It will NEVER sounf 100% liek the real thing, no matter how expensive the decoder. Even if they come out with ones that record the sound samples with 256 bits at 44KHz. The problem as always is in the speakers. Unless someone finds a way around the laws of physics, a speaker small enough to fit in an HO loco just cannot reproduce the entire range of sounds we hear standing next to a real live loco. 'Close enough' is the best you can do - and for that, it is more important to be able to change the sounds in the decoder than strictly the number of bits used to encode the samples. The quality of your sample makes a huge difference too. Start with junk and no matter how much you pay for the decoder, it's not going to sound good. Start with a quality recording and you'll have good results.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Paul3 Sheldon,While you can point to the continued success of Athearn BB and RTR models, I can point to new companies like Exactrail and NARC as well as established firms like Kadee, InterMountain, Atlas and Athearn Genesis that are all going after the more accurate model designs. BTW, I don't even think it's that people don't care too much so they buy Athearn, they just don't want to spend the cash. It's that way with me. I have some 300 cars on my layout, and probably 90% of them are Athearn. Why? Because they are the cheapest car that meets my minimum requirements (body mount couplers using Kadee-type boxes that track well). I love accuracy, but I also love not spending a fortune. Let me put it this way: if your point is that more than half the people don't really care about accuracy, then two models where one is accurate and one isn't that are both priced the same should sell equally well, right? So if you saw a Kadee PS-1 40' box marked at the same price as an Athearn 40' box, would you buy the Kadee or the Athearn? And what do you think more than half the people would choose? IMHO, more folks would buy the Kadee if they could afford it because it's a much better looking car that's a lot more accurate.
Sheldon,While you can point to the continued success of Athearn BB and RTR models, I can point to new companies like Exactrail and NARC as well as established firms like Kadee, InterMountain, Atlas and Athearn Genesis that are all going after the more accurate model designs. BTW, I don't even think it's that people don't care too much so they buy Athearn, they just don't want to spend the cash. It's that way with me. I have some 300 cars on my layout, and probably 90% of them are Athearn. Why? Because they are the cheapest car that meets my minimum requirements (body mount couplers using Kadee-type boxes that track well). I love accuracy, but I also love not spending a fortune.
Let me put it this way: if your point is that more than half the people don't really care about accuracy, then two models where one is accurate and one isn't that are both priced the same should sell equally well, right? So if you saw a Kadee PS-1 40' box marked at the same price as an Athearn 40' box, would you buy the Kadee or the Athearn? And what do you think more than half the people would choose? IMHO, more folks would buy the Kadee if they could afford it because it's a much better looking car that's a lot more accurate.
Paul,
IMHO, this accuracy thing is not a yes/no question but a matter of degrees. We can find inaccuracies on all of these new high priced models if we look hard enough. And, again, it is unlikely that in the time I have remaining on this earth that every model I want/need for my roster will be made by Intermountain, Genesis or Kadee. I have models from all of them by the way.
I know a few modelers who actually will not buy models like Kadee because they are too fragile. So reasons are not always money. I am also encouraged by the fact that Kadee is thinging about offering their cars as kits. I hate disassembling those things to paint and decal them.
Athearn obviously sees plenty of market for both types of models and continues to make improvements to every level of their product line.
There is a difference between caring about accuracy and being obsessive-compulsive. I model from the view of finding a balance between prototypical accuracy and artistic overall impression. We must selectively compress, we must look at the big picture if we want our model scenes to give a realistic impression. Its not just about how accurate one model is, its about how the whole model scene fits together and has a sense of proportion and realism.
And its not just about what I can buy, its about what I can build. At least for me. I'm going to the work shop now to actually build some trains.
Sheldon
Well I knew this would create a firestorm; this expanded thread on affordability vs accuracy will always have polarization. In the end what the manufacturers offer is based on the what the buying public wants, asks for and is willing to invest in.
Some of what I stated is taken out of context; I believe it is because there are some sore subjects addressed here.
