The dsPIC would be a better choice for sound sampling.
Some of them can reach 1.1 Msps.*Mega samples per
second*.

John

--- Jinx <joecolquitt@clear.net.nz> wrote:

> > What he says is that the ADC is better suited to a
> slower changing
> > input than audio. It's on pg 241 of the 2nd
> Edition. However, if 
> > you're using the ADC for signal detection then I
> assume it will work 
> > sufficiently. Thank you
> 
> You're welcome. What he means is that the higher
> frequencies of audio
> is too fast to quantify. If you say a conversion
> time plus data shifting
> and accounting for Nyquist sampling rates is a few
> 10s of microseconds
> you could work out what the frequency limit is. But
> as you say, this is
> simply for detection so the presence of any signal
> above noise level is
> adequate. Sampling rate is important only if you're
> trying to digitise a
> sound to reproduce later. Also, the 675 is not a
> high-speed device. The
> ADC h/w is still the same as in faster PICs but data
> handling is slower
> 
> -- 
> http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist