The man has gone cuckoo with his 172 xxx postings from AOL. What I want
to know is who snapped Lelnad's reality this time? His spirit is broken.
I kind of feel sorry for him with all the troubles he has.

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
The man has gone cuckoo with his 172 xxx postings from AOL. What I want
to know is who snapped Lelnad's reality this time? His spirit is broken.
I kind of feel sorry for him with all the troubles he has.


I ratted him out to MIT for using as his screen nic. He
hasn't used it since.

From: (Dr.Death)
"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
The man has gone cuckoo with his 172 xxx postings from AOL. What I want
to know is who snapped Lelnad's reality this time? His spirit is broken.
I kind of feel sorry for him with all the troubles he has.

I ratted him out to MIT for using

as his screen nic. He

hasn't used it since.

(chucke) Why can't he just obey the rules?

"Twistedhed" wrote in message
...
The man has gone cuckoo with his 172 xxx postings from AOL. What I want
to know is who snapped Lelnad's reality this time? His spirit is broken.
I kind of feel sorry for him with all the troubles he has.


Hello, Twist


Has gone? Hmmmm ....

I'm just glad a few folks can get a few posts across with a bit of sanity -
even if only once in a while


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Has gone? Hmmmm ....

Not really

I'm just glad a few folks can get a few posts across with a bit of
sanity -
even if only once in a while

It's been a load of fun reading the wild posts about me. It's like sitting
back with a cold one and watching a dog chase it's own tail for hours on end
because it's too dumb to know better. From reading the posts the really dumb
ones stand out from the crowd. Better they left their mouths shut rather
than opening it thus relieving all doubt.

Anyway I've had better things to do the last few weeks, finally got my TI
320C6713 DSP EVM boad with the development software so I've been busy with
another engineer buddy working on some DSP projects. Nothing like going back
to review all the discrete time system theory, FFT's and z-transform stuff I
learned years ago. It's a lot more interesting than the silly name calling
and baiting to start a flame war going on in this news group lately and I
don't want to waste my time with such crap either Jim.

--
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

P.S. Let me know when my look up count goes over 20K. I've got a bet going
on this. 8-))

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
. ..

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Has gone? Hmmmm ....

Not really

I'm just glad a few folks can get a few posts across with a bit of
sanity -
even if only once in a while

It's been a load of fun reading the wild posts about me. It's like sitting
back with a cold one and watching a dog chase it's own tail for hours on
end because it's too dumb to know better. From reading the posts the
really dumb ones stand out from the crowd. Better they left their mouths
shut rather than opening it thus relieving all doubt.

Anyway I've had better things to do the last few weeks, finally got my TI
320C6713 DSP EVM boad with the development software so I've been busy with
another engineer buddy working on some DSP projects. Nothing like going
back to review all the discrete time system theory, FFT's and z-transform
stuff I learned years ago. It's a lot more interesting than the silly name
calling and baiting to start a flame war going on in this news group
lately and I don't want to waste my time with such crap either Jim.

--
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

P.S. Let me know when my look up count goes over 20K. I've got a bet going
on this. 8-))



What crime was it you convicted of anyway?

"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Has gone? Hmmmm ....

Not really

I'm just glad a few folks can get a few posts across with a bit of
sanity -
even if only once in a while

It's been a load of fun reading the wild posts about me. It's like
sitting back with a cold one and watching a dog chase it's own tail for
hours on end because it's too dumb to know better. From reading the
posts the really dumb ones stand out from the crowd. Better they left
their mouths shut rather than opening it thus relieving all doubt.

Anyway I've had better things to do the last few weeks, finally got my
TI 320C6713 DSP EVM boad with the development software so I've been busy
with another engineer buddy working on some DSP projects. Nothing like
going back to review all the discrete time system theory, FFT's and
z-transform stuff I learned years ago. It's a lot more interesting than
the silly name calling and baiting to start a flame war going on in this
news group lately and I don't want to waste my time with such crap
either Jim.


That gave me a headache, I got the TAPR 56000 EVM, Put it together.
Tried some 9600 packet, and 400 bps psk telemetry when A0-40 was still
working. I have it collecting dust now, as soundcard software is easier.
Don't even hook up my MFJ-1278 TNC anymore either.

I wouldn't say that the sound card software approach is "easier" at least
from a design standpoint. From a user's point of view you're right about the
ease of use, you can't beat it. The main difference between a DSP board as
opposed to sound card software is performance. And that is a two part issue.
One is raw computational performance and the second is power consumption.
The TI 6713 on my EVM gets barely warm while cranking out 1200 to 1300
MFLOPS. Then take a look at the monster sized CPU in your PC and it's heat
sink. No contest. A last point DSP chips don't waste transistors on stuff
that isn't needed like virtual memory, privilege levels etc. that only
matters to CPUs running general applications and need to be protected from
other users on the system.