My two cents: low cost sound decoders are a good idea; there is a market for them. However, if you buy one and don't like the overall sound and / or you compare that decoder to a QSI Revolution or Soundtraxx Tsunami, remember that item was not made to compete at the higher quality.
Not everyone who spends more than $2500 in one jump is a strictly collector; I know several members of the hobby purchasing large numbers of locomotives, passenger cars, coal cars, etc., to expand their rolling stock. And they run these items; they do not sit on the shelf. I realize many modelers don't and cant do this. Many will do it online and you might not witness the transactions.
Keep in mind there are large clubs in this country where people have the ablitity to run trains on wider curves, various grades, and can work a yard capable of holding trains that are 40 + cars long. Some also have home layouts and purchase items for either situation.
You can almost (not completely) divide the hobbyists into three groups 1) those who like trains period; 2) those that concentrate on building and maintaining a model railroad and enjoy operating it; 3) those that want more prototype realism and concentrate on the individual models, detailing them to as much accuracy as possible.
There is a underlying tone with rivet counters representing the dark side of the force; I would like to know is it because of personal experience or the recounts of others?
A well rounded modeler will work with all aspects of the hobby; some detailing, some layout building, some kit building and some kitbashing, and some weathering (BTW DCC installs are a form of electronic kitbashing, so sound certainly applies). Many that are passionate about one aspect or another will not chime in on forums such as these as they don't want to get burned. But they read and then make comments offline.
Because of my DCC work, my relationship with several hobby shops and their owners in the Tampa Bay area and my involvement with a local HO/N club, which receives more than 1500 visitors in multiple events annually, I'm exposed to a large contingency of people sharing our hobby. I've had various discussions with these folks and while some agree with things expressed here there are others that stated the things I've expressed before. The overall temperment contrasts the consensus here. Please note we tend to herd in certain circles and opinions will vary; after all this forum is a herd of a sort. I appreciate all comments and believe we ALL have valid points. But we cant turn back the clock; many of us will not see the Blue Box / Kit era return anytime soon; and while I think this is unfortunate, we are all making adjustments and moving forward.
Carl in Florida - - - - - - - - - - We need an HO Amtrak SDP40F and GE U36B oh wait- We GOT THEM!
cmarchan Not everyone who spends more than $2500 in one jump is a strictly collector; I know several members of the hobby purchasing large numbers of locomotives, passenger cars, coal cars, etc., to expand their rolling stock. And they run these items; they do not sit on the shelf. I realize many modelers don't and cant do this. Many will do it online and you might not witness the transactions.
???????? - I have large numbers of cars and locos, just no single pieces with 4 digit price tags. The most expensive thing pulls any of my 40 car trains cost about $300.
What you say is true, some buy $2500 brass to actually run, but as a percentage, more of that stuff is bought for collecting than say an Athearn Genesis ABA F7 set.
I'm still more impressed by the kitbashed Bachmann loco than the $2500 brass wonder when I visit a layout.
cmarchan Keep in mind there are large clubs in this country where people have the ablitity to run trains on wider curves, various grades, and can work a yard capable of holding trains that are 40 + cars long. Some also have home layouts and purchase items for either situation.
I have what I consider a simple, but medium to large sized layout with broad curves and long runs for those 40 car trains.
cmarchan You can almost (not completely) divide the hobbyists into three groups 1) those who like trains period; 2) those that concentrate on building and maintaining a model railroad and enjoy operating it; 3) those that want more prototype realism and concentrate on the individual models, detailing them to as much accuracy as possible.
Started as a #2, became a #3 for a while, but now I'm back to being a #2. Having much more fun.
cmarchan There is a underlying tone with rivet counters representing the dark side of the force; I would like to know is it because of personal experience or the recounts of others?
Personal experiance, only with a few, very rude, condescending types. I know not everyone serious about accuracy is like this, but those few made it a group I would not what to be counted with. Ironicly, in our local group, I keep my mouth shut about "errors" but I am one of the people most offten asked for prototype accuracy advice, even if I don't both to follow my knowledge completely in my own modeling.
cmarchan A well rounded modeler will work with all aspects of the hobby; some detailing, some layout building, some kit building and some kitbashing, and some weathering (BTW DCC installs are a form of electronic kitbashing, so sound certainly applies). Many that are passionate about one aspect or another will not chime in on forums such as these as they don't want to get burned. But they read and then make comments offline.
