Arduino based passive analogue input selection & volume control - Page 3

id love one of these working specially

I wonder if some R's (like 10k) would make sense on the relays? that way there is no such thing as a fully 'open' circuit.

or, I suppose you could engage a mute relay, do an input selection and then unmute.

then again, if the switching is fast enough, maybe the 'open circuit' problem is not a real life problem. on manual rotary switches, where a user could be 'slow' to turn it, you don't want any open circuits during state transitions; but maybe the relay bank won't need it.

one thing to think about is the timing on 'make before break' or 'break before make' on the relay switching.

that's one nice thing about having a cpu there; you can play around with that and not be stuck by some hardware chip that only works 1 way.

At the most you just need a simple transistor, diode, resistor setup for the switching of the relays.

I think the idea of a mute relay is great. With the sensitivity behind some amps and the fact that switching is going to create at least some noise depending on the relays chosen you could end up with some nasty pops. It also keeps as much out of the signal path as possible.

If, however, you go with some reed relays they could be driven directly by the MCU.

one of the initial (I think) decisions is: latching vs non-latching relays.

pros and cons of each approach; but you have to pick this early on and have good reasons for why you went with it.

that's a nice little h-bridge

that works; or the standard go-to part, l293d. the chip is affordable enough, for me; and a simple drop-in for when you need 2 h-bridges. I use that chip more for motor pot controls (one h-bridge for the main spkrs and one for the subwoofer level, say).

re: latchers; I tried one approach with an 'enable line' (global to the whole bank of relays) and then a toggle-A and toggle-B line for each. you'd hit the toggle line AND the global enable, hold enable for a short bit and then let it go. that sort of worked the first way I configured it; with 1 8bit port expander and an inverter to keep the 'other side' of the relay always opposite of the single control bit for that relay. it had voltage surge issues that could be solved but I gave up and am now going to try 2 controllers; one bit for each side of the latching relay and no global enable 'line'. it also gives more control over each bit of timing.

another hint: port expanders and arduinos can put their pins in high-z mode, so you can EITHER keep both relay pins at the same potential (both bits 0 or both bits 1); OR you can do a combo of 01 or 10 to toggle them; then bring one of the lines into high-z (set it as pinMode(input)) and you break the circuit, leaving the relay in the desired state but not drawing any current at all.

for a better executed solution, you -may- need (or want) to opto-isolate. maybe.

or use ULN2003 style driver chips.

Nice project!, may I suggest a straight pass through option bypassing the PGA? Needed if one you of your sources is a DAC with s/w volume control.

(seems all the aardvarks are coming out of the woodwork for this thread, lol!)

perhaps an 'extended mute' function would either mute, pass-thru or bypass the vol control element.

the bypass can be a nice a/b compare switch, as well; in case you want to see the effect of the PGA chip at unity gain.

Interesting discussion on LDR's

I had not heard of those before.
I am definitely going to be looking into using one of these for any high profile amps I make down the road. Hopefully linuxworks will have that project in motion by then. If not, I might have to take it on.

Anyway, why would you be using an audrino to control it?
I really don't understand the appeal of the device.

Maybe microcontroller programming is harder than I understand... I've only done a slight bit of PIC programming... and didn't do anything useful.

I plan on designing an AVR based alarm clock as practice during this year. It seems like the perfect project to get you into the swing of using microcontrollers.

I played around with the 'basic stamps' as my semi-recent intro to microcontrollers. they were fun and well supported but expensive! I did a BS1 and BS2 program and then lost interest in that system (again, mostly due to cost).

if the arduino was not 'the thing' to use, I would be using PICs. I never got into PIC and went straight into arduino land. the tools seem nicer (C language as a standard, which I prefer anyway) and there was gcc support as well (for when I wanted to break out of the gui shell). lots of current hardware talk and lots of neat functionality that people prototyped *rapidly*. I was able to get useful things done in less than 1 week and that was due to having a lot of already-done examples that you simply had to integrate. its mostly about integration, really; and then some custom 'glue' code. but a lot of routines and frameworks are already out there and so its a rich library, overall.

arduino is also a bit more on the 'open source attitude'. I'm not aware of anyone selling arduinos that don't also include the source code, as well. that way you are in charge of your own system and you can over-ride any defaults you don't like. with the PIC culture, I don't quite see that, and 'locked down' chips seem to be the norm.