GraffenIsn´t the situation more of like this: How come hasn´t the prices dropped more on the Sound-systems that are on the market?
I've seen a few mentions of the DSD Soundtraxx decoders, here is a link to them on the Tony's site. The DSD decoders are very quiet, but the sound quality isn't that bad.
Graffen,Please don't compare mass market consumer goods to model railroad electronics. There are over 2 billion cell phone users (possibly 3 billion), and most homes in industrialized nations have a PC, a DVD player, etc. Compare that to the US model railroad market, which is estimated to be around 250,000 out of a total population of 300,000,000 (that's approx. 0.8%), and it isn't even close. Then it gets better when you realize that DCC is approx. 25% or 33% of the total hobby, so we're talking about a market place in the USA that's less than 100,000.
As Fred said, mass market consumer goods are less expensive because they can make it up in volume of sales. The big companies can invest in the latest technology that makes product faster and cheaper in other countries that have less expensive working conditions. Most DCC items are assembled in-house here in the USA. Here's a link to NCE's manufacturing plant: http://www.ncedcc.com/nce2_008.htm and here's some shots of the interior: http://www.ncedcc.com/nce2_009.htm
That being said, sound decoders have come down significantly in price from their introduction. Original Soundtraxx DSD-LC HO sound decoders in 1999 were around $125 each, IIRC (and in 1998, the higher cost DSD's were $180). Nowadays, you can get DSD-LC's from Soundtraxx for $65. Perhaps in another 10 years, they will drop 50% again...but maybe not.
Edit: Ironically enough, when I found the DSD-101LC on the Soundtraxx website, I had forgotten that they still made them. So I went to Tony's Trains to see the prices, and he's selling them for $51.95. Is that close enough to being a "fleet" sound decoder?
Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
GraffenReturning to the question at hand. Isn´t the situation more of like this: How come hasn´t the prices dropped more on the Sound-systems that are on the market? A well-recognized economic-model states that electronic consumer-products should loose half their market-price in 18 months. I have yet to see this in DCC systems.
Returning to the question at hand. Isn´t the situation more of like this: How come hasn´t the prices dropped more on the Sound-systems that are on the market? A well-recognized economic-model states that electronic consumer-products should loose half their market-price in 18 months. I have yet to see this in DCC systems.
The original post called on DCC manufacturers to produce cheaper sound decoders with generic sounds. I'm not familiar with this well-recognized economic model that consumer electronics products should drop in price by 50% every 18 months. I have never seen anything that level of price drop in the consumer market either.
The only "law" I have seen along those lines in the electronics space was Moore's "Rule" - I prefer the word rule as more accurate than law. Moore theorized that the processing power of CPUs would double every 18 months. History has shown that this trend was fairly accurate for many years, but I question whether it still holds or will extend into the future (we are approaching physics limits in processors). Because the rule worked for so well for CPUs for so many years, many have tried to extend the rule to other technologies or to prices where there have been rapid technological advances. The rule generally won't hold, with perhaps the exception of solid state memory.
For prices to drop 50% in 18 months, there has to be significant untapped market potential (buyers that haven't bought yet), and significant economies of scale on the production side. The model railroading market is quite finite, as the limited production of models attests to. The big question in the model railroad business is how many of X are we likely to sell at any reasonable price. Production has to be limited to that number or the whole supply chain takes a bath. Because the market is so limited, a lower price does not necessarily produce sufficient extra sales to justify investment in more efficient production facilities.
Take your sound decoders. My "scientific" guess is that the total market for all sound decoders to be on the order of 100K model railroaders willing to have 5 sound-equipped locomotives - and that's probably overstating the market by a factor of 2 or 3. Of those 500K sound decoders, how many of those are going to be installed by the model railroader instead of buying factory-equipped locomotives with sound decoders? 10%? 20%? Assuming 20% (again large by a factor of 2 or 3 if I'm investing my money), how many manufacturer's are making sound decoders to fill that 100K sales potential? 5? Even if I could corner 50% of the market, that's only 50K units spread over the next 5 years. Given how dear my $$ are to me, if I'm Soundtraxx, I'm only going to make 5000 Tsunamis and see how they sell. That means all my development and setup costs are going to have to be amortized over the 5000 units. A good economic rule is that early adopters of new technologies pay more. Future runs will sell for less, but probably won't be any bigger unless my costs of funds gets cut to $0 like the big banks. And that has happened. The 1st Tsunamis were over $100 each. Now, they are in the $80 range. And probably in 5 years they will be down to $50-$60. The real cost has decreased futher because inflation would otherwise push up level prices.