Simply suggesting that a well rounded approach has specific merits will get you attacked, just ask me.
On the $2500 thing, I apologize for the ambiguity; the amount is the total from buying many items at one time; i.e, buying enough cars and locos to outfit several trains. The store owners call it a "very good day" when it occurs. Many of these items are plastic or hybrid. In addition, some layout builders will buy that much if they purchase track, turnouts, tortoises, dcc stationary decoders, structures, in one session.
IMHO We should respect each other's work and effort; those counting rivets that harshly criticize are doing more harm than good. This is for all to enjoy and have fun. No rule says it has to be 100% accurate; it is a personal preference.
cmarchan A well rounded modeler will work with all aspects of the hobby; some detailing, some layout building, some kit building and some kitbashing, and some weathering (BTW DCC installs are a form of electronic kitbashing, so sound certainly applies). Many that are passionate about one aspect or another will not chime in on forums such as these as they don't want to get burned. But they read and then make comments offline. Simply suggesting that a well rounded approach has specific merits will get you attacked, just ask me. Sheldon
I was referring to the reluctance to politely argue; many read but discuss topics among friends; nothing more was meant.
Carl,
Thanks for the explaination. I do largely agree with you about this and I understand completely.
My orginal comments about this stem from what I see in the model press that if you are in HO or N scale you MUST be at least a #2, on your way to a number #3 on you scale of modeler types or your "views" are not represented. I do think the manufacturers are influenced by what is "in the press" whether that reflects a fair balance of what the buying public is doing/wanting or not.
Like the old saying, "the squeaky wheel gets the oil", those who are in the get published "click" have a big effect on what gets made, and they do "control" who is in the "click" somewhat, which controls the nature and content of the articles we see in print and the modeling approaches that are represented and promoted to both the new and old in the hobby.
Again, not to say all is bad, quite the contrary, most is very good. BUT, there should be a little more diversity of approach on many areas of the hobby. Reading older mags from the 50's and 60's you saw these different approaches openly discussed. Now, kind of like our own "political correctness", alternative approaches are just largely ignored and and shut out.
Paul3So while my model sounds are not 100% realistic, neither are my models. However, as inaccurate as my models are compared to the real thing, it's obvious that it's a DL109, an RS-3 or an RS-11. Same goes for the sound... As inaccurate as these sound decoders are for each prime mover type, they are equally obvious that they are a 539, 244, or 251.
I've just quoted a small portion of Paul's post but it highlights what I'm beginning to appreciate. This thread, and this post in particular, have got me thinking that I'm beginning to really be interested in getting correct sounds for my locos.
But that brings up some questions for me. I started adding sound before QSI and Tsunami after market diesel sounds were available. So I went with Digitrax 165/Soundbugs and a PR3 progammer. Digitrax still has very limited sound choices so I've just been picking the closest thing that seems to match (but in most cases they are not accurate) hoping that eventually they will add the appropriate sounds.
What I'm now concerned about in possibly upgrading is the fact that I did buy one LokSound and am disapointed in it. I have an identical loco with the 165/Soundbug and the LokSound just isn't much better at all. It cost $48 more than the 165/Soundbug! It just wasn't worth it, and the manual is a nightmare for me.
Now, I must say that I've got two older P2K's (GP7 and SW8) with factory equipped QSI and I like the sound a lot. My question is.....will the after market QSI's (Quantum Revolution) be as good or better than my two older ones? If so, then I might consider upgrading to them to get correct and better sound. These would cost about $38 more than a 165/Soundbug but may well be worth it. I'm thinking that I don't want any more LocSounds.
I would appreciate it if anyone could give me some opinions on this. This is a bit off this thread's topic but I hope that is okay as we have some very knowledgeable people posting here.
Jerry
Rio Grande vs. Santa Fe.....the battle is over but the glory remains!
fwrightI think you are wrongly declaring a generic decoder to being roughly the equivalent of the loss of fidelity from an early actual recording.
