pickup with only two ledring pot. But I'm asking myself about the respect of the signal. The ADC (Analog to Digital Converter) is in 12 bit resolution, whereas the resolution of the signal in the rest of my audio parc is 24bit ... And the DsPIC Development board is expensive ... The wireless option is the only option I consider now, because the utility of this complicated electronic customisation is to have separate output. If I have 3 or 4 pickups + hexaphonic (so 6 output) piezo, it makes 10 output. I can't use an XLR connector, and I don't want to have 10 jack plugged in my guitar So if I must have a not standard output, it's preferable to consider the wireless option. But it's hard to transmit 1 mbits min by wireless with fiability... Maybe the Ethernet ?? But encapsulation over Ethernet is too hard for the room available :S So, with wireless capabilities, the problem is the battery ... But my idea was to use the phantom power to reload the battery ... It's not a good idea? Too hard ?? My project begin to enter in the reality, it's cool !

You're right, I've only room for 2 humbucks & 1 single coil normally. But I said in my first message that I want to implement a vibrato system, and I've enough space to win 5 cm or more if I do that. You're right, but I'm asking myself what's the most ergonomic way to do that, because I want to have more space and less pot & knobs ... I've not enough money and knowledge to implement a tactil LCD for example, but if I do all with knob, it's less expensive to buil without uC. So if you have any suggestions ... Can you give me some websites where I can find what you say ? You're not alright, because the power-wire-less is in experimentation actually You're right about the danger which the TRS jack represents but my goal is to have not too much "not standardized" things in my guitar. It's more easy to buy 10 jack of 5 m, even if it's TRS jack, than to build 10 XLR to Jackx2 ... You see what I mean ? But the problem is bigger than a TRS or XLR : if I want to implement the MIDI system who has been describe in my first message, I must have midi in and midi out in my guitar ... So or I build proprietary connector, or I have a multicore cable and I plug an XLR for the phantom power, 1 jack for the sound (and if I want to have separate sound, I must have 7 jack or more ), a midi in and a midi out. Or the best I plug only the XLR for the phantom power during pauses, and this alimentation reload Lithium Ion battery, and the audio and midi is wireless. Concerning the midi wireless system, I know it exist. The Audio too ...

I've found this http://www.precisionmusictech.com/gmax.htm What do you think about ?? I think, that I can realize myself with a uC and 2 pot+LCD&knob a system to control all the configuration of mic like this, but what about the sound ?

Yes, I agree too, however, I want precisely know which of this control is useful, and which not ... We can imagine a box to give a phantom power by a trs jack to all of the chips, and there, the problem of the battery is resolved, or just place a lot of battery in the guitar, and find chips with ULV. I agree that for example, this guitar : Guitar with on board digital control has too much control on board. When you say I think too that I can't have a clear control of the parameter of my effects and preamp and guitar if I have too much disponible control pot. But I know that "customized" control pot, sort of multi push pull, exist, and with this type of pot, I can have only 2 or 3 pots, where I needed 6 or 8 before ... Do you see what I mean ?? And which pickup do you think I can remove ? My goal is to have a total versatily of sound, and I think so that a piezo or an optomic system http://www.optomik.com/ is useful because I can say that I want only distorsion on one or two cords, a flanger on another, ... just like the new Gibson digital ! http://www.gibson.com/DigitalGuitarNew/gibsonDigital.html And the EMG 89 can give me "aggressive" sounds, the Benedetti a smooth sound of Tele/Stratocaster, and the Dimarzio Tonezone, a more warm and medium sound, like the old Gibson LP ... Moreover, this Mic, particulary the EMG, have a strenght output signal, so I can do easily tapping on my guitar And the sustainer is here to give me the opportunity to modify the parameter with pot, without playing, or to have more harmonics ... Which pickup is preferable to remove ??

I'm asking myself how long the battery will have enough energy to transmit audio , if we must change the battery at each concert, it's not intersting ... And what about the fidelity ?

Just a little up :D

Just a little up !!

Hello, ( French so excuse me for the mistakes ) My mind is not in peace actually ... I've a lot of idea of customization and sound experimentation. In the electronics area, I would do a lot of things. I would like to submit you my idea, so the good electronic geeks can say me what's possible to do, and what's not. The guitar on which I would like to do all this work is a PRS Soapbar SE. The PRS have in factory configuration 2 P90 from PRS. I would like to have a lot of mic, to have a lot of possibility to choice the sound. I would like to have in this order the pickups : Hexaphonic Piezo on a Floyd (it's possible, I'm sure) => P90=> Benedetti Rock or ToneZone=> EMG89 => a sustainer driver Do you think it's really too much ? I have a lot of place after that, pickups => knob to activate or not each pickup => pots for the volume of each pickup Do you think it is a bad idea to do that (alteration of the signal...?) ?? It would be amazing to dozen the level of each pickup independently! Or is it possible to have a switch which can "choice" the volume of the micro I want to control, and to send the signal of the pickup I've choice on the pot, but with the other mic continuing to fonctionning ( with a endless pot for example, I've no idea if it s possible or not ...) If that's possible, why not do the same for the tone ... so we have pickups => independent control of the activation of each pickup => independent control of the volume of each pickup => independent control of the tone of each pickup => general volume => jack. In parallel, I would like to implement the sustainer system. How can I do that ? Is it possible ?? Do I must remove the EMG because it's not the same output signal level and because it's an active pickup ?? And, I'm enough crazy to think I could do more I'm thinking for a long time of the ability to control from the guitar the level of the different adjustment of an effect, or of the possibility to control a VSTi to use the computer like a filter for the sound of my guitar. I would like so to implement a midi controller in my guitar like this http://www.ucapps.de/midibox16e.html So I would implement 7 or 8 knob with 7 or 8 luminescent pot ... Is it just a bad idea ?? If not, how could I do that ?? Yep, have a good day and let's

Hello, I'm french so excuse me for the mistakes I would customize my PRS. Actually it's in Red, I have planified to paint it in black, and I would draw some... drawings in white over the black. I'm asking myself if the best solution would not be to engrave this drawings, and to place in this engrave a phosphorescent powder. Is it possible ? What do you think about this idea ?? Yann