The same has happened with DCC system prices. The cost of bringing out a new system is not trivial. Most owners of existing DCC systems are quite happy with what they have, and are not going to replace with new for a while to come. One of the sales points for Digitrax is that your system won't be made obsolete for a long time. So the market for a newly developed DCC system is pretty small unless you can come up with a compelling feature to get the turnover of the old systems.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Swedish Custom painter and model maker. My Website:
My Railroad
My Youtube:
Graff´s channel
Fred,
Aristo Craft already has reliable radio reciever/transmitters for larger scales and has done reciever only for HO. I believe a reciever/transmitter is in the works for HO for use with their new REVOLUTION TRAIN ENGINEER.
I use the older track side train engineer for my HO, with a push button cab assignment system that allows cabs to be assigned/unassigned as you walk with the train from control panel to control panel.
Point is, reliable radio is no problem these days, even without much antenna in the loco. I shortened my 27 MHz Train Engineer transmitter antennas to about 3" and can still run the trains from 100' outside the train room.
The location of the listener also plays a roll and with headphones the listeners locoation would need to be tracked as well.
I will definately stay no sound until some effective layout based sound is developed. Who knows, when a bunch of more important projects are done, maybe I'll see what I can come up with.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL It need not be actual GPS, but any type of trianglation technolgy. My bubbles not busted, I don't need sound at all. But simply continue to point out the possiblities and problems. Still very happy with my quiet DC powered trains. Sheldon
It need not be actual GPS, but any type of trianglation technolgy. My bubbles not busted, I don't need sound at all. But simply continue to point out the possiblities and problems.
Still very happy with my quiet DC powered trains.
Hadn't thought of triangulation technology applied to model railroad layouts. In the long run, it might be cheaper and easier than traditional track detection methods. 3 fixed transmitters (some layouts would need more) and a receiver/processor in each loco would be the equipment needed. Also, a data comms link would be needed back to the speaker control unit. Timing accuracy and frequency would determine accuracy capability of the system. A location system to plus/minus 1/2" or so would be useful for a lot more than just speaker sound routing. Signalling and automatic train operation are obvious applications, but I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of.
Biggest problem would be the onboard antenna/receiver/processor/data link for each locomotive. However, elimination of sound processing from a decoder would give the physical space on essentially the same size board.
At presently, I'm also a soundless DC person. But adding under the table sound (when desired) that follows the locomotive along a shelf has been part of my someday vision. As has occasional fog generation and background sound for particular scenes like my dog hole harbor.
yours in animation
....modeling foggy coastal Oregon, where it's always 1900....
ATLANTIC CENTRALHaving not done any specific testing, and just working from my years of Hi Fi experiance, I was pretty close. so what is the -3db? about 400Hz? I was not off by much.Sheldon
Having not done any specific testing, and just working from my years of Hi Fi experiance, I was pretty close. so what is the -3db? about 400Hz? I was not off by much.
Here's a link on a 1.1" speaker.
http://www.litchfieldstation.com/xcart/product.php?productid=999002856&cat=240&page=1
The other thing about these little speakers is that they are 2w continuous and 4w peak. They can take some extra boost at around 200Hz with out distorting if one has a decoder with EQ abilities, or the sound sample is adjusted.
I have the 1.06" round one with factory baffle now, but I think the enclosure could be a little larger, and made of something other than plastic. I think the square 1.1" will fit in my P2k E8, so I'm going to experiment with this one and my own baffles just to see if the texture and bass can be improved.
Granted, +/- 3db is a more standard and realistic spec. Having my original JBL 4311 studio monitors, I'm pretty spoiled, and would never want to listen to music on 1" speakers either, but for my HO model loco sounds, these little speakers are impressive - especially for the money.
DC
http://uphonation.com
fwright Sorry to burst your bubble Sheldon, but the localization technology you describe does not exist. The best bet for train localization and direction and speed information remains reading decoder commands and track detection schemes, not GPS.
Sorry to burst your bubble Sheldon, but the localization technology you describe does not exist. The best bet for train localization and direction and speed information remains reading decoder commands and track detection schemes, not GPS.
DC, Having not done any specific testing, and just working from my years of Hi Fi experiance, I was pretty close. so what is the -3db? about 400Hz? I was not off by much. Consider my statement amended to say 400Hz.