I seen this in a lot of stereophile mags where you could get into an endless morass of charts and figures about what system was better at sound reproduction/production. I also could see an argument over the sound quality off of a generic "sound bug" or one run through a wireless into something a little more---"authentic" in scale.
My little ATLAS RS2's/3's with their DCC sound---and I'm not running all over the house looking for the soundcards info now LOL!!!---work well enough for me. I'm not out to win some kind of sound authenticity award here!!
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/
Paul3 So while my model sounds are not 100% realistic, neither are my models. However, as inaccurate as my models are compared to the real thing, it's obvious that it's a DL109, an RS-3 or an RS-11. Same goes for the sound... As inaccurate as these sound decoders are for each prime mover type, they are equally obvious that they are a 539, 244, or 251. The Bach comparison really doesn't hold water. It doesn't matter who plays it, it's still Bach. Metallica or Toby Keith could play Bach, but I think you would still be able to recognize it as Bach.
So while my model sounds are not 100% realistic, neither are my models. However, as inaccurate as my models are compared to the real thing, it's obvious that it's a DL109, an RS-3 or an RS-11. Same goes for the sound... As inaccurate as these sound decoders are for each prime mover type, they are equally obvious that they are a 539, 244, or 251.
The Bach comparison really doesn't hold water. It doesn't matter who plays it, it's still Bach. Metallica or Toby Keith could play Bach, but I think you would still be able to recognize it as Bach.
When this thread started I think the question was whether or not there was a market for low cost sound decoders. I took this to mean a decoder with generic sounds. Those who responded that there was a movement toward prototype realism within the hobby have a point. And you are correct that realism is enhanced if each of the engines you mentioned have a different sound on the layout.
However, I think I'll disagree with your Bach comparison. Apparently, to some, it is not still Bach regardless of who plays it. I'm sure you've read some of the other threads where this or that manufacturer's decoder has the "correct" EMD 567 sound while the other 567s are incorrect.
Seems to me that what is being created is the audiophile version of the rivet counter that we all love.
Sure, I think there is a market for different degrees of sound "modeling" just as there are different degrees of modeling trains and scenery within the hobby. IMHO, different price/quality items should be available.
To quote Sheldon:
"We must selectively compress, we must look at the big picture if we want our model scenes to give a realistic impression. Its not just about how accurate one model is, its about how the whole model scene fits together and has a sense of proportion and realism."
I agree, and IMHO, this also applies to sound. It's not realistic and proportional when I hear a full frequency, dynamic, surround sound of an E unit coming from JBL studio monitors with a small HO model train running around, and the sub woofer under the table is moving my pant legs. When I'm at the SDMRR museum and hear the O boys running with huge, full range sound blasting from their models, spilling into the other layouts and all over the building, I want to laugh. To me, it doesn't fit, and "sounds" ridiculous.
I installed the QSI Revolution and 1" extended base speaker with baffel pretty easily into a dummy P2K E8. With Antonio's help, I got the correct, and what I think is impressive, sound for it. Although, I thought the sound projection and range was great right from the start, I thought it to be a little "plastic" sounding, so I covered about half of the baffel with museum putty. I, too, was in the music/audio business, was a talent agent and audio recording engineer in the 70s and 80s. I play/record piano and keyboards now. I consider myself to have somewhat of a trained ear. I think my little HO sound is just about right, and it stays with the train. A couple of long time club members have told me that it was the best they have heard. It's not a pat on my back. It was really easy, and it's just great, real fun technological developments happening in the hobby.
Another real fun thing happening, IMO, is RC self propelled HO trains. I’m scheduled to be a tester for the new Aristo/Crest Revolution Train Engineer 2.4gHz RC system that is being developed right now. Beta testing for the G scale version is about complete with the first run delivery scheduled this month. Aristo is also working on a Li-ion battery that will fit into an HO bagage car or dummy engine shell. I’m really excited, and it sounds like a lot of fun. But, I digress….sorry.
Just my personal feelings and observations.
