Connect with us

DSP: TI vs ADI

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by Jon Slaughter, Jul 25, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. This isn't a war thread so please just post experiences and facts and not
    stuff like "[Because my mother uses ADI] I use ADI and thats why TI sucks"
    kinda crap.

    My project is a real time audio effects device that is either 24-bit @ 96khz
    or 192khz(depending on how much "room" I have for my algorithms).

    The two processors I've been looking at that seem similar are

    http://www.analog.com/en/epProd/0,,ADSP-21367,00.html

    http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/tms320c6722.html

    (
    http://www.analog.com/en/epProd/0,,ADSP-BF561,00.html

    has 3*MMACS for about the same price)

    I'm not sure which to go with. Each one seems to have there pro's and con's
    but it seems to be mostly balanced?

    What are others experiences with these two?

    One thing that I don't really like is that ADI doesn't seem to easily give
    out samples for there DSP chips. This is going to make it really hard to
    experiment with ;/

    Thanks,
    Jon
     
  2. Eeyore

    Eeyore Guest

    What sort ?

    Graham
     
  3. Tim Shoppa

    Tim Shoppa Guest

    More than chip costs - do you own a development environment for
    either? Do you have experience with the development tools?

    You're not gonna do a lot with a free chip. The AD chips would have
    you mucking around with a multi-hundred-pin BGA, something that a
    experienced hobbyist could do but would lead to disappointment for a
    newbie. The TI chip's 144-pin flatpacks are DIY-solderable if you make
    your own board and have some patience or a toaster oven.

    Both TI and AD make starter kits/eval boards with software that very
    exactly tailored towards audio applications, although maybe they don't
    use the exact chips you mention above. Plan to sink in several hundred
    dollars at least. I've seen the AD eval boards for audio applications
    and they're really pretty slick to use for development. I just looked
    at the TI starter kits and they look just as good from the specs, but
    I've never used the development environment.

    Tim.
     
  4. I've worked with both TI DSP and ADI DSP; but my experiences are more
    from writing software than from hardware design. The TI chips I
    worked with are the 'C30 and 'C40 and the ADI chips were in the
    ADSP-21xx line -- most recently, the ADSP-218x line. It's been only a
    few months since I last did something with the ADI DSP, but it's been
    probably close to 8-10 years since I worked on the TI DSPs. Also, my
    experiences with ADI DSPs go back to 1990, or so, and have been
    somewhat continuous since then. So take that difference of experience
    into account.

    For the most part, I enjoyed working on both of them. The only issue
    that really bothered me about the TI DSPs regarded a problem in
    timing. I had crafted a 7-cycle loop which took 11 cycles, instead.
    This code was running from cache and should NOT have depended upon
    some external memory interface on the actual application board by a
    non-TI designer, but should have entirely depended upon the TI chip
    and its technical specs, including register interlock waits (which I
    also checked thoroughly.) In the end, the 3rd party board designer
    team and some technical folks at TI and I were on a conference call
    over this with the result that TI, after attempting to suggest (and
    failing to show) various areas where I may not have read their docs
    well enough, agreed that they had no idea why. The timing was easy to
    demonstrate, they had my source code and were able to duplicate it,
    and still could not explain it. In short, we never did find out why
    and I never did hear from TI about correcting their docs, either. Not
    a confidence lifting experience. By comparison, I have NEVER over the
    years found anything like that in the ADI DSPs -- they work as spec'd
    or else I always get some effort at ADI to explain the details. On
    the other side here, when ADI was changing FABs on one line (ADSP-2111
    chip), we started getting something like a 40% failure on our own
    custom CPU-checkout software (we qualified the chips as they arrived.)
    They asked for, and got, a copy of my software for this and they
    confirmed the problems and cleaned them up in a few months' time.

    Most recently, my experience with TI is with the MSP430 and it's been
    a good experience, by and large.

    I don't know about these two chips. I would tend to expect ADI's DSP
    design to be fairly well-thought out. I would tend to look a little
    more closely at TI's design to make sure there weren't holes in it.
    But that doesn't mean that TI's design would have holes, only that
    because of my experiences earlier I'd be a little less willing to
    trust it all to fate and would want to spend a little more time
    carefully checking various algorithm ideas against it to be sure they
    had captured the more important details well. (But I expect they have
    learned well over the years, too.)

    Jon
     
  5. Thanks Guys, I don't know which still but I'm leaning more and more towards
    ADI.

    I suppose I could order some of the cheaper DSP's and play around with them.
    I'm just afraid of getting some of the more expensive ones and then ruining
    them in the hardware design process. Is it difficult to redesign the
    hardware around the higher end DSP's from a working design for the lower
    ends? Is it close to being a drop in replacement? I'm talking about a
    minimal system here with just ADC, DAC, DSP, and potentially some external
    memory.

    (i.e., if I'm able to do a lower end design is a small step to using higher
    end DSP's?)

    Jon
     
  6. Joerg

    Joerg Guest

    It can happen anywhere, even AD. I recently had that with the 7928
    converter which for whatever reason didn't like the data on the clock
    edge prescribed in the data sheet. After several chats with app
    enigeering the consensus was "Ok, let's use the other edge then". That
    way they do work very nicely, and remarkably quiet. OTOH it also
    happened with TI parts, for example a TPS low dropout regulator with
    "pyrotechnic" behavior upon too fast an input voltage change. "Can't be
    .....". What irked me there was that they did not release the inner
    circuit diagram to me but also did not want to throw my circuit onto
    their Spice. Oh well, I just designed it out and have since refrained
    from ever using any LDO again, no matter from whom.
     
  7. The ADSP-21367 comes in a quad flat pack too, and has more internal
    memory and audio serial ports than the TI.

    The development software would probably be the deciding choice if it
    was me. Stuf like cost, ease of use, soft cores available for stuff
    you want to do, example apps etc.
    If you can download trial version or whatever I could spend the time
    doing that.

    Dave.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-