Point remains that is still not much in the way of bass response, at least not to my ears. I don't listen to music on stuff like that. In all the Hi Fi work I ever did we never considered the -10db number "useful". You may hear a frequency at that level if the program does not contain too much other stuff, but other factors negate the practical usefulness or effective sound quality. If I give you the -10db of the speaker systems I designed in the eighties, you would be real impressed (18Hz), but the -3db of 29Hz is a more truthfull reflection of their ability and sound quality.
ATLANTIC CENTRALMany of the speakers available for onboard sound are very good, for their size, but physics is physics and it is not within our current technoligy to move enough air smoothly and accurately enough with a 1" speaker to make a 500 Hz tone in the open air of our layout rooms, that you and I can hear, let alone one at 100 Hz or lower like the sounds of a railroad locomotive.
Many of the speakers available for onboard sound are very good, for their size, but physics is physics and it is not within our current technoligy to move enough air smoothly and accurately enough with a 1" speaker to make a 500 Hz tone in the open air of our layout rooms, that you and I can hear, let alone one at 100 Hz or lower like the sounds of a railroad locomotive.
I have to disagree in part. There are 1" speakers with an Fs of 500-550Hz, giving a useful frequency response down to about 250Hz (- 10db). 500Hz is easily heard in open air. That is not tinny nor squeaky. 100Hz? No.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL I had this idea too! Wireless headphones, of the open ear bud type that allow you to hear other sounds as well (the person talking to you). Then, the headphones and the locomotive could have some sort of GPS and the exact volume/sound could be digitaly processed to reflect your exact scale distance/position from all the locomotives on the layout. This would allow sounds to fade in/fade out faster to create a better illusion of distance. The really great thing is if you didn't want the sound experiance, just don't put the headphones on! All the technolgy exists, it would just have to be applied. And, such a system could easily have large "under layout" speakers for shows, open houses etc, which could be turned on or off as desired. I keep saying the real future of sound in the small scales is layout based, this just might be it. Sheldon
I had this idea too! Wireless headphones, of the open ear bud type that allow you to hear other sounds as well (the person talking to you). Then, the headphones and the locomotive could have some sort of GPS and the exact volume/sound could be digitaly processed to reflect your exact scale distance/position from all the locomotives on the layout. This would allow sounds to fade in/fade out faster to create a better illusion of distance.
The really great thing is if you didn't want the sound experiance, just don't put the headphones on!
All the technolgy exists, it would just have to be applied. And, such a system could easily have large "under layout" speakers for shows, open houses etc, which could be turned on or off as desired.
I keep saying the real future of sound in the small scales is layout based, this just might be it.
The GPS signal doesn't penetrate to most basements, or even through a lot of roofs. Try one of the mini hockey puck USB receivers or a portable GPS in your basement and let us know how long it takes to lock on (if it ever does).
Standard GPS is only expected to provide 3-5 meter accuracy. You might get somewhat better, but never better than 1 meter, depending on latitude and ability to read multiple satellites simultaneously. 1 meter isn't going to be near good enough on most layouts. Differential GPS (available from Coast Guard 300KHz transmitters) will take you to centimeter accuracy if within about 150 miles of a CG transmitter. An additional receiver and antenna has to be integrated into the GPS receiver. Railroads are one user of the DGPS signal because it's good enough to localize which of 2 parallel tracks the receiver is on. The FAA WAAS is another form of Differential GPS, but operates at satellite freqs and does not take you into centimeter accuracy.
I do like the under the layout speaker concept; it seems well-suited to shelf layouts. With wanting to use the space in my tiny HOn3 locos for weight instead of a speaker enclosure, I had planned on experimenting with under-the-table sound. It looks like a lot of development work has already been done.
ATLANTIC CENTRALThe sound should be louder, softer, left or right based on how far you are from the loco. I have not yet heard a SurroundTraxx installation, but current onboard systems, in addition to sound quality issues, often fail the distance test. In other words, even turned down low, I can still hear them when I am on the other side of the layout - out of sight, too far away.
I heard the SurrounTraxx thing on a fellows layout not too long ago but, it either wasn't done right--the installation--or the premise is not up to snuff. I could still hear the lokes from the other side of the layout---in this case 45' away. He may have set volume up to high.
If it was in a headset form, one might be able to control that better. Also---with headsets one can have peace in the house--you want your trains to sound----wife doesn't want train to sound---headphones on head, you can listen to that Uboat just hammering up that incline. Wife don't hear a dang thing=peace in house!
