Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!ucsd!anise.acc.com!ivucsb!todd From: todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us (Todd Day) Newsgroups: comp.dsp Subject: Re: More digital mixer stuff Message-ID: <1989Sep29.102204.8798@ivucsb.sba.ca.us> Date: 29 Sep 89 10:22:04 GMT References: <9238@pyr.gatech.EDU> Organization: Disillusioned Graduate Hackers, Santa Barbara, CA Lines: 36 byron@pyr.gatech.EDU (Byron A Jeff) writes: ~Even if it were serial I'd probably just shift it into shift registers ~and read in the parallel outputs when all of the bits of a complete ~sample has been shifted in. What I was refering to was the *built-in* serial shift registers in the DSP chips. That way, you wouldn't need the glue logic. ~>Remember that since you are using an analog MUX, the samples can't all ~>be done at EXACTLY the same time, so there will be a slight delay between ~>all of the channels. ~I'm brand new in this domain. I have no clue what the effect of the ~delay between channels will be. Can you give me an idea? Ch 1 - delay - Ch 2 - delay - Ch 3 - delay - Ch 4 The delay will be the length of time it takes to switch from one channel to the next via the MUX and then sample with the sample/hold. Probably not very signifigant, but those who spend $1000 on interconnects for their stereo systems would probably complain. Of course, they wouldn't be listening to digital, anyway, would they? :-) ~Another reponse I saw indicates that a 56001 wouldn't be able to handle ~mixing 8 channels much less doing any kind of EQ, reverb, etc. He ~suggested a DSP for each channel. I know that one chip can *at least* emulate a 2 channel 10 band 12 dB equalizer from a Motorola app note. I wouldn't think that reverb would be that tough to do. -- Todd Day | todd@ivucsb.sba.ca.us | ivucsb!todd@anise.acc.com "Ya know, some day these scientists are going to invent something that can outsmart a rabbit" -- Bugs Bunny