DC
http://uphonation.com
Sheldon,Accuracy in our hobby is almost always a matter of degree. However, this topic is about generic sound. Not even so much as putting an EMD 567 in every loco, just having generic diesel sounds from something. Perhaps a Peterbuilt? A Caterpillar? Who knows? In this case, it's not a matter of degrees, it would be 100% wrong for every loco because it would only be "generic" for all diesels, not for any specific one.
For the Kadee fragility idea... My point was about price and accuracy, not necessarily about fragile details. So let me rephrase: What if there was an option of having, say, a Branchline Yardmaster 40' PS-1 boxcar in RTR vs. a model of a built 40' PS-1 boxcar that was made of wood and had paper sides? Both would be in the same paint scheme, are selling at the same price, have the same Kadees and trucks, etc.. One has molded on detail, but is still otherwise correct in dimensions and details. The other has perfectly flat sides because it's glued on paper to a wood core. There is no actual door or ladders, just a drawing of them on the sides. Which one do you think will sell to most modelers? The more accurate detailed plastic model? Or the detail-less and inaccurate wooden model?
Note that Athearn isn't tooling new, inaccurate models for their BB or RTR line. They are trying to improve existing tooling to squeeze every last $ they can get from them (which is good business). I've heard through the grapevine that the reason why there will never be another run of Athearn RDC's is that the tooling broke. I don't think Athearn's going to tool a new set for these models...at least not 72' models.
We all draw the line of what's realistic proportionally in different places. For example, I will never, ever buy another shorty passenger car. They are way too toy-like for me. OTOH, you like them because you prefer how they look on curves. That's fine with me, but I don't happen share that viewpoint (especially when the shorty curves may look better on curves, but they look silly on straights...and I have far more straight trackage than I have curves).
It's not about what I can build, it's about what I can run. I think being part of a club and club operation sessions since I was 15 might have something to do with that. I'm used to seeing and running trains that I didn't build, and therefore I don't see the big deal about having to build everything one has by hand in order to enjoy them.
I also think you give waaay too much credit to the hobby press for shaping the hobby. I think they reflect their readership's opinions vs. making opinions for their readership. BTW, are you talking about your DCC stance, or something else? Non-specific gumblings about the hobby press really doesn't help anyone at all.
jwils1,Those factory QSI installs probably have an upgrade chip you can install yourself for $30. IMHO, they sound about the same as the Revolution types...I think they even use the same sound files.
maxman,So Bach is only "Bach" when he was alive? Or something like that? There is one major difference between music and what we're doing. We're trying to reproduce real items that make sound on their own. Music allows for a bit of interpretation depending on the artist. People who cover other people's songs are not expected to sound like the original to the Nth degree. There are exceptions, of course, but the comparisons to generic diesel sounds just doesn't work for me.
WRT to the different 567 sound and which is better, at least they are talking about two 567's and not putting generic sound in there vs. a specific prototype sound instead.
For example, MRC put the 244 V-12 sound effects in their Atlas S-unit board. The argument was that it was wrong because S-units had 539 or 539T's (straight 6's). Meanwhile, MRC has released the same 244 sound effects on their Athearn RS-3 board, which is the right prime mover. The argument is that it's not a very good rendition of a 244, but at least it is a 244.
DC,Hmm... I wonder if there is a way to determine what the "scale sound" would be for an HO model? Say on average you run your train at arm's length from your ears. That's around 3' of distance (or so). That's about 261 scale feet away. If a train horn is measured at certain sound level at trackside in real life, how loud should it be 261 feet away?
Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Paul3DC,Hmm... I wonder if there is a way to determine what the "scale sound" would be for an HO model? Say on average you run your train at arm's length from your ears. That's around 3' of distance (or so). That's about 261 scale feet away. If a train horn is measured at certain sound level at trackside in real life, how loud should it be 261 feet away? Paul A. Cutler III*******************Weather Or No Go New Haven*******************
Hmm... I wonder if there is a way to determine what the "scale sound" would be for an HO model? Say on average you run your train at arm's length from your ears. That's around 3' of distance (or so). That's about 261 scale feet away. If a train horn is measured at certain sound level at trackside in real life, how loud should it be 261 feet away?
