FPGA based hardware DIVA?

[V0RT3X]

I had an idea, but could someone build a DIVA style synth using FPGA modules?

Each main component in the synth could have its own FPGA processors (EG, OSC, FILTER, etc)

Switching the component type from a moog to a roland would be easy, as it would require a different FPGA "program" for that particular FPGA card.

This would prevent having to have a FPGA chip for each component model.

I guess the trick is getting the components to still work with each other.

[EvilDragon]

Well it would need recoding from scratch because x86 code is probably not compatible with whatever language FPGAs use (was it Verilog or whatnot)...

[V0RT3X]

Well it would need recoding from scratch because x86 code is probably not compatible with whatever language FPGAs use (was it Verilog or whatnot)...

Ok looks like I need more than a laymans understanding of this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardwar ... n_language

[EvilDragon]

Basically it's incompatible almost completely.

[V0RT3X]

Basically it's incompatible almost completely.

Damn well that sucks. I like what i've seen with some FPGA based hardware recreations and thought this could be the holy grail for synth modelling.

Ah well

[EvilDragon]

At the end of the day, it's just a CPU. It lives and dies on the quality of the algorithms it calculates. FPGAs have existed since 80s... That they're only recently being used in actual synthesizers shows you how far behind the whole audio world is in implementing the latest hardware tech available.

[teilo]

FPGAs are digital by nature. Their only advantage over a CPU is that they can be more efficient. If the code of Diva were converted to an FPGA implementation of the same algorithm, the end result would be the same, other than using less power. But you have to buy hefty FPGA hardware that will cost more than a few multi-core CPUs. So why would anyone waste the effort?

[Urs]

Well, what makes FPGA accessible these days is that there are now some which run the Arm architecture. So one can program them with "normal" code and outsource some tasks to VDSL. They draw too much current, otherwise we'd be prototyping something for Eurorack with those.

[SneakyBeats]

Well, what makes FPGA accessible these days is that there are now some which run the Arm architecture. So one can program them with "normal" code and outsource some tasks to VDSL. They draw too much current, otherwise we'd be prototyping something for Eurorack with those.

Just for curiosity, what would be the most interesting/even near possible way to have a U-He hardware synth? PC with hardware controller isn't an option.

And would you build those for people who'd ordered it and would be ready to pay for it?

[skottish]

Well, what makes FPGA accessible these days is that there are now some which run the Arm architecture. So one can program them with "normal" code and outsource some tasks to VDSL. They draw too much current, otherwise we'd be prototyping something for Eurorack with those.

Just for curiosity, what would be the most interesting/even near possible way to have a U-He hardware synth? PC with hardware controller isn't an option.

And would you build those for people who'd ordered it and would be ready to pay for it?

Have Kurzweil hire u-he to design the software for the K3000?

[lunardigs]

Just for curiosity, what would be the most interesting/even near possible way to have a U-He hardware synth? PC with hardware controller isn't an option ...

Raspberry Pi-like devices.
I think this becomes a possibility now with ARM support.

[blakflag]

I had asked this in another thread and Urs had a good reply about today's chips & power issues. I still hope that the recent surge of interest in Arm-like chips will provide a feasible solution for (re)programmable DSP units:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=548102&p=7816504#p7816504

[MitchK1989]

now that U-he has to get ported to ARM anyway they could probably just do ARM based hardware if they really wanted to get into the digital polysynth game

[Urs]

We're doing ARM based hardware for Eurorack. A Polysynth would be like 3 or 4 steps later.

[EvilDragon]

FPGAs are digital by nature. Their only advantage over a CPU is that they can be more efficient.

Well, "reprogrammed for a specific purpose" is a more accurate answer, and are especially suited for highly parallelizable tasks. They aren't more efficient when it comes to raw processing muscle (GFLOPS). Well, they may be more efficient per Watt, if that's the concern.