In a seperate thread, a poster criticized MRC for something about not providing CV readback. What exactly does that mean, why is it important, and do all/most other systems provide this?
The regular bashing of MRC DCC products on this board has me puzzled. I rarely hear calm, reasoned explainations about why their products are bad/faulty. Most often the posts sound a lot like Apple users railing against Bill Gates. Lots of outrage, but precious little real, substantive critique.
As a guy trying to learn about the latest DCC hardware, it has been difficult to sort out.
Help!
Mike
With most DCC systems, you can "ask" the locomotive to tell you what a particular CV is currently set to. This is particularly helpful when you don't know what it is, and you want to tinker with it, but you want to be able to restore the original value if necessary. Readback is also a nice confirmation that you've programmed the decoder successfully. A few DCC systems do not offer readback, but most do.
From reading this forum, I've concluded that MRC has serious quality control issues with its decoders. I don't personally have any MRC decoders, so this is all "hearsay" reporting. However, far too many people here have reported that they received MRC decoders which were dead on arrival, or which failed within a few hours run-time once they put them on their layouts. This is particularly disturbing with the Athearn Genesis line of sound locomotives, which use the MRC decoders as factory-installed equipment.
MRC decoders, in particular their sound decoders, have a very low price. It would seem that they got there by cutting corners, eliminating quality inspections and testing. In their defense, most users report successful resolution of the problem after returning it, but it's kind of annoying to buy a new engine and then have to wait several weeks while it gets fixed.
MRC is an "old line" company in the business. They've been making power units and controllers for a long, long time. I hope that they will admit they've got a problem, and do something about fixing it. Right now, it seems that they are spending more on their brash advertising campaign than on quality control.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Apple vs Microsoft is more like NCE vs Digitrax. MRC is like the independent clone maker. Look at a feature for feature comaprison (NOT an MRC full page ad in MR) doen by a third party like Tony's Train Exchange and you'll see where MRC is lacking, especially if you go beyond the basic set. (to be fair, last time I read it there was at least one error in Tony's matrix)
CV readback is useful so you can tell what your decoder is programmed with. You can always just put in whatever you want/need, but it sure is nice to know what's already in there. An even bigger issue is MRC's decision to not support other software witht heir computer interface. There's some excellent FREE software out there that lets you program decoders (without lookign up crazy tables in manuals), and also oeprate your layout - control signals, make CTC panels, etc - that works with evry other major brand of DCC hardware - Digitrax, NCE, Lenz, CVP, and others. But not MRC - because MRC won;t work with the developers. There is also commercial (not free) software out there to control your layout and do programming - that also works with all the major DCC brands except NOT MRC - because MRC won't work with them.
Quality control is one thing - straight out quality is another - in another thread, the poster had a problem with his MRC system only putting out half the normal track voltage. And it turns out it was because the power switch was DIRTY? It just boggles my engineer mind that half the output amplifier stops working because the switch is dirty.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Which is really nothing new - look at the ads for their DC supplies in the 70's and 80's. The different being, my Tech II 1500 was a solid, quality product that didn't give me a lick of trouble EVER.
With due respect, David, that is what I suspected about the drumbeat of MRC bashing. No substantive issues, but rather some kind of pique based on a presumed slight or perhaps a bad experience with a customer service request. I'm not sure how the substance of their ads can raise such ire. Now if they are lying, perhaps they should be called out, otherwise....???
Not at all helpful in guiding a learner to a better understanding of good or not good products.
I had looked at Tony's product comparison matrix and found it somewhat helpful. MRC, in fact, seems to hold up quite nicely in a number of the comparison areas. Then I saw the fine print at the top disclosing that the last update was more than three years ago. Is the PA listed in the comparison the PA2 currently available? Have there been upgrades/improvements by the other manufacturers since 2005?
I appreciate the help the experts on this board offer, but it seems the whole discussion about DCC systems is constantly muddied by what come across as almost personal crusades against certain products, MRC in particular. Bottom line for me is that such protests often sound like the self-justification of individuals who have invested/committed to a different product and may secretly fear that the other guy just might have come out with a better deal. Not saying that is so, it's just how it sounds.
