[O/T] Easily programmable microcontrollers?

[Leandro]

I've been looking through the PICAXE site, remarking on how easily programmable these microcontrollers are (you can build your own cable and programming circuit board, and not have to buy a peripheral programmer).

The thing is that, being a British company, ordering from them would be expensive and would possibly take a long time.

Does anyone know of another microcontroller chip which can be "home-programmed" like the PICAXE?

Thanks!

[The Tone God]

There are a number of different micro processors that you program and use on your own. A few of them are PICs (not PICAXE), AVR, 68000, etc. There are others but thats a good range and will probably do alot of what you want. I personally like PICs just because I'm comfortable with them and have alot of code lying around to reuse. I also write my code in embedded C which has better support IMHO for PICs. If I was starting out again now I would give a serious look at AVRs.

Both PICs and AVRs have have good and free software tools availible. Both processor lines are cheap. You can build your own programers for both for cheap.

Do some research on those products to find something to fit your needs.

I thought about writing a series of articles on using PICs with music electronics but I don't think it would go over well.

Andrew

[john1056]

I thought about writing a series of articles on using PICs with music electronics but I don't think it would go over well.

Why?  There seem to be a lot of questions lately about advanced switching sorts of things.

[The Tone God]

Why?  There seem to be a lot of questions lately about advanced switching sorts of things.

Yeah I noticed. In order to do it properly everyone invloved would need to get a programmer, some PICs, the software working, and a test bead to try things out on. The other major thing is I write code in embedded C so everyone would need to learn basic C programming since I wouldn't want to waste time talking about how loops, expression statements, variables, etc. work in standard C programming. This is before I would even start writting the articles.

If there was enough interest I would serious look at doing it but thats a long list of things for beginners to get before starting up. It would be tough.

Andrew

[Rich G.]

I've programmed an AT89S8252 (8051 varient) directly from a PC parallel port.  Atmel has a program that will program this chip via the serial port but you need to buy their cable-- which is something like $30.

[afranks]

Three letters:

A - V - R

If you go to www.futurlec.com, you can get a small programmable AVR board for under $20.  It even comes with the micro, cables and software.  If you want to go the C route, there is an AVR version of gcc (GNU C compiler) available... just check over at avrfreaks.net.  The reason I mention it is because it's free.

The PIC stuff has a lot of traction because a lot of people already use it.  Personally, I think the AVR is a better architecture and the associated software tools (compiler, IDE, etc) are much better.  If you aren't already in the PIC camp, you may be better off using an AVR.

-alan

[aron]

Andrew,

Being a C programmer, I'd LOVE IT!

I'd host it too, if you ever want to do it.

[Leandro]

Thanks, guys!  I'll look into all of this.

At a first glance, PIC programming seems very easy and moderately versatile.  I'm not sure I understand the AVR architecture yet, but then again, I've only glimpsed at it a little here at work.

Could someone maybe comment on the main differences between PIC's and AVR's?

Thanks again!

[punkaled]

I've done a lot of work using PIC micros, and they are good for some things and pretty bad for other things.  Theres quite a lot of use for them if you use midi, but as far as signal processing goes your probably better off using a chip designed for the job, if you just want to dabble in programming microcontrollers then pics are great and some of the newer ones have some very advanced features built in.
Personally i wouldn't bother with C programming on them, at least not at first, the PIC assembly languauge is pretty simple and easy to learn, and you'll understand how the thing works and how to get it to do what you want much better if you program it in assembly, then maybe try C later.
Also, if you do decide to get into PICs, dont buy one of the expensive commercial programmers, do a search on the web for PICs and you'll find plenty of free software for compiling/programming/debugging with PIC and also plenty of simple schematics for PICprogrammers to attach to various different computers (i use a programmer i built for about £5 from some diodes and a 74f06 plugged into my computer, much cheaper than some of the commercial ones which can cost £££s)

[Hal]

man, id be totally interested in learning more C, also.  I learned the basics a while back, moved on to java, then to guitar effects :-D

Merge the two?!?  Haha.

No, but i had a lot of interest lateley in this stuff, sparked by this forum.  I looked around, and the most "tutorial" type web site i found was the Iguana Labs site, but the kit cost over $100!



