Posted on

Frantz’s Status Report for February 22

This Week’s Accomplishments:

This week, I researched and began to program the pitch-shifting algorithm. The bucket size will be an important trade-off, as both pitch accuracy and low latency are important considerations for our users. I have been largely busy with other responsibilities this week, but I have not been idle for this project.

Status:

Our progress is on schedule.

Next Week:

Next week, I will meet and discuss with my team. We will continue to research and order components. I plan to finish programming the phase vocoder pitch-shifting algorithm, as I continue to await the arrival of the Daisy Seed.

Posted on

Nick Status Report 2/22

I had less time to work this week, as I had a midterm, lab, and essay due. Sunday, we finished up the slides for our design presentation as a group, and in class, I did peer reviews for the others. I continued searching for the remaining components that we haven’t ordered yet, but need to confirm with the group that they are what we envisioned and that they will work with the microcontroller. Also did some research on how to add some additional features we were considering on the hardware side. We are technically behind, but this was planned for in the slack time we allocated in our schedule. Next week, I have two midterms, but still hope to get the parts ordered, work on the schematic in lab with the group, and finish my part of the design report later in the week when I have more time. I also need to talk to discuss the feedback from the design presentation at our meeting Monday.

Posted on

Team Status Report for 2/22

So far, the biggest risks remain the same as last week, mainly with components or parts of our design not working as intended or being broken. We have ordered multiple of the parts we have decided on and will order multiple of future parts to mitigate this, as well as planned for alternatives to our PCB if that doesn’t work. We also considered some alternative methods to implement the current planned features of the pedal, as our microcontroller is more specialized and none of us have ever used it before, and while we have tried to look for any issues in planning, we need backups in case we miss something.

No major changes have been made to the design yet. With this being a week many had midterms, we did not have as much time as in previous weeks, so we prioritized getting the design presentation done and prepared for, as well as getting a start to the report. We have some concerns about the design, as it seems from the feedback of our presentation that there was some confusion about the way we explained the functionality, so we will discuss this further in our meeting Monday.

Posted on

Chaitanya’s Status Report for February 22

This week, I focused on ironing out exactly which models of components we need for our user interface. I researched switches, buttons, 7-segment displays, etc. and made a list for ordering. I also finalized the overall implementation plan involving the daisy seed and its interaction with i/o devices. I presented our design on Wednesday in class and answered questions as well. I began working on the PCB schematic/layout, finding the exact model of the Daisy Seed Microcontroller and other hardware components of our pedal interface. I have began to wire periphery based on pinout and desired function. I have not started prototyping, but I will do that once a PCB layout is somewhat finalized to make efficient use of time.

While I have made some progress, I am slowly starting to fall behind. I have been dedicating a lot of time to documentation (design presentation). However, in doing so, I have lost track of the actual project progress. My plan to get back on track involves dedicating some time over break to get a preliminary draft of the PCB done to show to group members, professor, and TA for feedback. Then, the following week or so can be allotted to finalizing the layout and sending for manufacturing.

Posted on

Chaitanya’s Status Report for February 15

Professor Sullivan and Gordan (TA) noted that our MVP lacked some details. Hence, my first priority was to iron out our MVP. I did this early in the week after meeting with my group, noting the following details in a Google Doc:

Input:

  • Sequence of notes played
  • Time shift (delay) specified by knob
  • Amplitude Modulation specified by knob 
  • Specify beat – 1, 2, 3, 4 

Output:

  • Sequence of notes delayed by specified time shift + indefinite amplitude modulation
  • Notes will be played based on beat specified 

Stretch Goals

  • Pitch Shifting – user specifies number of octaves 
  • Tap Tempo – specify delay based on how user taps guitar pedal
  • LED Buttons

This provided some clarity for the basic and additional functionality of our pedal that will be crucial when answering questions about the design next week. In addition, Nick and I began the brainstorming process for additional hardware functions. Being hardware-focused individuals we want to ensure that our contributions are meaningful and show in the functions of our pedal. We plan to have a list by coming Monday to present to Professor Sullivan during our meeting. The middle of the week involved drawing the diagram for our design, making notes of interface functionality, and specifying a clear user interface to promote maximum usability. The hand-drawn diagram below that I created from our group meeting early in the week will be used next week when explaining design details. I also drew the graph (originally created by Josie) in a clear and easy-to-understand manner to provide a presentable visual for next week’s presentation.

