Re: raduino v1.27 released (improved suppression of spurious burst)
There already is a 2nd platform: Jack¡¯s Arduino Mega 2560 Mini based board. It does use an AD9850 instead of the Si5351, so using it as BFO would not be an option. But maybe the two platforms can cross-pollinate each other and we get something better on both sides.?
|
Re: Advanced Speech Processing Options
I have PCBs based on a Maxim part.? Works real great on the Oscope.? Have not tried it yet on BitX.
It puts out a constant value with 1-100 mv input sin wave.?? I have put a pot for output level.? Attached is the schematic.
The board is tiny, the width of the mic supplied with BitX.
I have a whole Microphone built with PTT switch.? All the parts are 3D printed.? I even got a board that would go in Bitx that senses Mic Current and
activates a fet to pull it the relay.? Thus you can get away with just a 3 wire cable to the mic, a standard 3.5 mm cable molded with male plug.
For a buck at the 99 Cent store I got a double male 6' cable. Cut in half it will make 2 microphones.
I will take pictures of everything and post them.
I think I have lots of spare PCBs.?? Several on this group have got them, no one has reported any results.
The Max part IS TINY, and data sheet requests a Ground pad inside the Pins pattern.? I used a heat gun and pasted, so far 2 of 2 worked.
Mike, WA6ISP
--
Mike Hagen, WA6ISP
10917 Bryant Street
Yucaipa, Ca. 92399
(909) 918-0058
PayPal ID "MotDog@..."
Mike@...
|
Re: raduino v1.27 released (improved suppression of spurious burst)
I actually like the idea of two separate platform paths. ?Ot keeps competition between the two alive but allows porting of code ideas from one path to another. ? It also gives new people a choice of directions to pursue and gives a better range of options. ? Plus more programmers are engaged specific to their platforms. ?And it could be that the cross over and there are both in one box!
Dr.?William J. Schmidt - K9HZ J68HZ 8P6HK ZF2HZ PJ4/K9HZ VP5/K9HZ PJ2/K9HZ ? Owner - Operator Big Signal Ranch ¨C K9ZC Staunton, Illinois ? Owner ¨C Operator Villa Grand Piton - J68HZ Soufriere, St. Lucia W.I. Rent it:
email:??bill@... ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Nov 9, 2017, at 1:11 PM, Mike Woods < mhwoods@...> wrote: Thanks for all the suggestions around expanding the number of ports and processor capacity.I already have a port expander (8 bit) in one of my BITX, but this is not going to solve the problem of SRAM and program space.? It really only exacerbates the problem!There are lot of different views, as anticipated, around alternative processors. Some would prefer to stay with Arduino compatibility, others are happy to move to another platform (Teensy or Raspberry Pi, etc). There are advantages and disadvantages of each option.? To my mind a particular disadvantage of moving to the Pi is that this requires some familiarity with Linux and the addition of monitor, keyboard and mouse (unless you use remote control type software and control the pi from a laptop as suggested by Doug KD9CYF). However, I agree it is an attractive option for other reasons (e.g. remote radio control).This got me thinking about the principles involved with modding the BITX40.? I agree with Allard's approach to date in retaining backwards compatibility.To my mind this means retaining the existing Raduino intact and the mods that Allard's software supports. There is a way to have the best of both worlds:? backwards compatibility and the option to add an additional processor. The answer may lie in using the existing communication channel for other devices (I2C is already used to control the Si5351). However, it can also be used to communicate between two processors.? e.g. See for a simple example.Another Aduino Nano or a Mega Mini costs no more than a port expander, and has more ports!? This appeals to me as it also increases processing capability.The existing sketch could be modified to transfer out key data relating to hardware controls (PTT Sense, CW key down, etc.) whenever another slave processor was detected, and allow the slave to disable some functions (to my mind I would be particularly interested in disabling control of the Si5351 and the potentiometer on the Master).? It would also need to allow the passing in of data from the slave processor for display of information on the screen, and accept changes to parameters that are tied to board control (e.g. CW mode parameters).This would provide an open platform then for whatever processor people wanted to add to their Raduino/Bitx.What do you all think??? I would be particularly interested in Allard's thoughts on this, as he "owns" the current software that most of us are using.? I would be reluctant to fork it when it is still being actively developed!73 de Mike ZL1AXGOn 8/11/17 11:34 AM, David wrote:What about using a multiplexer chip to reduce the number of I/O lines needed. A bit old school but effective.
Sent from my iPhone
-- Mike Woodsmhwoods@...
|
Re: raduino v1.27 released (improved suppression of spurious burst)
Thanks for all the suggestions around expanding the number of ports and processor capacity.
I already have a port expander (8 bit) in one of my BITX, but this is not going to solve the problem of SRAM and program space.? It really only exacerbates the problem!