End result is that those of us who are trying to make a decision about a state-of-the-art DCC system purchase, come away with little more than confusion.
Thanks for hearing my response, and by the way, I'm still not sure if the latest MRC Wireless system does not provide CV readback.
The newer MRC sound decoders do not have "a very low price". For example, I buy Digitrax decoders plus their Sound Bug for around $62. The four MRC sound decoders that I have purchased all cost a little more than this.
I think that the MRC bashers need to be a little careful because great improvements have been made and newer units definitely seem much better.
Here is my MRC experience:
1. My HO sound decoders have excellent sound and great motor control.
2. Their N scale sound decoders have very low volume and excellent motor control. The weak sound is to be expected in N scale and may acually be more in scale than some of the very loud HO sound decoders that I've heard.
3. Their newer decoders now have CV readback.
4. None of my MRC decoders have failed and are still going strong.
5. Their higher quality DCC systems (Prodigy Advance2 and Prodigy Advance Wireless) are excellent systems. The Wireless version is especially nice with great features, good range and response. These system prices are very attractive compared to Digitrax and NCE.
6. Of course many are disappointed with the apparent lack of JMRI compatibility of their proposed computer interface. I can understand this but wonder if what they do furnish won't be very satisfactory for many users. I think we need to wait and see exactly what it will and will not do before we bash it too much.
7. If their computer interface is wireless, and requires one to upgrade to a wireless system, is that really so bad? Even with the proposed cost it will still be a good price for an outstanding wireless system.
8. There is some talk about a new, improved sound from MRC but I'm not at all familiar with what that is.
All in all MRC seems to be changing and improving in the DCC field and seems to be a perfect fit for many home users. Let's just give them a chance to get better because it looks like they are headed in the right direction. Maybe much of the past "MRC bashing" was justified and has actually prodded them into making improvements. But I for one would like to see it done in a more constructive manner, persistent and strong, but constructive, and then acknowledging and thanking them for their improvements.
P.S. I use both MRC Wireless and Digitrax and love them both.
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
I don't know that you could call it 'proof' but look in all of th emajor hobby publications, at the featured layouts. How many of them do you see use MRC DCC? It's overwhelmingly Digitrax and NCE, with a few CVP and Lenz users thrown in. Look at any club that has gone DCC. I don't know of any that use MRC.
It most certainly is NOT a fear that we bought the wrong systems and the othe rguy has what we have for a fraction of the cost - go to the other thread, I don;t think MRC's DCC systems are particularly low(er) cost than the other brands at all, and when it comes to expanding beyond what comes in the box, it's actually MORE expensive. Their decoders are cheaper than most, at a cost - their SOUDN decoders. Their motor decoders are NOT inexpensive, not for the limited features. Yes I'll plug it here again - my favorite basic decoder is the NCE D13SRJ because you can buy 10 packs of them for $12/ea and they have more features than MRC's basic motor decoders.
Now, if you will never build a layout bigger than a 4x8, an MRC system might be just fine. The basics are all there, you can select and run trains, activate sound functions, mu multiple locos together, and program any CV from the controller. But if you intend to get serious with DCC with lots of extra cabs, advanced CV programming, signals and detection, etc.. you'll be happier in the long run with one of the other brands.
Lastly, MRC has left a bad taste in mahy people's mouths witht heir previous DCC systems, all WAY below the competition in features AND none of the compatible with each other - if you wanted to move up you had to junk the old one and start over again. They've finally addressed that at least, but there are still some wierd quirks - like the rearrangment of buttons from one throttle to the next. The 'brains' of the MRC Prodigy systems are supposedly in the command station, not in the handheld, which is the way it ought to be, so I just wonder how they 'cripple' the Express so that if you just plug an Advance handset in, it becomes an Advance. Tinfoil hat time again - perhaps THIS is why the computer interface is so expensive and they don't want to support third party software - buy an Express, add computer interface - and you can have an Advance because you could then send any commands to the command station. And may explain the lack of any technical information - if they explained their command bus, you could probably figure out how to make the Express be an Advance without buying anything extra. Ok, the last is just speculation but the rest is grounded in fact and experience.
mreagant Thanks for hearing my response, and by the way, I'm still not sure if the latest MRC Wireless system does not provide CV readback.
