ilovefuzz.com

Feel like you're just dangling your feet into the abyss with the build quality on those pedals. Next up: use your toenail to bend the circuit while playing.

I've had maybe 25 Seppukus and I've only had one sort of shit the bed, and that was the input jack on a circuit bent NUX, so you can't really blame Rhys for that.

I currently own 11. My Memory loss does not have the chip exposed. Build quality has held up on all pedals. Paint jobs and screen printing however.....

The Magpie heeds the CHIP SWITCHING call!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvRSq5AdPFY[/youtube]

I have a theory/question to people who know about this stuff (I'd be very happy to be corrected, because I just ran a 2 min google search on this ATTiny-chip thingy). I'll just copy-paste what I wrote in the comment section and you spinchip cats can laugh at my possible stupidity, but at least let me know why the RRD chip in the RD sounds pretty different, while the RD chip in the RRD does not.

I think the Reverse RD chip in the regular RD pedal sounds different because the Reverse RD PCB has an ATTiny45 chip in it to give it more processing power to run the more complex algorithms found on the Reverse RD chip. So when you put that chip containing 'processing power'-demanding algorithms onto a PCB without the ATTiny-chip, it really struggles to run the algorithms, giving you those awesome, semi-broken sounds. That would explain why the Reverse RD didn't have any problems with running the regular RD algorithms, resulting in pretty much the same sounds. As I mentioned in my video, I'm just getting into this whole chip business, so I might be very, very wrong about this. It's a n00b's theory for now, haha!

I've got a couple of Spin-based pedals and the thing I wonder about but haven't found an easy answer to is: Is there a way to copy the algorithms from one eeprom to another? I'd love to be able to pick and mix and stick a few I like into a Bitquest or whatever.

.

That FV-1 pedal would be killer, especially with a usb port.

Depending on the program, there are some more precise things that an analog feedback loop can't do, but no loss in having one!

oldangelmidnight wrote:I've got a couple of Spin-based pedals and the thing I wonder about but haven't found an easy answer to is: Is there a way to copy the algorithms from one eeprom to another? I'd love to be able to pick and mix and stick a few I like into a Bitquest or whatever.

This is getting into some dicey territory, especially since most of the companies using the FV-1 are fairly small builders. Even if you're not selling it, I think there's something dubious about getting the code off of an eeprom and using it for your own effects.

UglyCasanova wrote:The Magpie heeds the CHIP SWITCHING call!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvRSq5AdPFY[/youtube]

I have a theory/question to people who know about this stuff (I'd be very happy to be corrected, because I just ran a 2 min google search on this ATTiny-chip thingy). I'll just copy-paste what I wrote in the comment section and you spinchip cats can laugh at my possible stupidity, but at least let me know why the RRD chip in the RD sounds pretty different, while the RD chip in the RRD does not.

I think the Reverse RD chip in the regular RD pedal sounds different because the Reverse RD PCB has an ATTiny45 chip in it to give it more processing power to run the more complex algorithms found on the Reverse RD chip. So when you put that chip containing 'processing power'-demanding algorithms onto a PCB without the ATTiny-chip, it really struggles to run the algorithms, giving you those awesome, semi-broken sounds. That would explain why the Reverse RD didn't have any problems with running the regular RD algorithms, resulting in pretty much the same sounds. As I mentioned in my video, I'm just getting into this whole chip business, so I might be very, very wrong about this. It's a n00b's theory for now, haha!

Pasting my youtube reply here for the common interest :-)

The FV1 chip can't really interface with external devices like RAM etc to expand it's functionality. More likely the attiny45 chip here is used to create the clock speed to the FV1. Standard, the FV1 is run with a 32.768 khz clock. But if you use a slower clock you can increase the max delay times but with lower audio quality. Magpie, it was difficult to hear the differences because we can't see the knob positions. But if you would use the same positions on the different pedals, for the same chip, perhaps you could see if the delays are simply running slower on the reverse radical. this is all just assumptions :-)

Bartimaeus wrote: This is getting into some dicey territory, especially since most of the companies using the FV-1 are fairly small builders. Even if you're not selling it, I think there's something dubious about getting the code off of an eeprom and using it for your own effects.

