@ Dennis,
Yup,
That's pretty much my take on the reason for the differences in codeplug structure as well.
With a different uC, especially not even in the same family would surely be better served if the design was in favor of it's capabilities instead of adapting a structure designed for a completely different piece of HW.
...and the X9000 frequency storage method is about as efficient as you can get considering 10 bits and 7 bit dont fit efficiently in 8 bit bytes.
That interleaved biz the X uses.... I think that was just a brain teaser from the engineers for anyone who dared to figure it out...lol
Yes the math for the synth and the way the data is loaded is identical, as the X and the X9000 are the same from that respect once the data leaves the flip flops.
Have you explored Casey's direct drive of the synthesizer?
The level of complexity used to load the synth is pretty impressive.
I'm pretty sure the designers didnt expect some guy to take a couple of low end $10 experimenter boards and replicate the operation.
I suspect it could be done with one if he used the IDE's serial monitor to input the frequency.