One of the things that the TI EVM development software does for you is the
complex scheduling of the various routines that have time critical deadlines
to meet. If you do the sound card routine, writing it yourself that is, you
have to not only do the application code but you have to write your own
scheduler routine and maybe with multi-level interrupts you assign to the
different threads running.

Writing code for DSP chips has gotten easier now that most vendors have "C"
compilers you can use. And at least with TI they have a DSP BIOS that
handles the low level hardware crap so you don't have to using assembly
code. Add on hardware often comes with plug-in modules containing the
required low level code so you don't have to write it yourself. You just
call the low level routines from "C" using the provided function prototypes
in the vendor's "xxx.h" files and the linker finds the code in the vendor
supplied library files.

One of the interesting things I've found out is some hard-core audiophiles
are using some of the DSP EVM boards to do some custom filter and complex
frequency-gain adjustments etc. I've seen some lively discussions among some
of them over which EVM system is best to use or going a roll-your-own
approach is better. Some of them were looking for doing direct digital to
audio applications, some audio equipment has direct digital outputs, with
noise reduction etc. because they don't like the limitations of the
commercial gear out there.

Thanks for the post. It's refreshing to have an intelligent exchange of
messages compared to the infantile crap some others are trying to get me to
waste time on.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/toolsw/fold...k6713.html#top
TMS320C6713 EVM

http://www.dspguide.com/pdfbook.htm Free for down load a text book on DSP
theory


--
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Has gone? Hmmmm ....

Not really

I'm just glad a few folks can get a few posts across with a bit of
sanity -
even if only once in a while

It's been a load of fun reading the wild posts about me. It's like
sitting back with a cold one and watching a dog chase it's own tail
for hours on end because it's too dumb to know better. From reading
the posts the really dumb ones stand out from the crowd. Better they
left their mouths shut rather than opening it thus relieving all
doubt.

Anyway I've had better things to do the last few weeks, finally got my
TI 320C6713 DSP EVM boad with the development software so I've been
busy with another engineer buddy working on some DSP projects. Nothing
like going back to review all the discrete time system theory, FFT's
and z-transform stuff I learned years ago. It's a lot more interesting
than the silly name calling and baiting to start a flame war going on
in this news group lately and I don't want to waste my time with such
crap either Jim.


That gave me a headache, I got the TAPR 56000 EVM, Put it together.
Tried some 9600 packet, and 400 bps psk telemetry when A0-40 was still
working. I have it collecting dust now, as soundcard software is
easier. Don't even hook up my MFJ-1278 TNC anymore either.

I wouldn't say that the sound card software approach is "easier" at
least from a design standpoint. From a user's point of view you're right
about the ease of use, you can't beat it. The main difference between a
DSP board as opposed to sound card software is performance. And that is
a two part issue. One is raw computational performance and the second is
power consumption. The TI 6713 on my EVM gets barely warm while cranking
out 1200 to 1300 MFLOPS. Then take a look at the monster sized CPU in
your PC and it's heat sink. No contest. A last point DSP chips don't
waste transistors on stuff that isn't needed like virtual memory,
privilege levels etc. that only matters to CPUs running general
applications and need to be protected from other users on the system.

One of the things that the TI EVM development software does for you is
the complex scheduling of the various routines that have time critical
deadlines to meet. If you do the sound card routine, writing it yourself
that is, you have to not only do the application code but you have to
write your own scheduler routine and maybe with multi-level interrupts
you assign to the different threads running.

Writing code for DSP chips has gotten easier now that most vendors have
"C" compilers you can use. And at least with TI they have a DSP BIOS
that handles the low level hardware crap so you don't have to using
assembly code. Add on hardware often comes with plug-in modules
containing the required low level code so you don't have to write it
yourself. You just call the low level routines from "C" using the
provided function prototypes in the vendor's "xxx.h" files and the
linker finds the code in the vendor supplied library files.

One of the interesting things I've found out is some hard-core
audiophiles are using some of the DSP EVM boards to do some custom
filter and complex frequency-gain adjustments etc. I've seen some lively
discussions among some of them over which EVM system is best to use or
going a roll-your-own approach is better. Some of them were looking for
doing direct digital to audio applications, some audio equipment has
direct digital outputs, with noise reduction etc. because they don't
like the limitations of the commercial gear out there.

Thanks for the post. It's refreshing to have an intelligent exchange of
messages compared to the infantile crap some others are trying to get me
to waste time on.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/toolsw/fold...k6713.html#top
TMS320C6713 EVM

http://www.dspguide.com/pdfbook.htm Free for down load a text book on
DSP theory


My EVM came with five thick books. I went through part of the first one
and realized to write my own software for it, it was going to take some
time to learn things. So I mainly used software written by others. Why
re-invent the wheel. I still don't have a lot of time to play, but maybe
someday I'll plug it in again and learn a little.

