2 xFV-1 considerations ?
Moderator: frank
2 xFV-1 considerations ?
I'm thinking of making a circuit which will use 2 FV-1 chips each with its own eeprom. The eeprom switching will be done using one selector so when for example program '0' is selected both FV-1's will receive there own (different) code from there respective Eeprom. The reason behind this is to allow for up to 6 dsp control pots and larger (in a way) program capability.
My questions are what should I consider in connecting the outputs of one FV-1 to the inputs of the second and will there be any timing problems running from separate crystals? (unlikelyi think) should both chips run from one crystal? Thirdly will there be any S/N ratio accumulation problem?
Thanks
Mick
My questions are what should I consider in connecting the outputs of one FV-1 to the inputs of the second and will there be any timing problems running from separate crystals? (unlikelyi think) should both chips run from one crystal? Thirdly will there be any S/N ratio accumulation problem?
Thanks
Mick
I haven't done this so these are thoughts just off the top of my head, if I miss something or am wrong about something I hope someone else catches it...
Use 1 crystal, there won't be any timing problems since it will be analog in and out but each FV-1 has a PLL, better if both see the same reference clock.
Converter noise will add when you run the out of one to the in of the other so if this is a mono device drive both ADC inputs and add the signals together in the FV-1. Signal should increase by about 6db but noise by only 3db. Also consider that it is delta-sigma converters so noise from the DAC is being pushed out of band and you don't want it to alias back in band in the ADC of the second FV-1 so a low pass filter between them is probably a must.
Use 1 crystal, there won't be any timing problems since it will be analog in and out but each FV-1 has a PLL, better if both see the same reference clock.
Converter noise will add when you run the out of one to the in of the other so if this is a mono device drive both ADC inputs and add the signals together in the FV-1. Signal should increase by about 6db but noise by only 3db. Also consider that it is delta-sigma converters so noise from the DAC is being pushed out of band and you don't want it to alias back in band in the ADC of the second FV-1 so a low pass filter between them is probably a must.
Frank Thomson
Experimental Noize
Experimental Noize
Thats great news Sweetalk, it's all thinking for me at the moment as I am off to the TT motorcycle races soon and will back June 17 so that wll be when any real layouts will start to happen for me.Sweetalk wrote:I'm starting a project with 2 FV-1's too for more control pots as well. So if I have some trouble or issue I'll post it!.
I too will post any progress here.
Thanks Frank for the info also.
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2014 12:01 am
- Location: Hua Hin, Thailand
In a different project I'm using 2 FV-1's but I must share control pots. It can be done with a single pot? (haven't tried yet, just evaluating possibilities but I don't want to use a dual pot). Thinked to buffer the CV signal and split it to both FV but the opamps offset will reduce the range of the pot. Any thoughs?.
From the datasheetSweetalk wrote:In a different project I'm using 2 FV-1's but I must share control pots. It can be done with a single pot? (haven't tried yet, just evaluating possibilities but I don't want to use a dual pot). Thinked to buffer the CV signal and split it to both FV but the opamps offset will reduce the range of the pot. Any thoughs?.
The input resistance of the potentiometer control inputs is on the order of 10 megohms, and these terminals are quite resistant to noise. No bypass capacitors should be required on these terminals. If not required, these terminals may be left open, or if the program includes the use of a potentiometer function, it may be connected to MID if a centered potentiometer position is desired, but an actual control is not intended in the design.
Reading this would suggest to me that you could use the wiper off one pot directly on multiple pot controls over the 2 FV-1's. Frank will be able to confirm or dismiss this.
Looking in another topic Frank says that t'll be possible. You posted before meice-nine wrote:From the datasheetSweetalk wrote:In a different project I'm using 2 FV-1's but I must share control pots. It can be done with a single pot? (haven't tried yet, just evaluating possibilities but I don't want to use a dual pot). Thinked to buffer the CV signal and split it to both FV but the opamps offset will reduce the range of the pot. Any thoughs?.
The input resistance of the potentiometer control inputs is on the order of 10 megohms, and these terminals are quite resistant to noise. No bypass capacitors should be required on these terminals. If not required, these terminals may be left open, or if the program includes the use of a potentiometer function, it may be connected to MID if a centered potentiometer position is desired, but an actual control is not intended in the design.
Reading this would suggest to me that you could use the wiper off one pot directly on multiple pot controls over the 2 FV-1's. Frank will be able to confirm or dismiss this.
![Razz :P](./images/smilies/icon_razz.gif)
I was wondering if this would be an ok configuration for using two spins -
input buffer-->fv1A-->fv1B-->output buffer
would you need any buffering between the chips or is that not necessary?
also would i be able to drop the output resistor and capacitor of the first fv1 and the input resistor and capacitor on the second fv-1?
input buffer-->fv1A-->fv1B-->output buffer
would you need any buffering between the chips or is that not necessary?
also would i be able to drop the output resistor and capacitor of the first fv1 and the input resistor and capacitor on the second fv-1?
I do not believe you would need buffering between the FV-1s but I would keep some filtering to remove out of band noise and any DC offset difference between the chips.
Frank Thomson
Experimental Noize
Experimental Noize
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:59 pm
Re: 2 xFV-1 considerations ?
Did you ever get this working? I made a board which does this (one rotary switches two FV-1s, but it only switches four programs on one chip and none on the other... Is there a way to delay/buffer the switching signal so that each happens independently?
Re: 2 xFV-1 considerations ?
It should work just fine, if your switching isn't working then you will need to post a schematic of how you have it all hooked so that anyone may help you.sashaagafonoff wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:03 amDid you ever get this working? I made a board which does this (one rotary switches two FV-1s, but it only switches four programs on one chip and none on the other... Is there a way to delay/buffer the switching signal so that each happens independently?
www.stanleyfx.co.uk
"It's fairly straight forward, if you want to start it press start, you can work out the rest of the controls yourself."
"It's fairly straight forward, if you want to start it press start, you can work out the rest of the controls yourself."
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:59 pm
Re: 2 xFV-1 considerations ?
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com ... rotary.png
this is how i have it set up in the schematic
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com ... ry-PCB.png
and the PCB
this is how i have it set up in the schematic
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com ... ry-PCB.png
and the PCB
Re: 2 xFV-1 considerations ?
links don't worksashaagafonoff wrote: ↑Thu Apr 25, 2019 9:33 pm https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com ... rotary.png
this is how i have it set up in the schematic
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com ... ry-PCB.png
and the PCB
www.stanleyfx.co.uk
"It's fairly straight forward, if you want to start it press start, you can work out the rest of the controls yourself."
"It's fairly straight forward, if you want to start it press start, you can work out the rest of the controls yourself."
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2019 3:59 pm
Re: 2 xFV-1 considerations ?
Try it now, I've updated the permissions on the images... Sorry, I haven't used S3 for a while and they lock down things differently...