Paul, I can't answer that, but the over all level will be less the further away you get, obviously. But, I don't think just measuring the level in db is the total answer. There's also the effect that bass frequencies will be less detectable by your ear than the high or middle frequencies over distance, assuming no acoustical amplification due to the environment (the sound wave goes by you once, like in a flat desert). Also, one has to consider the original size of the projected sound wave, too, not just the volume. How do you relate the speaker cone size and throw to the projected sound of a real loco and its horn/whistle? Room dimensions and environment will affect the sound in your layout room or outside (garden RR). The natural environment will have an effect on a real loco's sound. If the surrounding mountains/hills or structures around a real RR produce a standing bass wave, the bass component of a real loco's sound can actually be amplified - a lot. Here's an advantage to a localized placement of a small speaker in the model train: the layout room and over all environment aren't going to have much effect on the sound, but going through a steep canyon or tunnel on the layout will impress a natural change to the sound.
Some food for thought, for sure, but nothing I would spend my time on trying to relate or scale out. I just want my sound to be coming from the loco with reasonable frequency response and dynamics (not tinny) and at a comfortable volume.
The "scale" of sound is tricky, since neither the air or our ears can be scaled down. As noted bass sounds are deminished outdoors, except under certain conditions. BUT, the bass sounds of trains are very loud, very low in frequency and very powerful. While the scaling down process should eliminate the need for loud, the total lack of any real woofer range frequencies from two 1" speakers is the main shortcoming of onboard sound.
I can listen to my stereo at a low volume, push the loudness button and enjoy full sounding bass (through artificial equalization) at a low volume. But if the speakers cannot even hit those frequencies, there is no effect to hear.
Same with sound decoders, all the equalization magic in the world is for nothing without speakers that will play it. Again, I think onboard sound is way cool in larger scales, its just too tinny in HO or smaller.
One other effect I have noticed about sound. On a number of layouts that I operate/visit regularly, there are now many sound equiped locos and their owners have learned the low volume rule. BUT, 1:1 human conversation during the course of our weekly operating sessions has become louder, to beheard over the soft background buzz of EMD prime movers, chuffs, and air pumps. So who is listening? But again, for those who like it - have at it.
Paul - My complaints about the model press started way before and have nothing to do with my choice of control system. If you wish to explore the specifics, send me a PM.
As for passenger cars I understand you view, I held that view for a while myself. I will once again remind you that vast percentages of the steel heavy weight passenger cars of years past where not 80' or 85' long. Since there where many 72' +/- (and many shorter) cars, why would a model in that length look "toy like"? I feel my always touching diaphragms look less toy like than the 1/8" gaps between many of the "out of the box" 85' cars being sold.
We have had the club vs home layout conversation before - I understand and respect your views, for me the hobby is more personal and less social. I like to run, I like to build. It is in fact my interest in running that makes me less of a rivet counter.
OK so I'm a late comer to this thread but... An earlier post divided our hobby into 3 groups, train lovers, modelers, and prototype modlers (rivet counters) Speaking as a person who fits between the 1st 2 groups I can say I would like a budget friendly, integrated, motor and sound decoder. Generic sounds would work for me even though I have the following roster: RS32, C424, U23B, and a couple F7's. Why would this work? Simply because I don't know and don't really care what the originals sound like. Well I could probably pick out a 2 stroke EMD from the others but can't tell the difference between Alco's and GE's. This thread seems to be becoming a bit one sided as the more prototypically correct modelers espouse he virtues of what they do. OK fine for you but it doesn't work for me for various reasons. I think the OP was pointing out that there many decoders availible for specfic prototypes and you're welcome to use them, but for those of us who don't take the hobby so seriously there really isn't anything availible. Besides one can always upgrade later if desired. Think about your first car, was it a brand new Caddy with all the options? No it was probably grandmas old Maveric with vynil seats and MAYBE an AM radio...