There are lot of different views, as anticipated, around alternative processors. Some would prefer to stay with Arduino compatibility, others are happy to move to another platform (Teensy or Raspberry Pi, etc). There are advantages and disadvantages of each option.? To my mind a particular disadvantage of moving to the Pi is that this requires some familiarity with Linux and the addition of monitor, keyboard and mouse (unless you use remote control type software and control the pi from a laptop as suggested by Doug KD9CYF). However, I agree it is an attractive option for other reasons (e.g. remote radio control).
This got me thinking about the principles involved with modding the BITX40.? I agree with Allard's approach to date in retaining backwards compatibility.
To my mind this means retaining the existing Raduino intact and the mods that Allard's software supports. There is a way to have the best of both worlds:? backwards compatibility and the option to add an additional processor. The answer may lie in using the existing communication channel for other devices (I2C is already used to control the Si5351). However, it can also be used to communicate between two processors.? e.g. See for a simple example.
Another Aduino Nano or a Mega Mini costs no more than a port expander, and has more ports!? This appeals to me as it also increases processing capability.
The existing sketch could be modified to transfer out key data relating to hardware controls (PTT Sense, CW key down, etc.) whenever another slave processor was detected, and allow the slave to disable some functions (to my mind I would be particularly interested in disabling control of the Si5351 and the potentiometer on the Master).? It would also need to allow the passing in of data from the slave processor for display of information on the screen, and accept changes to parameters that are tied to board control (e.g. CW mode parameters).
This would provide an open platform then for whatever processor people wanted to add to their Raduino/Bitx.
What do you all think??? I would be particularly interested in Allard's thoughts on this, as he "owns" the current software that most of us are using.? I would be reluctant to fork it when it is still being actively developed!
73 de Mike ZL1AXG
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 8/11/17 11:34 AM, David wrote: What about using a multiplexer chip to reduce the number of I/O lines needed. A bit old school but effective.
Sent from my iPhone
--
Mike Woods
mhwoods@...
|
Re: Advanced Speech Processing Options
Yeah, there are solder holes for replacing R1 and R2 with pots!
|
Re: Advanced Speech Processing Options
This module could potentially be used,
by removing R1 and substituting a potentiometer:
On 10/11/17 11:33 AM, Arvo KD9HLC via Groups.Io wrote:
Both are cool!? I'd probably want to put some knobs on the BitX
Box to twirl.
Radiomanjwt, do you have pix or schematic?? Where do you get
the 3V?? It's own regulator?
I always wanted one of these for my home music studio:
And my good mics are on permanent loan to my son-in-law...
|
Re: Advanced Speech Processing Options
Both are cool!? I'd probably want to put some knobs on the BitX Box to twirl.
Radiomanjwt, do you have pix or schematic?? Where do you get the 3V?? It's own regulator?
I always wanted one of these for my home music studio:
And my good mics are on permanent loan to my son-in-law...
|
Re: Advanced Speech Processing Options
Would something like this work??https://www.adafruit.com/product/1713
|
Re: Advanced Speech Processing Options
I am using an ssm2167 speech processor ic on a small breakout board, as it is surface mount, soldered to a piece of vero board which holds the rest of the components.It works well, and the chip is only $1.89 on ebay :) Cheers John de VK4JWT?
Sent from my SAMSUNG Galaxy S7 edge on the Telstra Mobile Network
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-------- Original message -------- From: "Arvo KD9HLC via Groups.Io" <arvopl@...> Date: 10/11/17 2:45 am (GMT+10:00) Subject: [BITX20] Advanced Speech Processing Options
Doing a little poking around on speech processing and ran into a couple of interesting possibilities, not necessarily cheap.
A very powerful homebrew digital approach:
From a previous hobby, an analog approach:
The IC has a VCA, an RMS detector and a couple of opamps.
See especially Design Note 115:
That design note is based on the chip that uses ¡À15V for power; the 4320 is the same thing that can run on 12V which is available in the BitX.
Is anyone using pro audio hardware for this sort of thing?
|
Re: General Si5351 Question - Pi?
A good friend of mine was fond of putting on the 'Irish' and saying "good t'inkin' O'Rourke - yer foired!" <grin>. That's the sort of t'inkin' (tinkering?) I like - fun indeed! :)
73 de ZL2DEX
|
Re: Home brew 5 band BitX
Nice to see someone working on multiband.
Wondering if you might share project.?
I have built bandpass filter for 20m and rx is good.
The lpf for 20 is causing an issue. High swr.
Tried several lpf? filters with same results.
Joe
VE1BWV
Hey guys,?
I¡¯m finishing up my build of a multi band BitX and need two more bands to fill my filter board. I already have 80, 40, & 20 meters in place. Has anyone gone higher than 17 meters without an I.F. amp? (like the Hycas or similar)
|
Re: General Si5351 Question - Pi?
Yes, a USB dongle on the RPi could listen to Bitx40 audio.
