No changes were made to the overall design this week, and so far there are no significant risks involved with the project. As a team, we worked on getting the design proposal presentation ready, which included adding specifications for design requirements and the like. While our testing and solution methodology did not change, we were able to expand on the ideas we were establishing last week (one significant one was fixed-point representation for our signals, allowing for low latency and faster calculations over floating point operations). Our overall schedule has not changed apart from José’s focus beginning with audio output first and then going to MIDI interfacing (swapping the order). Here is an overview of the updated schedule:
A was written by Mihail Alexandrov
B was written by José Cestero
C was written by Kaloyan Stefanov
Part A:
The FPGA synthesizer processes all data digitally on a single device, avoiding high-voltage analog circuitry and therefore reducing the risk of electrical shock to users. This, along with prolonged exposure to high intensity audio output, are the two main health considerations in the project. We’ve discussed controlling output audio amplitude as a solution to the second issue. In terms of safety, the synthesizer operates at the low voltages characteristic of FPGAs and provides deterministic behavior due to the digital architecture, limiting failure points and reducing the likelihood of unexpected faults that could lead to safety risks. With respect to welfare, the project promotes accessibility to music creation by providing a lower cost, reconfigurable alternative to traditional synthesizers that could be adapted for both learning environments and creative expression.
Part B:
Our FPGA synthesizer will be made to take in input from an external MIDI keyboard, yet its internals will be made in a way such that all the processing is done on one singular component. This means that the external input device can be modified as we wish (while the internals stay the same), meaning that those who are impaired could use musical devices in ways that they normally could not. It expands the range of people who can produce digital music (and even invites the opportunity of having more disabled artists in the music space). This, moreover, relates to the fact that the device is meant to be low-cost and reproducible. While this relates to its economic factors, it also has to do with the fact that simply more people can express their cultures through music without any barriers. It all results in a long-run effect of democratization of musical production, such that musical communities become larger and cultural representation is broadened.
Part C:
Our FPGA synthesizer is aimed to be low-cost, providing a hardware alternative for those interested in electronic music but lacking the means to acquire a hardware synthesizer. By relying on an FPGA, we also provide users with ability to create modifications and improve upon the existing design. This makes the synthesizer even more economically viable, as we can provide updates to the actual design as development continues, providing users with a continuously improving product. In comparison, analog synths lack this reprogramming, making it difficult (if not impossible) to change the product once it’s been released. Indeed, one can envision an FPGA “music box” which can be configured in a multitude of different ways (guitar pedals, audio effect rack, etc.), a much cheaper hardware alternative compared to buying all these analog devices.