MRC has announced that their newer models will have readback.
I think it's clear that some people are not really aware of the more recent improvements in MRC products. And maybe that's understandable because of their earlier bad experiences they may not be actively staying up to date with changes.
There is no doubt that MRC decoders have experienced many problems. There is also no doubt that they are getting better. Are they there yet? No, they have more improvements to make to be on a par with some other suppliers. But, hopefully they will get there.
Now, one needs to differentiate between MRC decoder quality and MRC DCC system quality. There is a huge difference between the two. Their DCC systems are full function, easy to use and quite economcial, and as far as I can tell the quality is good. They are specifically designed for the typical small to medium home layout. Yes it's true that they do not offer some of the more advanced, high tech features that Randy referred to, such as detection and signalling. But who's to say that they won't some day? But, nevertheless, many of us will never need those anyway.
I have to admit that I'm very fortunate in that I run a dual system. With the flip of a switch I can run either MRC Wireless or a Digitrax Zephy. So I can run JMRI with the Zephyr or totally wireless with MRC. If I had to choose and could only have one system I would pick Digitrax, but only if I could afford to add a DT400 throttle and their new duplex wireless when it's available. But if I was on a very tight budget I would definitely go with MRC, starting with the Advance2 and upgrading to Wireless when I could afford it.
jwils1...6. Of course many are disappointed with the apparent lack of JMRI compatibility of their proposed computer interface. I can understand this but wonder if what they do furnish won't be very satisfactory for many users. I think we need to wait and see exactly what it will and will not do before we bash it too much. 7. If their computer interface is wireless, and requires one to upgrade to a wireless system, is that really so bad? Even with the proposed cost it will still be a good price for an outstanding wireless system....
Many people who use a computer with their DCC system use an older computer with windows 98 on it. MRC has stated that their PC interface will support Windows XP and up. This was complained about on the MRC-DCC yahoo group and the MRC Tech that participates in that group basically said that since the interafce is wireless, you don't have to have a computer in your layout room so you can use your main computer. Two problems with that - I don't want to tie up the main computer when I am using it with the layout, and I generally want the computer in the room with the layout(can you imagine trying to speed match locos using a computer in a room seperate from the layout). Another issue with the PC interface being only wireless, if you do have any problems with RF interference, your PC interface is useless. I also feel this is a design flaw in their wireless throttles, most system's wireless throttles can be operated as a tethered throttle by plugging them in, but if you plug in an MRC wireless throttle, it charges the batteries but still operates wirelessly. Again, if you have any problems with RF interference, your wireless throttles are useless.
There also has not been any mention of a version of the PC interface software for Macs or Linux computers, both of which can run JMRI.
Good comments by CSX Robert. I was told by MRC in an email that their interface would work with Windows 98. We'll have to wait and see if that's true. They seem to monitor this forum so I would hope for confirmation one way or the other.
I've had very few interference problems with MRC Wireless after upgrading to Version 2 and I've read many positive comments about their Wireless. But any loss of signal with wireless is very annoying. It does seem that all radio systems occasional encounter this.
However the lack of plug-in operation is a good point. For an individual operator that's another reason for starting with the Advance2 and upgrading to Wireless, but then that's more cost and laying down one throttle and picking up another. For a club operation wireless interference could be a bigger problem. It would be ineresting to hear if any clubs are using MRC Wireless.
All this points to the need to carefully analyze ones needs and operating methods before selecting a system. When you start to think of all the possibilities it can get a little complicated. But proper planning and thinking ahead can help head of many disappointments.