Benchmarks

Discussions related to MegaDrum Hardware

Re: Benchmarks

Postby Synthex » Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:33 pm

Thanks.
I will test it this night !
Synthex
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:06 am
Location: France

Re: Benchmarks

Postby Synthex » Sun Nov 18, 2007 12:43 am

dmitri wrote:Synthex, try these two versions for 22 inputs


Yes, your new versions are much better !
The response time varies between 3 and 6 ms !

What changes have you made ?

Good job !
Synthex
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:06 am
Location: France

Re: Benchmarks

Postby dmitri » Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:09 am

Corrected a semi-error and did some code optimization:)
dmitri
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8706
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:05 pm

Re: Benchmarks

Postby dmitri » Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:18 am

I've updated all firmware versions on the Downloads page with corrected versions.
dmitri
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8706
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:05 pm

Re: Benchmarks

Postby Synthex » Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:08 pm

You could increase the version number on the firmware name, for example: megadrum32_16_v10XX.hex ?
To be sure to be up to date. ;)
Synthex
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:06 am
Location: France

Re: Benchmarks

Postby Marctwo » Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:19 pm

Interesting. I never realized that these devices suffered such large delays.

How much of this delay is in the software? I suppose, pretty much all of it as the midi signal would start when you write to the output?

I'm currently working on the firmware for my own device and I'm working with software delays of ~0.5ms due only to the nature of the piezo signal. I need to test with a wider variety of pads but so far I'm getting very reliable results.

Are you using a complex sampling algorithm?
Marctwo
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 4:07 pm

Re: Benchmarks

Postby Synthex » Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:42 pm

Marctwo wrote:Interesting. I never realized that these devices suffered such large delays.

How much of this delay is in the software? I suppose, pretty much all of it as the midi signal would start when you write to the output?

I'm currently working on the firmware for my own device and I'm working with software delays of ~0.5ms due only to the nature of the piezo signal. I need to test with a wider variety of pads but so far I'm getting very reliable results.

Are you using a complex sampling algorithm?

On what chip do you work ?
I am not on that delays of ~ 0.5ms be realistic.
Even the best professional modules are 2.5ms ...
Synthex
 
Posts: 1471
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 6:06 am
Location: France

Re: Benchmarks

Postby dmitri » Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:47 pm

Marctwo wrote:Interesting. I never realized that these devices suffered such large delays.

How much of this delay is in the software? I suppose, pretty much all of it as the midi signal would start when you write to the output?

I'm currently working on the firmware for my own device and I'm working with software delays of ~0.5ms due only to the nature of the piezo signal. I need to test with a wider variety of pads but so far I'm getting very reliable results.

Are you using a complex sampling algorithm?

0.5ms is not even half wave of a piezo signal:) I must say you found a much better algorithm so you'd better not spoil yours with others. Good luck with that!
dmitri
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8706
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:05 pm

Re: Benchmarks

Postby Lakedaemon » Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:06 pm

dmitri wrote:0.5ms is not even half wave of a piezo signal:) I must say you found a much better algorithm so you'd better not spoil yours with others. Good luck with that!


It depends of the kind of piezo trigger you use :
20mm piezo transducer vibrate at 6.6Khz -> 3.3 waves for each 0.5ms
27mm piezo transducer (Roland Pad meshhead trigger) vibrate at 4.6khz -> 2.3 waves for each 0.5ms
35mm piezo transducer (Roland Pad Rim trigger) vibrate at 2.9 khz. -> 1.45 waves for each 0.5ms

to have such a low delay, I would guess that his triggering algorithm is pretty straightforward (i.e. very simple and quick, with probably very few influence of the past signals)

With a very simple triggering detection algorythm (i.e either you are over a threshold, or you are under) and with 16mips, it should be possible to have only 0.5ms of delay (yet...probably without crosstalk/retrigger rejection)
Lakedaemon
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:44 am

Re: Benchmarks

Postby dmitri » Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:14 pm

Lakedaemon wrote:
dmitri wrote:0.5ms is not even half wave of a piezo signal:) I must say you found a much better algorithm so you'd better not spoil yours with others. Good luck with that!


It depends of the kind of piezo trigger you use :
20mm piezo transducer vibrate at 6.6Khz -> 3.3 waves for each 0.5ms
27mm piezo transducer (Roland Pad meshhead trigger) vibrate at 4.6khz -> 2.3 waves for each 0.5ms
35mm piezo transducer (Roland Pad Rim trigger) vibrate at 2.9 khz. -> 1.45 waves for each 0.5ms

to have such a low delay, I would guess that his triggering algorithm is pretty straightforward (i.e. very simple and quick, with probably very few influence of the past signals)

With a very simple triggering detection algorythm (i.e either you are over a threshold, or you are under) and with 16mips, it should be possible to have only 0.5ms of delay (yet...probably without crosstalk/retrigger rejection)

Alright, you know better, I'll shut up:)
dmitri
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8706
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 8:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to MegaDrum Hardware

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 107 guests