The late parts of this week were dedicated to ironing out further design details, particularly with our PCB. I contributed to our design review presentation that I will be presenting next week.

My progress seems to be on schedule at this point. It was noted that getting our pcb back in a timely manner is not a guarantee. My hope is that our slack provides me ample time to get the board back. However, we will be prototyping using a breadboard and/or a PCB dev board, which will serve as our backup. While this is not ideal as the circuitry will go inside our pedal that is moving up and down when pressed, it will ensure that we can deliver our MVP in the case that we cannot rely in a timely fabrication of our board.

In the next week, I would like to get a jump on the PCB design and finalize the schematic and specific use of the board by next week so that I can get the board to tapeout in a timely manner. I would also like to begin prototyping our board using the daisy seed to get a feel of how our circuitry will look. This will involve further study of the pinout of the daisy seed and relating that to the various design details that we will be finalizing prior to our presentation next week.

Posted on

Team Status Report for February 15

Currently, our most significant risks are the possibilities that the components we receive arrive broken or stop working during testing. We are addressing this by ordering extra parts to use in this case.

This week, we made many changes to our prior designs for the pedal. We settled on using rotary encoders for our dials instead of potentiometers, and we decided on a mechanism to control pitch-shifting. Pitch-shifting greatly increases our pedal’s functionality in a way that will be beneficial to our end users. Using potentiometers would limit our dials to controlling one parameter each, so we rejected that idea so that one dial could control pitch shifting for any of the sequence beats. We decided to use the delay time’s rotary encoder to change the pitch (in semitone increments) to whichever sequence note is selected among a set of switches. We also decided to allow users to mute the first note in the sequence, which we imagine could be useful and easy to implement.

Our schedule has more or less stayed the same. We are not behind on anything, and we anticipate having time to spare in case any of our components arrive late.

Part A (J. Frantz):

Our pedal will be a tool for making art, but there are still important safety issues to take into consideration. For starters, our pedal should be sturdy enough to withstand a person’s stomp. If our pedal were to shatter if someone presses too hard, it could send pieces flying and potentially injure someone. Also, it could expose our circuitry, which would be a shock hazard. Given that we want our pedal to be used indoors or outdoors, we want our pedal’s insides to be safe from the rain. So, we should ensure that the casing is water resistant.

Part B (N. Walker):

Our pedal should be usable by people from many different cultural and social backgrounds, and the most significant consideration for that is making sure anyone can understand how to use it. We cannot expect everyone who might use our pedal to speak the same language, but as it is an effects pedal for instruments, we can expect that they will understand basic musical terminology. Knowing this, we can use musical terms on the interface, such as “tempo” for delay time or using the terms for different beat patterns to control the delay patterns, and therefore make it as culturally accessible as possible.

Part C (C. Irkar):

By producing a single pedal, we provide an affordable alternative to expensive music technologies that have a wide range of functions that might not perfectly meet the needs of the user. A custom pedal allows us to cater to the needs of guitarists while reducing the cost of hardware, making it more cost-effective to produce and distribute. The compact design of our product makes it more portable, enabling musicians to easily transport our product and use it in an environment of their choosing. While the functionality of our pedal is our top priority, having a user interface that is straightforward and easy to use is something we will push heavily for. Our goal is to create a product that both an amateur and a professional can use. Considering these economic factors will mold our product into a user-friendly, affordable, and portable device that can aid any musician.

Posted on

Frantz’s Status Report for February 15

This Week’s Accomplishments:

This week, I fell ill, but I was still able to make some progress. I created a block diagram for the our pedal’s internal design, including the procedure the microcontroller will follow. I also ordered some parts (the Daisy Seed and the input/output sockets) that are integral to our pedal’s design. My group and I met and heavily solidified and revised our pedal’s features and external controls. Finally, I contributed slides to our team’s Design Presentation.