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Randy,
The sound should be louder, softer, left or right based on how far you are from the loco. I have not yet heard a SurroundTraxx installation, but current onboard systems, in addition to sound quality issues, often fail the distance test. In other words, even turned down low, I can still hear them when I am on the other side of the layout - out of sight, too far away.
As for all this stuff about where the sound comes from - FACT, our ears are not that good, that's why STEREO works. The combination of two sources (or more) and the nature of refected sound tricks our brains into thinking the sound is fuller than it is and coming from where its not - because we also hear a lot of reflected sounds in "real life".
Two weeks back on at a friends layout, someone left a bell on at the end of the operating session. It was not noticable until all the other noise (locos and people) stopped and the crowd started to leave. It took three of us about 5 min. find it. It was the one train parked out of the stagging yard on the other side of the back drop from the yard. Miles away in theroy. And this modeler is a big computer guy and has ajusted all his volumes very low with decoder pro.
The headphone idea should in theroy even respond to you turning your head and computer software could easily model your changing position and the changing positions of the trains, keeping all sounds in perfect balance like a movie soundtrack.
But personally, I still want my train room quiet for now. Good layout based sound would be a nice feature to turn on sometimes, but I would not want it on all the time. And for me, the cost of sound, both in TIME and money, is way low on my modeling priority list.
I guess I just fail to get what advantage there would be to using headphoens with GPS. If you're putting on headphones to localize the sound, then that's more of you being onboard the loco you are contorlling, so no need to change the sound based on positioning. And you could easily add wireless headphones to the Surroundtraxx system so as you stood there various trains would come by, getting louder as they approached your location and then trailing away as they left the area. Even with nothign more than today's technology I don;t see why you couldn't also then move to a different Surroundtraxx 'speaker' location and get that location's sounds on your heaphones.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
ATLANTIC CENTRALI keep saying the real future of sound in the small scales is layout based, this just might be it.
I also keep thinking about someone by the name of Stephen Beswich(sp?) who works in the field of human/technology interfacing whose ideas seem to go into creating sound systems even more surface based---entire sound fields derived through interaction with whatever you touch---a single RS11 gets touched--that loke turns on like the actual loke would---no need for the programming or any of that.
But that would be a ways off ----that
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Randy, Did you miss the HEADPHONE part? With the GPS to change the sound as you walk aound? As for the cost of layout based sound, that is a complex question based on layout size and locomotive roster size. It may well be a less expensive overall aproach compared to onboard sound in every loco. It would be largely software based and at some point additional loco additions would be "free". Yes - I am aware of SurroundTraxx - this would be its next step - wireless earbud headphones. Sheldon
Randy, Did you miss the HEADPHONE part? With the GPS to change the sound as you walk aound?
As for the cost of layout based sound, that is a complex question based on layout size and locomotive roster size. It may well be a less expensive overall aproach compared to onboard sound in every loco. It would be largely software based and at some point additional loco additions would be "free".
Yes - I am aware of SurroundTraxx - this would be its next step - wireless earbud headphones.
I know that SurroundTraxx had the system as far as that was concerned but if you took it further---surroundtraxx still has those ding speaker issues--and incorporated the headphone thing into it--GPS and all that system would be far better off--just on sound quality alone. Now, mind the cost would be higher but I for one would save the dang money to get the ferschluggener headset and the decoders. The whole idea here is to tease out the various levels and types of technologies being brought out and utilized in other fields----check out the Stereophile mag articles recently about how the audiophile market is beefing up the iPod market with better quality speakers for headsets and such---the headsets will deliver that full on thrunm that you get from some engines..
It would be a vast improvement on speakers that give you lots of squeak and no bite. Regardless of cost---we need to go the extra step me thinks-----
This DOES already exist, from SOundtraxx. It's called SurroundTraxx, and couples on board sound with stationary speakers, the sound gets switched to various speakers to 'follow' the loco around the layout. Since the speakers are under the layout, or wherever you want them to be, you can use as high a quality a speaker system as you want. http://www.soundtraxx.com/surround/
It even doesn't just 'switch' the speakers but fades between them.
Of course, it's not going to be 'cheap' sound.
blownout cylinder So then, why not do a wireless connect to a good set of headphones if what you want is good quality sound?--ain't gonna happen with tin speakers.
So then, why not do a wireless connect to a good set of headphones if what you want is good quality sound?--ain't gonna happen with tin speakers.