It's a touchy subject indeed. Companies like EQD get their FV1 chips preprogrammed directly by spinsemi so they are not using en external eeprom and cannot be copied/swapped.
Others don't so I would be curious to know how they view this kind of trend.
Swapping chips from pedals you bought (or even trading chips with others, why not) is perfectly ok but copying algorithms is another story.

drolo wrote:

UglyCasanova wrote:The Magpie heeds the CHIP SWITCHING call!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvRSq5AdPFY[/youtube]

I have a theory/question to people who know about this stuff (I'd be very happy to be corrected, because I just ran a 2 min google search on this ATTiny-chip thingy). I'll just copy-paste what I wrote in the comment section and you spinchip cats can laugh at my possible stupidity, but at least let me know why the RRD chip in the RD sounds pretty different, while the RD chip in the RRD does not.

I think the Reverse RD chip in the regular RD pedal sounds different because the Reverse RD PCB has an ATTiny45 chip in it to give it more processing power to run the more complex algorithms found on the Reverse RD chip. So when you put that chip containing 'processing power'-demanding algorithms onto a PCB without the ATTiny-chip, it really struggles to run the algorithms, giving you those awesome, semi-broken sounds. That would explain why the Reverse RD didn't have any problems with running the regular RD algorithms, resulting in pretty much the same sounds. As I mentioned in my video, I'm just getting into this whole chip business, so I might be very, very wrong about this. It's a n00b's theory for now, haha!

Pasting my youtube reply here for the common interest :-)

The FV1 chip can't really interface with external devices like RAM etc to expand it's functionality. More likely the attiny45 chip here is used to create the clock speed to the FV1. Standard, the FV1 is run with a 32.768 khz clock. But if you use a slower clock you can increase the max delay times but with lower audio quality. Magpie, it was difficult to hear the differences because we can't see the knob positions. But if you would use the same positions on the different pedals, for the same chip, perhaps you could see if the delays are simply running slower on the reverse radical. this is all just assumptions :-)

I learned stuff! Thank you!

Regarding copying algos: I can see the issue with it IF:
1. You share the algos with other people/copy and resell the algos in another enclosure.
2. You buy FV-1 based pedals and just sell them after you've copied the algos.

Other than that, I'm not sure I have any ethical problems with making my board smaller and more efficient by putting the algos I actually use into one enclosure. If I can buy 3 OBNE pedals and put 8 of their algos into one chip and access them in half of my BitQuest, I sure as hell will do that rather than hauling three extra pedals around. I don't consider that dodgy at all. I paid for those sounds, and I'm not sharing them or profiting from them in any way. The only argument I could see being used in that case, is if someone were to check out my board during/after a show and not seeing the OBNE pedals. I'm not sure if that's a compelling argument though, as people rehouse and/or etch/paint their pedals all the time. I just woke up, so I might be forgetting some crucial ethical points.

Something I DO see happening though; more builders soldering their memory chips to the PCB.

I agree with UC on the copying. If you've bought the pedals and don't distribute the algorithms to anyone else I don't see an issue.

monkeydancer wrote:I agree with UC on the copying. If you've bought the pedals and don't distribute the algorithms to anyone else I don't see an issue.

I agree as well. Anyway, unless a company has put some measures in place to prevent the code from being copied, they can't keep you from doing whatever you like with their product.
But I am certain we are all responsible adults who respect others' intellectual property.

Just for the record (and because it's one things that's probably been annoying me for decades), an algorithm and its implementation are two different things. An algorithm is not code, but the recipe basically.

And writing code is not free, that's a part of the price of anything that contains software. A big part usually, because good software engineers cost money.

Also, if you're really into this kind of things, use it as an excuse to learn proper programming, get a devkit and program your own things yourself (which will be crappy at first but that's part of the learning experience )

oscillateur wrote:Just for the record (and because it's one things that's probably been annoying me for decades), an algorithm and its implementation are two different things. An algorithm is not code, but the recipe basically.

And writing code is not free, that's a part of the price of anything that contains software. A big part usually, because good software engineers cost money.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you on this.

I also specify in my video that the chips only contain the algos and not everything else that makes the algos sound the way they do.

UglyCasanova wrote:I paid for those sounds, and I'm not sharing them or profiting from them in any way

to be totally pedantic and off the point, if you're being paid for music made using this gear, you totally are.