Status:

Our progress is mostly on schedule, although I wasn’t able to complete some of the tasks for this week. Still, we are following a good pace, and I will complete the aforementioned tasks next week.

Next Week:

Next week, I will continue to research and order components (including a 9V DC input port), I plan to program the phase vocoder pitch-shifting algorithm, and I will begin to test the components if they arrive early enough.

Posted on

Frantz’s Status Report for February 8

This Week’s Accomplishments:

This week, I presented my team’s Proposal Presentation. I discussed some design details with my teammates and course staff, including proposing the Daisy Seed microcontroller as our mechanism for completing the audio-to-digital conversion, programming the digital effects, and completing the digital-to-audio conversion. I researched the Daisy Seed and the quarter-inch cable input/output sockets. I discussed plans with my team to subdivide work for our Design Presentation: I plan to focus heavily on our Quantitative Design Requirements and the Block Diagram.

Status:

Our progress is on schedule.

Next Week:

Next week, I plan to program the algorithm for pitch-shifting in a test file, using a phase vocoder. I will discuss with my team which voltage the pedal should operate at. In addition, I plan to order some parts (the Daisy Seed, the input/output sockets, and the DC power adapter) for the pedal, and when the Daisy Seed comes in, I plan to acquire it and begin learning how to operate it.

Posted on

Team Status Report on February 8

Our team worked on finalizing our proposal (slides) and ironing out the schedule for the upcoming weeks. In doing so, we saw that some of the significant risks for our timeline include delays in getting our PCB back from fabrication. In addition, delays in getting our microcontroller and other hardware components could significantly impact our progress. From a design perspective, the PCB, 3D printing, and user interface don’t pose immediate risks. However, our choice of microcontroller (Daisy Seed) could prove to be a risk as none of us have previously used it (in contrast to other microcontrollers like STM32 or Raspberry PI). Our preliminary research indicates that this risk should be minimal, but our contingency plans involve using an FPGA or microcontroller from the school inventory that meets the specs that we desire.

Our decision to go with the Daisy was the only design “change” that we made over the past 1-2 weeks. This “change” was more of a narrowing of our options to a singular implementation. No changes in cost are to be accounted for as purchases have not been made.

The initial schedule was finalized this week. The schedule will be updated as needed in future status reports.

Our group looks to wrap up the research phase of our project and begin making order requests in the next few weeks.

Posted on

Chaitanya’s Status Report for February 8

This week, I focused on identifying technical challenges and quantitative and qualitative metrics for testing and verification to incorporate in the project proposal slides. In particular, I identified 4 primary technical challenges: the need for effective analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converters, picking a microcontroller with sufficient memory storage corresponding to our desired sampling rate and effects, sizing our pedal appropriately, and creating an easy-to-use user interface. I also identified the need for testing equipment such as an oscilloscope and simulation software to measure quantitative aspects of our input and output signals to verify functionality and the usage of qualitative feedback from experienced musicians to ensure that our pedal satisfies potential users of our product. In addition to detailing the above parts of our proposal presentation, I began researching ADC and DAC options online and within the Autodesk Fusion360 libraries, keeping the context of our project in mind.  I am taking on hardware/PCB responsibilities for our project, so I looked into the PCB design process, namely the tapeout process and the rough timeline for the fabrication process. This was then incorporated into our Gantt chart. Finally, I looked into the specs of the Daisy microcontroller and conducted a preliminary inspection of its features to ensure that it meets the needs of our project (at least for now).

Most of my work for this past week was planning-related and there were not any tangible deliverables. Hence, my progress is on schedule.

Over the next week, I hope to be able to finalize all hardware components needed for our project. This includes any user interface LCD screens, knobs on the pedal, and PCB details. I would also like to begin working on the PCB schematics. I will continue to look into the Daisy microcontroller functionality, though that will primarily be handled by Josie.