Cubase Audio Dongle Clone

[ijor]

Doesn't matter. The 68030, and also the 68000 CMOS variant (68HC000) for that matter, they are all TTL compatible. They still have the same Vih (min. high level input voltage) 2.0V requirement.

Are you sure? That is true for TTL only, not for CMOS https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbo ... ge-levels/
And you are right, not even STs are purely TTL, they have mixed logic ICs on board.

Yes, I am sure. There is CMOS, and there is TTL compatible CMOS. You could check the 68030 and 68HC000 datasheets yourself.

[mpattonm]

Yes, I am sure. There is CMOS, and there is TTL compatible CMOS. You could check the 68030 and 68HC000 datasheets yourself.

I think you are mixing apple and pears now. Yes, there is a TTL. Yes, there is a CMOS, which is generally level compatible with TTL. But (3.3V) LVCMOS is NOT level compatible with (5V) CMOS, its' logical high (low) threshold of gate input is 3.4V by spec. That is where you are wrong when you say

....they are all TTL compatible. They still have the same Vih (min. high level input voltage) 2.0V requirement.

They just don't. And since STs and later contain CMOS logic on the data/address bus, LVCMOS device on that same bus would not just work. That's the point.

[Arne]

Yes, there is a TTL. Yes, there is a CMOS, which is generally level compatible with TTL. But (3.3V) LVCMOS is NOT level compatible with (5V) CMOS(..)

I am convinced ijor knows that. And I am assuming he is just talking about 68030 and 68HC000 - not CMOS/TTL logic families in general. Indeed: the conversation is a bit misleading.
And yes: you are right about LVC.
http://www.interfacebus.com/voltage_threshold.html

[mpattonm]

Right, enough on subject.

[ijor]

Yes, I am sure. There is CMOS, and there is TTL compatible CMOS.
....they are all TTL compatible. They still have the same Vih (min. high level input voltage) 2.0V requirement.

They just don't. And since STs and later contain CMOS logic on the data/address bus, LVCMOS device on that same bus would not just work.

You are wrong. I'll post datasheet extracts below ...

I am convinced ijor knows that. And I am assuming he is just talking about 68030 and 68HC000 - not CMOS/TTL logic families in general.

Once again, there is CMOS logic family, and there is CMOS TTL COMPATIBLE logic family. The latter is usually denoted with the HCT letters (as opposed to just HC). Chips like the 74HCx are not TTL or LVCMOS compatible, but chips like 74HCT00 do.

This is an extract of the 74HCT00 datasheet:

74HCT04-VIH.jpg

Now, most CMOS LSI chips, like processors or chipset are CMOS TTL compatible. They are designed this way because it is typical to use TTL chips to interface. The 68HC000, technically, should actually have been designed 68HCT000.

Extract from the 68HC000 datasheet:

68HC000-VIH.jpg

And the 68030 datasheet:

68030-VIH.jpg

So I still insist, you can use an LVCMOS (5V tolerant for the inputs) part without much problems.

[MasterOfGizmo]

Indeed, building a dongle from a XC95XX should be pretty simple. The regulator will allow for reverse-insertion-protection. And using something like https://github.com/wschutzer/xsvfduino should allow to program the CPLD using an Arduino. Something like that would probably the cheapest and end-user friendly solution.

[Zippy]

Something like that would probably the cheapest and end-user friendly solution.

Or the software only crack.

[qazuio]

Probably a stupid question, since we have the equations, can we use JUST an Arduino to spoof the dongle?

[Zippy]

Probably a stupid question, since we have the equations, can we use JUST an Arduino to spoof the dongle?

Yes, a microcontroller could be used to emulate the dongle if someone could be bothered writing the code and designing a new PCB for it.

As the original PLD is costing only £5 to £10 probably not much point though, unless it was to be a more complex switchable version that could emulate multiple different dongles maybe. There doesn't seem to be a cheap, easily available programmer that handles the original PLD though, so I guess that could be an issue and maybe a reason to develop a microcontroller based version.

[czietz]

A cheap microcontroller is simply too slow to do the emulation. Plus, I don't see the point, either. If you don't want to use the original PLD (perhaps because you cannot program it), switch to a more modern PLD. If it weren't for the semiconductor supply crisis, the smallest XC9536XL (more than enough to emulate the original PLD) would sell for about 2 €.

[16bluemonday]

Thank you so much to everyone involved in this. I tried the emulated dongle version of 3.1 tonight and it has been rock solid for a couple of hours. Such a better experience than living in fear of opening up a part or something and triggering the dreaded internal error crash.

Brilliant work and thanks again! My ST music sessions are going to be so much more productive now

[SLiX]

For anybody that has doubts about the stability and/or fiability of the software crack, this may be interesting: I have successfully updated my Roland XV-5050 firmware (v1.05 => v1.08) using Cubase Score 2.07 with new software crack on a Falcon.

The procedure implies playing 40 MIDI files (90 KB each, SysEx messages for 1 minute each). I suppose there is some sort of checksum to ensure the whole data is a valid update.

The update: https://www.roland.com/fr/support/by_pr ... 8dd829dbb/