M
Mark Fergerson
Guest
eromlignod wrote:
dribbling. :>(
involved selecting an input, massaging it, then selecting
the appropriate output and repeating 219 times. That may or
may not be fatal in terms of bottlenecking, but then you
don't have really fast signals to process.
Too often people come here and ask questions without
providing background. I really ought to have looked at your
patent. But no, I had to go off half-cocked. Anyway...
<snip>
values and work it out; you obviously weren't. ;>
on-the-fly thing which seemed over the top to me. You too,
apparently. I don't s'pose high-end pianos are subjected to
wild variations in temp/humidity etc. during play now that I
think about it.
matters, they're quite reliable and I'd guess your patent
isn't that specific. (No, I still haven't looked at the patent)
from what you say each piano "knows" its own tuning from the
get-go from the PROM/whatever the values are stored in at
the factory.
slack at once and something going TWANGGG! But with high-end
pianos, I guess there aren't any "small" catastrophes.
OK, having read your description, I have one final
question; given what you want the thing to do, your
circuitry sounds just about minimalist for the job. Exactly
what part are you unhappy with, having to stack shift
registers to get the word width you need? The only
minimalizing I can imagine that'd be worthwhile would be
putting all the processing, timing, and control functions in
a PIC but you still need all those inputs/outputs.
Industrial controllers typically handle that with racks of
mux/demux but then we're back to bottlenecking. You seem to
be about as close to truly tuning all the strings in
parallel as is feasible, at least to me.
Mark L. Fergerson
I suppose I _could_ have looked at the patent before
dribbling. :>(
Yes, much more so than my first interpretation which
involved selecting an input, massaging it, then selecting
the appropriate output and repeating 219 times. That may or
may not be fatal in terms of bottlenecking, but then you
don't have really fast signals to process.
Too often people come here and ask questions without
providing background. I really ought to have looked at your
patent. But no, I had to go off half-cocked. Anyway...
<snip>
OK, OK, I was too damn lazy to look up the strings'
values and work it out; you obviously weren't. ;>
Rats. You already said that and I failed to notice.
Ah, that makes more sense. I was afraid it was an
on-the-fly thing which seemed over the top to me. You too,
apparently. I don't s'pose high-end pianos are subjected to
wild variations in temp/humidity etc. during play now that I
think about it.
Recorded in some kind of PROM I assume (not that it
matters, they're quite reliable and I'd guess your patent
isn't that specific. (No, I still haven't looked at the patent)
Sometimes cheaper is better!
Quite elegant.
The "correct one" part is what I was wondering about;
from what you say each piano "knows" its own tuning from the
get-go from the PROM/whatever the values are stored in at
the factory.
Hrm. I was thinking more about all the strings going
slack at once and something going TWANGGG! But with high-end
pianos, I guess there aren't any "small" catastrophes.
OK, having read your description, I have one final
question; given what you want the thing to do, your
circuitry sounds just about minimalist for the job. Exactly
what part are you unhappy with, having to stack shift
registers to get the word width you need? The only
minimalizing I can imagine that'd be worthwhile would be
putting all the processing, timing, and control functions in
a PIC but you still need all those inputs/outputs.
Industrial controllers typically handle that with racks of
mux/demux but then we're back to bottlenecking. You seem to
be about as close to truly tuning all the strings in
parallel as is feasible, at least to me.
Mark L. Fergerson