Sitenotice: 11/29/2018: The wiki is back. It turns out, some anti-virus product on my web server had an issue with the latest version of PHP. My server techs have resolved this issue, and things should be working again. During the investigation, I did restore to a backup from September. There is a chance that any changes done since then were lost, but I do not recall any edits. --OS-9 Al
8/30/2016: Massive re-work is being done on the InfoBox Templates. Read that page to keep up with the plan for that, and adding better keyword tags (categories) to all the pages. --OS-9 Al (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2016 (CDT)
|Looking for CoCo help? If you are trying to do something with your old Color Computer, read this quick reference. Want to contribute to this wiki? Be sure to read this first. This CoCo wiki project was started on October 29, 2004. --OS-9 Al|
This page was last updated on 02/6/2007. Total Pages: 649. Total Files: 937.
From: Joel Ewy Date: 1/25/2007 Subject: Re: [Coco] CC-Five (was Re: Pseudo CoCo4???) (LONG) A couple questions come to mind here: 1. Does the CoCo care what kind of microcontroller is in the S/S Pak as long as it does its job in the expected manner? I wonder if one could sub a PIC core (or maybe a 68-something) and then also make it a more general-purpose I/O processor. It could help out with faking a floppy controller and who knows what other kinds of things. One thing that shouldn't be emulated is the S/S Pak's failure to run at 2MHz (and above!). 2. How hard would it be to combine the Orch-90CC and the Speech/Sound Pak? I'm not real clear on how the S/S Pak is set up, or where the dividing line is between analog and digital on it. But surely an amplifier is common to both, though the S/S Pak is perhaps just mono? Putting a stereo amp in the external hardware would just make sense. Now if the AY3-8913 produces a digital output, that can just be buffered in one or both channels of the Orch-90, then out to the DAC in the external hardware. Otherwise, just add an analog mux in front of the amp. I don't know what addresses the S/S Pak uses, or what kind of space might be left in its register mappings. Might have to have some virtual Multi-Pak action going on there. Might have to improve the address decode sections and provide a way to select which source has the audio out bus. That might require a one-liner to poke a register before running a program, or a (virtual?) toggle switch for use with ROM Paks. But ideally one could make these things both work, so the CC-Five (or whatever), could run just about any existing CoCo program that uses sound hardware, whether synthesized or sampled. JCE Mark McDougall wrote: > > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > >> >> Now the Speech/Sound card module is a different critter. Unlike the >> >> Orchestrra 90 card, which the main micro runs code from, the >> >> speech/sound card has its own dedicated processor, TMS7040. Along >> >> with that is its own ram. The heart of the sound is the AY3-8913 >> >> sound chip, and the SP0256-ALS speech chip. I do believe there is a >> >> HDL version of the sound chip available that maybe open source. The >> >> speech chip may still be floating around in surplus markets. >> >> > > > > My colleague here has implemented the AY-3-8910 for our PACE project. It > > was reasonably trivial, if not a little resource-hungry. I understand > > that the 8913 is basically just 3x 8910 cores in one chip?!? > > > > I'd suspect that the SP0256-ALS isn't very difficult to emulate - AFAIK > > those speech chips where just wave tables... > > > > >> >> The TI micro is a 4 bit micro that is now obsolete. That along with >> >> the sppech chip would be the hardest to reproduce. SO that kind of >> >> forces backward compatiblilty with the current cards. >> >> > > > > That's a different kettle of fish, but still within the realm of > > possibility, I think. I'd love to do my own cut of a processor, for > > example, and maybe this 4-bit micro is a good candidate??? :) > > > > Regards, > > Mark > > > > From: Joel Ewy Date: 1/26/2007 Subject: Re: [Coco] CoCo 4 (or 5) perspectives: close hardware emulation? Frank Swygert wrote: ... > Legacy support is a must, but is there a need to support the Pseech/Sound pak AND the Orchestra 90? Which was most often used? I ouldn't worry about future support -- an enhanced sound capability could be an added feature of the "new" machine. > > ... > > Well, judging from the schematic, the Orch-90 hardware should be nearly trivial to implement, and at least some portions of it could be shared with that of the S/S Pak. (Audio amp, address decode logic, ROM, probably even DACs.) I think that the S/S Pak would be the more interesting capability to provide (interesting from the perspective of arcane and fascinating, but possibly also in terms of providing support for existing software), but since the Orch-90 hardware is so blitzin' simple, I don't think it would cost much to include it as well. And arguably it is more useful in these days where sound on computers is mostly a matter of playing back digitized samples. It might be a little bit of a challenge to integrate them seamlessly together in the way I have in mind. I'm not sure. If the S/S Pak is too difficult to emulate, then the Orch-90 by itself is the logical choice. But if the S/S Pak can be done, why not throw the Orch-90 in as a bonus. Assuming the 6-bit DAC is still in, such a CoCo would be able to support just about any existing CoCo program that can produce a sound. And having good built-in sound hardware would surely be an enticement to future programmers. One of the problems with the CoCo was always that all the good hardware was optional, and relatively few people bought it, so relatively few programs took advantage of it. JCE