Should work, and requires no new PC boards.
Could use one of the many si5351 breakout boards with the RPi.
But ?I'd tend to build a small PC board for an si5351, ad8307, and i2c ADC. ?
Put duct tape under it to insulate any vias,
then lay it flat on the bottom of the bitx40v3 pc board and solder the corners
to the bitx40 groundplane using short wires. ?Solder wires for power, audio, bfo, vfo.
Only needed connection to the RPi (or most any such processor) is the i2c bus.
Can be used without the Bitx40 as a sweeperino.
Then of course, we need to decide if we also want to drive PTT and mike audio somehow.
The Nano is interesting because everybody who buys the Bitx40v3 has one.
The RPi is interesting because it opens up a lot of new possibilities.
Jerry, KE7ER
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:20 pm, Dexter N Muir wrote:
The only ADC needed would be for S-meter. Tune by mouse (dragging across beneath waterfall like websdr.com) or scroll-wheel, or keyboard to dialog box. Mono audio, so one channel of a USB dongle could serve - what say?
73 ...
|
Re: General Si5351 Question - Pi?
The only ADC needed would be for S-meter. Tune by mouse (dragging across beneath waterfall like websdr.com) or scroll-wheel, or keyboard to dialog box. Mono audio, so one channel of a USB dongle could serve - what say?
73 ...
|
Re: General Si5351 Question - Pi?
Sweeping? Band is 200kHz (or 300), audio is say 2kHz, so 100 (150) steps, enough time to process an display a waterfall of that audio and stitch it onto the previous ... should be doable :)
|
Re: General Si5351 Question - Pi?
For another $5 you can go from the zero to the zero W and have wifi.? Then you can VNC into the pi and skip the HDMI.? I am using a zero W with the HAT from TAPR as a WSPR transmitter and remote op it from my phone or desktop.? The HF was knocking out the pi's wifi.? I separated the HAT from the pi with 20cm jumpers and it runs like a champ.? Might need some shielding between the pi and the bitx board but it might work.? As a bonus you can sync NTP and all the fun that comes with accurate time.
|
Re: General Si5351 Question - Pi?
If the code is in C then it remains in common with those using the Nano, and updates to one
can be easily ported to the other. ?Perhaps in C but with hooks so parts of it can be called
from python for RPi specific stuff, like a graphic waterfall display out to an HDMI monitor
of all activity across the band (by sweeping the si5351 VFO and monitoring the audio).
Jerry, KE7ER
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:20 am, RCBoatGuy wrote:
As far as coding in C is concerned, I am fine with that.? I use Linux every day at work and have been coding C for over 30 years now.? I just thought Python might be less intimidating for people unfamiliar with Linux and the Raspberry Pi, as it seems to be the language of choice for new Raspberry Pi users.??
|
Re: General Si5351 Question - Pi?
Absloutely! though LCD support not necessary - display by the Pi's HDMI.
73...
|
Re: General Si5351 Question - Pi?
You are correct about the 3.3V I/O and lack of ADC pins.? I imagine we'd design a special 'HAT' (as Pi daughterboards are often called) that contained an ADC like the one you suggested plus the Si5351 and other miscellaneous circuitry (such as 5V output drivers and LCD support circuitry) and just replace the entire Raduino instead of just the Nano.
As far as coding in C is concerned, I am fine with that.? I use Linux every day at work and have been coding C for over 30 years now.? I just thought Python might be less intimidating for people unfamiliar with Linux and the Raspberry Pi, as it seems to be the language of choice for new Raspberry Pi users.??
|
Re: General Si5351 Question - Pi?
Greetings, all!
I seem to have put a cat among some pigeons! :) My hope would be that they can fly ... me, I'm hobbled.
Financially - I'm a pensioner, and my reserves have been pillaged by bureaucracy. Beyond the original Kit and replacement Raduino, such componentry as I can glean is from defunct 'trash', tools are what I had prior to that systemic abuse. I envy those in nations with reasonable access to less-costly 'gear'. Here in NZ, and lacking individual mobility beyond this little town (Feilding, FYI) a Pi Zero-W will cost at least double its price at the nearest outlet (Element 14 in Auckland).
Situationally - workspace is cramped, storage cluttered with inadequate room for organisation.
Capability - my programming capability doesn't go beyond schoolboy BASIC and atrophied Assembly. I'm a Thinker, not a Doer.
I'm active here to keep my brain functioning - I've had a stroke. Online is my preferred human interaction. My long-term memory is unimpaired, so knowledge is not a problem - and more recent developments here are documented and can be researched. I really treasure this project!
73, folks
Dex, ZL2DEX
?
|
At the bitx40 we built, the BFO frequency varies in the voice signal.
I wonder if it is normal or if someone has ever faced this problem as he did it.
Thank you!
|
K9HZ
Arvo W0VRA
radiomanjwt