SC

"Slow Code" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Slow Code" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Leland C. Scott" wrote in
:


"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Has gone? Hmmmm ....

Not really

I'm just glad a few folks can get a few posts across with a bit of
sanity -
even if only once in a while

It's been a load of fun reading the wild posts about me. It's like
sitting back with a cold one and watching a dog chase it's own tail
for hours on end because it's too dumb to know better. From reading
the posts the really dumb ones stand out from the crowd. Better they
left their mouths shut rather than opening it thus relieving all
doubt.

Anyway I've had better things to do the last few weeks, finally got my
TI 320C6713 DSP EVM boad with the development software so I've been
busy with another engineer buddy working on some DSP projects. Nothing
like going back to review all the discrete time system theory, FFT's
and z-transform stuff I learned years ago. It's a lot more interesting
than the silly name calling and baiting to start a flame war going on
in this news group lately and I don't want to waste my time with such
crap either Jim.


That gave me a headache, I got the TAPR 56000 EVM, Put it together.
Tried some 9600 packet, and 400 bps psk telemetry when A0-40 was still
working. I have it collecting dust now, as soundcard software is
easier. Don't even hook up my MFJ-1278 TNC anymore either.

I wouldn't say that the sound card software approach is "easier" at
least from a design standpoint. From a user's point of view you're right
about the ease of use, you can't beat it. The main difference between a
DSP board as opposed to sound card software is performance. And that is
a two part issue. One is raw computational performance and the second is
power consumption. The TI 6713 on my EVM gets barely warm while cranking
out 1200 to 1300 MFLOPS. Then take a look at the monster sized CPU in
your PC and it's heat sink. No contest. A last point DSP chips don't
waste transistors on stuff that isn't needed like virtual memory,
privilege levels etc. that only matters to CPUs running general
applications and need to be protected from other users on the system.

One of the things that the TI EVM development software does for you is
the complex scheduling of the various routines that have time critical
deadlines to meet. If you do the sound card routine, writing it yourself
that is, you have to not only do the application code but you have to
write your own scheduler routine and maybe with multi-level interrupts
you assign to the different threads running.

Writing code for DSP chips has gotten easier now that most vendors have
"C" compilers you can use. And at least with TI they have a DSP BIOS
that handles the low level hardware crap so you don't have to using
assembly code. Add on hardware often comes with plug-in modules
containing the required low level code so you don't have to write it
yourself. You just call the low level routines from "C" using the
provided function prototypes in the vendor's "xxx.h" files and the
linker finds the code in the vendor supplied library files.

One of the interesting things I've found out is some hard-core
audiophiles are using some of the DSP EVM boards to do some custom
filter and complex frequency-gain adjustments etc. I've seen some lively
discussions among some of them over which EVM system is best to use or
going a roll-your-own approach is better. Some of them were looking for
doing direct digital to audio applications, some audio equipment has
direct digital outputs, with noise reduction etc. because they don't
like the limitations of the commercial gear out there.

Thanks for the post. It's refreshing to have an intelligent exchange of
messages compared to the infantile crap some others are trying to get me
to waste time on.

http://focus.ti.com/docs/toolsw/fold...k6713.html#top
TMS320C6713 EVM

http://www.dspguide.com/pdfbook.htm Free for down load a text book on
DSP theory


My EVM came with five thick books. I went through part of the first one
and realized to write my own software for it, it was going to take some
time to learn things. So I mainly used software written by others. Why
re-invent the wheel. I still don't have a lot of time to play, but maybe
someday I'll plug it in again and learn a little.

SC

Hey, it's never to late. You stop learning when you're dead in my view. It
sure beats exchanging insults on this news group.

Yup, reusing code written by others is a good idea, why reinvent the wheel
unless you're doing it for self pedagogical reasons. In fact that's one aim
for good software engineering practice; code reuse. Was that EVM board a
stand alone system or was it part of some kit it was to be used in? I assume
you're referring to the Motorola 56000 DSP chip you mentioned in another
post.

--
Regards,
Leland C. Scott
KC8LDO

"Leland C. Scott" wrote in message
...


Hey, it's never to late. You stop learning when you're dead in my view. It
sure beats exchanging insults on this news group.

Leland, stop trying to hide the garbage you've posted to this group under
your various nyms, and been busted numerous times for it. You and your buddy
N8WWM are total ****tards, and should be viewed as such. Yes, from time to
time, you post here in the present persona and make some sense, but for the
most part your mental instability and lack of useful qualities leaves you
blabbering to yourself. You are one of two people in this NG that are the
kings of insults, and for you to come in here espousing your virtues is
total lie and you know it.

U-Know-Who

*Doug and Leland flamesuit now worn...