Well then---OK---if the case against small speakers is what everyone says it is then we can say that no matter how good the decoder is then the falldown will be at the speaker level. No matter how much money you put out for the decoder you're going to get nothing more than squeak, click, buzzzzzz.
Or else---go with a set of Klipsch or other monitor speakers then.
Either way, I'm not going to count the entire sound bug argument out yet. One may need to think a little outside of the theoretical box then.
heeheeehee
Please remermber two important bits of consumer wisdom: If you buy cheap you will get what you pay for, and the cheaper speaker/decoder combos put out noise instead of sound! Quality is expensive! It is better to save for what you want instead of settling for the quick and cheap. John
There are two components to sound waves: frequency and amplitude. It is the second component that tiny speakers cannot provide because they simply do not have the physical nature, or dimensions, to move enough air at those lower frequencies so that our ears can hear it. Those waves get lost in the distance between the speaker face and our ears about 24" away. The higher energy, high frequency sound waves, on the other hand, do much better. So, selectively, that is what we hear. Squeak, squeak. Tinny, tinny.
Barry,
Other than the fact that I am a big proponent of as much consumer choice as possible, I have no dog in this fight since I have not and will not be spending any money for onboard sound. But you seem to not understand a few basics about speaker design and acoustics.
blownout cylinderWe have headphone speakers--like Sennheiser's --that produce a very rich dynamic. But what do you see for speakers in your loke? You see little--underpowered pipsqueak speakers that barely give you what you are looking for--right?
The speakers in headphones produce good sound because of the small volume of air trapped between the speaker cone and your eardrum. Those same speakers would have no bass and little midrange that would be audiable to humans in the open air of a typical room. Many of the speakers available for onboard sound are very good, for their size, but physics is physics and it is not within our current technoligy to move enough air smoothly and accurately enough with a 1" speaker to make a 500 Hz tone in the open air of our layout rooms, that you and I can hear, let alone one at 100 Hz or lower like the sounds of a railroad locomotive.
Artifically boosting the bass introduces both electrical and mechanical distortion that is exponetial to the boost. The loudness button on your stereo boosts the bass 10-15%, and runs the risk of distortion. To solve the problem of no bass from a 1" speaker you need to boost the bass maybe 300% or more - total distortion is the result.
Again, this is a problem I have no personal stake in solving, but 35 years of study, construction and experimentation with Hi Fi gives me a good understanding of the problem.
Again we come back to how accurate do you want to be. And again if you want to be very accurate then the world is your oyster. If you just want to be casual then... This goes beyond just sound, it reaches locos, rolling stock, structures, track etc. I'd love to get a set of PCM Sharknoses but I can't justify the expense so I'll make do with a Bachman unit and add sound and a decent decoder. Most of my rolling stock is old Tyco and Bachmann stuff that I've treated to new wheelsets amd #5s, I'm happy with the level of detail since it gives the overall impression I'm after (see Tony K.'s recent Trains Of Thought) without spendeing too much time on fragile super detailing. And as stated several times before, there's no reason one can't upgrade later as desired. Say in 5 years I want my RS32 to sound different than my C424, ok I find a different, more acurate decoder.
I think this points out a bit of a problem for our hobby. "If it's not perfect it's not right" can scare away a lot of newcomers. But I'll temper that with the fact that a lot of newcomers/casual modelers probably don't get on a website to find the most accurate info they can. That said maybe we should change this thread from "cheap" decoders to "beginer" decoders? Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate the time, effort, money that got into the large superdetailed and accurate layouts, and I love seeing them. But I also realize that for me that kind of layout is in the distant future. In the meantime why can't I have something that is a reasonable facsimilie with locos pulling trains, operating sounds, lights and looks ok when you walk into the room? There's no reason why not other than some items aren't availible.
Perhaps the beginer or casual modeler or budget challenged is why Atlas still sells the Trainman line, Digitrax still sells the Zephyer and Plasticville building are still readily availible. As one of this group I acknowledge that some sacrifices need to be made in regards to detail/realism.
As to the arguement that the cost difference can't be met, phooey. A DH123 and Soundbug can be puchased for $50 while a good sound decoder can cost double that. Even for only 5 loco's that adds up to over $200 that can be spent elsewhere. That's significant for me. True the cost difference may not be in the hardware but in the software and thats why we're discussing "generic" sounds. One sound file is certainly less costly to make than 5 or 10.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
fwrightGot to love this line of reasoning that taken to its logical conclusion states, "We can't get it perfect, or even as good as we'd like. Therefore we needn't try too hard, and those that do, they're just (fill in the blank with your favorite prejorative name)."