As for a wish list of what I'd like to see in a generic soud decoder: motor control with adjustable speed table, 3 funtctions (lights), horn, bell, whitsle and prime mover sounds. Volume control for the various sounds wuold be nice. OTOH a blank decoder that can have whatever sounds you want downloaded seems like it would also be feasable though you would have to get a programer, this would probably be a better option for folks who have 20 or more locos. Speakers will always be a problem and no one size fits all will work so don't include a speaker with the decoder.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
davidmbedard I would sure like to see some pics of AC's 72' passenger cars.....how about it Sheldon? David B
I would sure like to see some pics of AC's 72' passenger cars.....how about it Sheldon?
David B
David, when I get the time to learn/set up some web hosting for photos, I'll post some. And I'll admit, I have yet to really master my digital camera - or maybe the problem is knowing what to do with the pictures once they are on the computer. In any case it has not been a priority for me.
You could send me an e-mail so I can send you the pictures I do have directly or if you are ever in the Mid Atlantic, my invite is still open.
maxman However, I think I'll disagree with your Bach comparison. Apparently, to some, it is not still Bach regardless of who plays it. I'm sure you've read some of the other threads where this or that manufacturer's decoder has the "correct" EMD 567 sound while the other 567s are incorrect. Seems to me that what is being created is the audiophile version of the rivet counter that we all love.
Bach is Bach is Bach. Same with Sibelius and Bartok. Some of us can identify the composer by just the basic melody line played on a cheap radio. Let alone the super expensive--and huge Grand Luxe speaker systems. The thing that would tangle the arguement all up would be just which loke did they use to record the dang engine from? Some engines--even in the same type of loke will sound different. I've gone by my favorite lokes--in this case ALCO's RS11's and found that even though they may have had the same engines there was still enough variance to catch my attention----does that make me a soundwave counter? I don't think so but it does make me wonder about those who argue over whose soundbug is more 'authentic' than who. 'Authentic'? Compared to which?
ruderunnerGeneric sounds would work for me even though I have the following roster: RS32, C424, U23B, and a couple F7's. Why would this work? Simply because I don't know and don't really care what the originals sound like.
100% agreement here. This was the point I was trying to make before. Out of however many members there are to this forum, it seems that there are only about a dozen who regularly post with their opinions as to how this or that decoder does not sound like what they remember from 1960 whatever, or how this or that compressor sound is incorrect for a specific locomotive, or how the horn should be a Leslie not a Nathan.
If people want to pay for that, that's fine with me. But the original question, once again, was is there a market for a good low cost generic sound decoder. All we've heard so far (aside from you and I think one other individual) is the reason why the audiophile nitpickers think there is not a market. And that reason seems to be "because the dozen of us wouldn't buy one".
blownout cylinder maxman However, I think I'll disagree with your Bach comparison. Apparently, to some, it is not still Bach regardless of who plays it. I'm sure you've read some of the other threads where this or that manufacturer's decoder has the "correct" EMD 567 sound while the other 567s are incorrect. Seems to me that what is being created is the audiophile version of the rivet counter that we all love. Bach is Bach is Bach. Same with Sibelius and Bartok. Some of us can identify the composer by just the basic melody line played on a cheap radio. Let alone the super expensive--and huge Grand Luxe speaker systems. The thing that would tangle the arguement all up would be just which loke did they use to record the dang engine from? Some engines--even in the same type of loke will sound different. I've gone by my favorite lokes--in this case ALCO's RS11's and found that even though they may have had the same engines there was still enough variance to catch my attention----does that make me a soundwave counter? I don't think so but it does make me wonder about those who argue over whose soundbug is more 'authentic' than who. 'Authentic'? Compared to which?
First, my condolences to the Bach family. I didn't know that he was ill and had died. Probably spending too much time reading this forum and missed that.
Yes, I know that Bach is Bach. And that even though there are variations it is the same tune. But what I see is that there is disagreement by the "experts" over how the music is performed. Maybe they used the wrong brand of cymbal, or the tamborine played a B instead of a B flat. And the experts are beating their own personal drums in an effort to convince the rest of us that don't know (or in some cases don't care) that one product is superior to another.
