3 ms·
An Arduino Nano? What a waste... Just use a PIC or an ATTiny. Spending even $1 for something so simple is unnecessary. For personal projects, it's not often th
by XMPPwocky 6y ago
An Arduino Nano? What a waste... Just use a PIC or an ATTiny. Spending even $1 for something so simple is unnecessary.
For personal projects, it's not often the case that you need to get BOM cost as low as possible and disregard other factors (like debuggability, or having enough DSP available to run the FFT for tuning calibration (though I suspect they'd be better off with autocorrelation...), or room for future expansion (adding multiple channels, adding a sequencer, adding control over the filter, implementing envelopes, running the Pi's audio output through the filter too...)
Plus, they might have had the Pi before, and still have it afterwards. That's the nice thing about general-purpose computers- you can put a whole bunch of different software on them, and then switching between uses just involves moving the board itself and plugging cables in.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ChickeNES 6y agoI remember when I built my Minimoog clone in highschool I had to not only etch and drill a board for the midi2cv convertor, but also one for a parallel port PIC programmer to program the PIC it required. I think the parts for the two together would be around $100 adjusting for 15 years of inflation (of course, that was dwarfed by the parts cost for the synth).
- ssalazar 6y agoOne functional advantage of a microcontroller over a single-board computer is lower latency due to not having the overhead of an operating system. Also, the Pi's built-in audio output is basically unusable, but easily replaced. However if you dont have floating point arithmetic like many microcontrollers, fixed-point DSP for FFT or autocorrelation presents its own set of challenges, which can be either a good thing or a bad thing.