Another idea, if there is enough interest, could be to set up another forum, kinda like hte beginner forum, where we can post code, help building programmers, and stuff like that...that is if there is enough interest.

But if its ~$20, im deff in.

[aron]

I'd like to use them to control our pedals. I think it could do that right?

[Gilles C]

I went the PIC way a while ago just because it looked easier and cheaper than using AVR like a friend did.

He is using C, I use assembly.

But I only tried my hand at simple projects, and my friend had more complicated things in mind.

So both ways, I'm interested to see what you people do in the future.

Depending on the $$$ of course. It's only a hobby after all  

Btw, here is my favorite site to learn about PICs

http://www4.tpg.com.au/users/talking/

I'm still interested in controlling some effects with a PIC  :twisted:


GTechBlues

[Paul Perry (Frostwave)]

Nuts@Volts magazine is probably the bast place to see what is around for PICs. For peopel who aren't really programmers, there are always Basic Stamps & their variants.
www.parallax.com/html_pages/ products/basicstamps/basic_stamps.asp

[punkaled]

A good place to get info about PICs on the web is

piclist.com

Its an archive of information mainly from a mailing list which has been going for years, pretty much everything you can thing of is covered in an article somewhere in that list (even a few on using PICs for audio)

[Leandro]

I've done a lot of work using PIC micros, and they are good for some things and pretty bad for other things.  Theres quite a lot of use for them if you use midi, but as far as signal processing goes your probably better off using a chip designed for the job, if you just want to dabble in programming microcontrollers then pics are great and some of the newer ones have some very advanced features built in.

I would be using the microcontroller for driving relays, LEDs and such, and not for actual signal processing.  Actually, inspired by R.G. Keen's ASMOP project, I've designed a programmable looper (8 effects loops and 8 configurable memory presets, activated by a foot controller).  I've got all the pseudocode written, and I've even written a BASIC program for the PICAXE, just to see how difficult it would be (I'm a programmer by trade, so it's all good fun   ).  However, since I don't think I'll go with the PICAXE, I'm looking for alternatives.

I'll go through the sites you guys posted over the weekend, and see if I can wrap this up.  Fortunately, a relative is visiting the US next week, so I could ask them to try and get a microcontroller for me there (any idea where to buy them in San Francisco?).

Thanks!

[austin]

I've been using a 16MHz AVR in a tap-tempo LFO, it's easily powerful enough to generate the signal in realtime (using simple math) and scan several buttons and knobs.

Assembly programming is easy enough, if you like that sort of thing, but i use the avr-gcc C compiler.  Haven't used PIC, but I've used HC11s, and DSP boards; the AVR combined with avr-gcc is the easiest chip I've worked with.   Atmel makes available an environment with simulator free, if you use windows.

[Rich G.]

As mentioned earlier, I've used the 8051 micorcontroller before... but not a PIC or AVR.

What are some of the advantages/disadvantages with using a PIC or AVR vs. something from the 8051 family?

[john1056]

Andrew,

Being a C programmer, I'd LOVE IT!

Me too

[Peter Snowberg]

I was an early adopter of PICs a little over 10 years ago and I've used a lot of other families of chips including 8051, 8035/48, 6502, 65816, 68K, Z80 and AVR. Out of all those chips, I really prefer the AVR series for 95% of tasks. The instruction set is nice, the addressing is powerful, the variety of options is huge, the power draw is low, the peripherals are great and the memory can be huge.

I would encourage anybody to go for the AVRs at this point, but there are lots of good chips so make sure you get a great development environment along with a chip that gets the job done.

take care,
-Peter

[punkaled]

I would be using the microcontroller for driving relays, LEDs and such, and not for actual signal processing. Actually, inspired by R.G. Keen's ASMOP project, I've designed a programmable looper (8 effects loops and 8 configurable memory presets, activated by a foot controller).

Yes, PIC is perfect for driving simple led displays and such, and should work work fine with relays too without to much work. I've even built a few small robots with these things and some different sensors, and they all had fancy led displays on them, also using crystal oscillators they make pretty good timing devices (maybe a metronome or something) and can run at up to 40MHz (same speed as the desktop computer im using :lol: )
Literally billions of uses.