🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi,

I wold recommend DSP chips and/or dev tools, instead of a PC, for two
reasons:

1) (Lots!!!) easier development. 
2) Possibility of a stand-alone device (you could take it "anywhere",
outside the PC).

Anyway, you may have your reasons for doing it in a PC SoundCard.

Regards,

JaaC

john_wr100@yahoo.com (Johnny) wrote in message news:<3c9f0323.29265355@news.optusnet.com.au>...
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2002 15:21:27 +0000, zeus@myth.demon.co.uk wrote:
> 
> >Wouldn't it be infinitely easier to use a PC and write the software to
> >use a Soundblaster live or something? With the Pentium 3, Pentium 4
> >and AMD extensions, they can pump out plenty of DSP-alike horsepower.
> >MP3 players like Winamp with stereo equalisers only take about 2% of
> >the cpu time on my P3-550.
> >
> >Mike
> >
> 
> 
> Maybe it is, but I dont have any background in PC software.  I never
> had do deal with operating systems, and am not sure I want to start.
> 
> It seems like there is a lot of stuffing around with buffering and
> latency problems with modern OS.  I figure a DSP chip that can
> itegrate directly with the codec should have less timing problems, and
> possibly(!) better sound.
> 
> If you can tell me where I can get documentation about the drivers for
> sound blaster cards and how to access them with my Borland C++
> compiler (which I never used) I would be very pleased!  I have really
> got no idea about this.  I only ever worked with embedded systems.
> 
> Isn't it complex to use multiple sound cards at the same time, or
> would you  recommend a multichannel card.
> 
> kind regards,
> John.