AH!! But there you go. The argument I present here is not one of give up, nor should it be. But rather to think through the process a little here. What if you have found a decoder that was a basic recordable one? Do you need to go to a company to this? Or can someone go and make blank decoders to record the effects yourself? How about upgradable versions that you can actually download the better recorded effects through? There are numerous ways that it can be done.
I don't think that what is presented as 'authentic' is really the right way to present the sound decoders as such. When I want a RS2 to have a 244 sound it should not have to sound like a compressed version of a 244. In other words it should sound like a 244--with all the acoustic dynamics thereof. We have headphone speakers--like Sennheiser's --that produce a very rich dynamic. But what do you see for speakers in your loke? You see little--underpowered pipsqueak speakers that barely give you what you are looking for--right? It may be that even those--generic versions are just as messed up sounding b/c of that same issue. Or worse. When 'authentic' is used, I find myself thinking of a poor lonely 244. The only 244 around. Sorry but that isn't quite the thing that works here. It is like that in audiophile mags as well. Who has the master ears to know whose performance of Shostokovich's 3rd is True? Or whether so & so's Cymbal was the 'correct' one for this movement? These are subjective things we simply do not know but I can tell you what I want to hear---a full throated 645 that was turbo'ed up the wazoo is going to sound way more better if the decoder has a better partner---a GOOD SPEAKER!!!
fwrightAnd reality of the market is that the cost difference in the generic vs prototype-specific sound and drive decoder is going to be directly related to the acquisition and programming of the sound files. Hardware costs are almost identical, especially since the requests for the generic decoder all state that they want the full-featured motor drive. There's just not a whole lot of room for a whole lot of savings, except in the tracking down and recording of good sound samples. Thus, I see at most $20-$30 in street price difference between generic and proto-specific sound decoders - and that difference will decrease over time as the "good" recording basis are identified or obtained.
If you can find in the market a good testbed decoder--I've seen a couple of soundchips out that seem better at capturing sound than what there is at present within the MRR field, I can see improvements all the way around. I can see it getting to the point that you can choose the prototype you're working on and actually getting that sound for that period of time you're in. But again, all my arguing would, for some, mean--give up!
But then--that's the fun in researching these areas, innit?
fwright Moral of my story - we change over time. What was OK with me 30 years ago is not OK with me any more. If I'm modeling a model now, it's because I deliberately choose to. Back to the topic - I'm not going to be happy any more with a generic sound decoder when I know there is better available. I may use one as a stand-in until I can fit or save enough to get better, but I know what my preferred end state is.
Moral of my story - we change over time. What was OK with me 30 years ago is not OK with me any more. If I'm modeling a model now, it's because I deliberately choose to.
Back to the topic - I'm not going to be happy any more with a generic sound decoder when I know there is better available. I may use one as a stand-in until I can fit or save enough to get better, but I know what my preferred end state is.
I edited your post down to just two pertinent paragraphs but very much agree with you, except for the 30 years. I'm only at 7 years even though I'm 76. I have to credit this thread with getting me excited about seeking more accurate sound. I'm in the process of investigating how to do some upgrades gradually at the most reasonably cost, but I am now willing to spend more to get more accuracy.
Disregarding MRC it looks to me like the Digitrax Soundbug is the least expensive way to get "cheap DCC sound" that is halfway decent. But now I definitely want to upgrade beyond that.
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
I am obviously very late to this thread....I just looked in for the first time.
If I choose a XB-2200 diesel put out by whomever, and I choose that model because it represents the best/closest/most accurate facsimile or model of that engine, and wish also to have a sound decoder installed in it that gives the 'best' sound files of recordings of the various components that emit noise on the XB-2200, and if the XB-2200 has a K3LA, why would I be happy with a honker? Or a K5? Why ruin or compromise the illusion I am attempting to create for myself...which is all any of us is really trying to capture....the best illusion of the real thing at our fingers tips in a very confined space? That we can afford and/or appreciate on the basis of learning?
However, I would be just as happy to learn that my friend next door is perfectly content with a much less exact representation of the XB-2200, and that his sound decoder does have a honker...if that combination brings him pleasure!!!!!!!!!! It is just another illusion....... isn't it?