You make a good point concerning how two engines of the same model may sound different. You can probably expand upon this and say that the sound is probably different as heard from alongside the engine and inside the cab. So who's to say which is more authentic?
maxmanblownout cylinder maxman Seems to me that what is being created is the audiophile version of the rivet counter that we all love. The thing that would tangle the arguement all up would be just which loke did they use to record the dang engine from? Some engines--even in the same type of loke will sound different. I've gone by my favorite lokes--in this case ALCO's RS11's and found that even though they may have had the same engines there was still enough variance to catch my attention----does that make me a soundwave counter? I don't think so but it does make me wonder about those who argue over whose soundbug is more 'authentic' than who. 'Authentic'? Compared to which? And the experts are beating their own personal drums in an effort to convince the rest of us that don't know (or in some cases don't care) that one product is superior to another. You make a good point concerning how two engines of the same model may sound different. You can probably expand upon this and say that the sound is probably different as heard from alongside the engine and inside the cab. So who's to say which is more authentic?
blownout cylinder maxman Seems to me that what is being created is the audiophile version of the rivet counter that we all love. The thing that would tangle the arguement all up would be just which loke did they use to record the dang engine from? Some engines--even in the same type of loke will sound different. I've gone by my favorite lokes--in this case ALCO's RS11's and found that even though they may have had the same engines there was still enough variance to catch my attention----does that make me a soundwave counter? I don't think so but it does make me wonder about those who argue over whose soundbug is more 'authentic' than who. 'Authentic'? Compared to which?
maxman Seems to me that what is being created is the audiophile version of the rivet counter that we all love.
The thing that would tangle the arguement all up would be just which loke did they use to record the dang engine from? Some engines--even in the same type of loke will sound different. I've gone by my favorite lokes--in this case ALCO's RS11's and found that even though they may have had the same engines there was still enough variance to catch my attention----does that make me a soundwave counter? I don't think so but it does make me wonder about those who argue over whose soundbug is more 'authentic' than who. 'Authentic'? Compared to which?
And the experts are beating their own personal drums in an effort to convince the rest of us that don't know (or in some cases don't care) that one product is superior to another.
Disclaimer: quotes have been snipped for bandwidth. Hopefully, I kept the gist of what was being said.
Got 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)."
When I first started model railroading as a young adult, I was going to become a master modeler. Who would think of doing any less detail than they were capable of? Everything had to be done to the highest level of modeling possible - as displayed in the photos in Model Railroader. And I was going to have the ultimate - a layout that advanced year for year in its modeled era, starting in 1876 (a hundred years earlier). Ah! - to be young and dream big. Needless to say, I failed at my goal. Miserably. I had no clue how time consuming accurate modeling was, and I certainly had no idea of how much the prototype changed over the years. In fact, I had next to no knowledge of the prototype; I was really seeking to model the best layouts of Model Railroader. I had no clue that I was actually modeling a model.
Kids came along, and I shifted to O 3rail, with mostly MPC-era and low-end post-war Lionel. No worries about realism there! And instead of getting kids interested, it once again became Dad's hobby as I fussed over my precious post-war acquisitions and collections. I had fun with the operating accessories even if the kids didn't.
But field trips with the kids and for business generated an interest in things prototype that I didn't have before. Now I have a real interest in making my free-lance model railways just as plausible as I can. I've redesigned over minor conflicts with existing geography and history that wouldn't pass my plausibility test. Then I see pictures of some Aussie modelers with breath-taking Louisiana bayou scenery, and I know the realism level I want to achieve.
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.
And 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.
I see the sound decoder market direction very much like the locomotive, and even the car market. Nobody dares to come out with a brand new generic anymore. It doesn't sell to those who want and can afford more. And it doesn't sell to those who are willing to be convinced that greater realism should be their goal. Finally, the cost difference in manufacturing is much smaller than we cheapskates would hope. Existing tooling and designs - which can lower costs enough - is the only way for generics to stay in business. So my prediction is that the MRC decoders are going to be about it for the generic sound decoder market.
my thoughts, yours may differ
Fred W
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.