A good digital oscilloscope?
in [Design]
|
From: Joerg on 31 Dec 2009 14:46 krw wrote: > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:55:25 -0800, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:47:13 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:42:53 -0800, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:23:23 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>> Where I am now, I'm not "allowed" to do the (embedded) firmware but am >>>>> expected to do all of the FPGA stuff and most of the analogs. Go >>>>> figure. >>>> One nice thing about small companies is that everybody gets to do >>>> everything. I think that works better. Our newish software engineer >>>> wanted to design and lay out a display board that he was assigned to >>>> program, so we let him. >>> It is a small company (under 100). Firmware and hardware are >>> separated with a pretty broad line, though. >>> >>>> We're furnishing a subassembly for one project that's over a year >>>> late. It's pretty obvious that the not-so-big company is >>>> compartmentalized unto paralysis. >>> We were three years late (I got there at the end) on what is now our >>> main product. TI shares the blame, though. Their DSPs suck and their >>> support worse. OTOH, one FPGA would have saved at least two years of >>> grief. ;-) >> We've considered DSPs, but always wind up doing our serious crunching >> in an FPGA. A DSP isn't a very good uP and it isn't a very good FPGA. > > An FPGA isn't a very good DSP, either. Like everything in life, the > appropriate tool depends on the task. Plus FPGA can be real power hogs and the big ones cost a fortune. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joel Koltner on 31 Dec 2009 16:08 "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:ndvpj5pkrciv426qfhmd0l5a2ij5bmtquk(a)4ax.com... > Good idea. AIUI we looked hard at ADI before settling on TI. The > tipping point was G729 support. Ah, interesting -- I had figured you guys had either cooked up your own CoDecs or at least written the code for some industry standard one. ---Joel
From: krw on 31 Dec 2009 17:44 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:08:27 -0800, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message >news:ndvpj5pkrciv426qfhmd0l5a2ij5bmtquk(a)4ax.com... >> Good idea. AIUI we looked hard at ADI before settling on TI. The >> tipping point was G729 support. > >Ah, interesting -- I had figured you guys had either cooked up your own CoDecs >or at least written the code for some industry standard one. G729 is industry standard. ...or perhaps I missed your point.
From: krw on 31 Dec 2009 17:46 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:46:12 -0800, Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >krw wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:55:25 -0800, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:47:13 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:42:53 -0800, John Larkin >>>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:23:23 -0600, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>>>> Where I am now, I'm not "allowed" to do the (embedded) firmware but am >>>>>> expected to do all of the FPGA stuff and most of the analogs. Go >>>>>> figure. >>>>> One nice thing about small companies is that everybody gets to do >>>>> everything. I think that works better. Our newish software engineer >>>>> wanted to design and lay out a display board that he was assigned to >>>>> program, so we let him. >>>> It is a small company (under 100). Firmware and hardware are >>>> separated with a pretty broad line, though. >>>> >>>>> We're furnishing a subassembly for one project that's over a year >>>>> late. It's pretty obvious that the not-so-big company is >>>>> compartmentalized unto paralysis. >>>> We were three years late (I got there at the end) on what is now our >>>> main product. TI shares the blame, though. Their DSPs suck and their >>>> support worse. OTOH, one FPGA would have saved at least two years of >>>> grief. ;-) >>> We've considered DSPs, but always wind up doing our serious crunching >>> in an FPGA. A DSP isn't a very good uP and it isn't a very good FPGA. >> >> An FPGA isn't a very good DSP, either. Like everything in life, the >> appropriate tool depends on the task. > > >Plus FPGA can be real power hogs and the big ones cost a fortune. Again, appropriate tools for the task. Some of the modern FPGAs are pretty miserly. Some are relatively cheap, too. Though your not going to replace code with hardware and save either power or money.
From: Joel Koltner on 31 Dec 2009 18:08
"krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message news:55aqj558tn2rmvnomhaa319041svjt7olb(a)4ax.com... >>Ah, interesting -- I had figured you guys had either cooked up your own >>CoDecs >>or at least written the code for some industry standard one. > G729 is industry standard. ...or perhaps I missed your point. I was thinking you said TI had a bunch of code for G.729 they would just hand you whereas ADI did not, and that was a deciding factor in whose DSP to use. ....whereas if the programmers had been thinking, "we're going to write our own C code to implement G.729 per the written spec," then it wouldn't matter (so much) which DSP was used. Now that I think about it more, it probably wouldn't have made sense to write your own implementation of G.729 since you'd still end up paying licensing fees anyway, I imagine, and I imagine it's complex enough you'd probably spend some man-months on it. Sorry for the confusion. :-) We do our own C code for vocoding... although in our present case it's little more than companding and SSB modulation. :-) ---Joel |