[Coco] How Many OR90s can be utilized?

[Zippster]

Oh, and I do agree on providing as much flexibility as possible Jim.

Especially when designing with something like a CPLD, my view is that you may as well add
as many options/features as you can think of until you run out of space, unless there’s a good
reason not to.

- Ed


> On Nov 12, 2016, at 1:13 PM, Zippster <zippster278 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Nov 12, 2016, at 12:59 PM, RETRO Innovations <go4retro at go4retro.com> wrote:
>> 
> <snipped>
>> 
>> I can also see Zippster producing a batch of Orch90 carts, and someone wanting to run one of those with CocoFLASH, using both at the same time.  If Zippster has some extra space in his CPLD, it's a small item to add the capability.
>> 
> 
> Will be doing at least one small run when I’m done building and sending out these mini-MPIs.
> 
> Plenty of room in the CPLD. I’ll take a look at adding some features, start off with Orch90 default address with programmable addressing
> (user can set it) as an option perhaps.
> 
>> I also see it as incongruous to offer a ROM cart that has lots of flexibility, alongside an OR90 capability that has no flexibility...
>> 
>> To answer your question, it seems reasonable that someone would want to attempt quadraphonic sounds using 2+ units.  I think TANDY already offered the SOUND/SPEECH pak and the ORCH90 pak in different IO addresses assuming someone would pair them for some use.
>> 
>> The difficult part here:  Once the devices leave my hands, it will be difficult to add features.  So, I have to add them now, before they are utilized.  Thus, I am trying to think ahead, to see if it is reasonable to expect someone will want the capability.
>> 
>> To my original question:  Anyone know how heavily the CPU is loaded when playing OR90 samples?
> 
> It would depend on the sample rate.  I think you could probably run 4 DACs (2 orch 90s) at 22KHz without much issue,
> more than that and it would probably be time to look closer at the cycles needed.
> 
> - Ed
>