wedudler And you have to have the money for sound decoders.
Or get darn lucky and find the dang switchers with sound decoders already in them in a thrift store like I did for Pete sake
If not then-------
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/
I have 12 engines, 3 of them have sound. Experience shows that the sound engines get the most use. The only down side is that the granddaughters blow the horns and whistle almost constantly.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
sound is good in moderation, to much sound can be very overwhelming but then again if you adjust all your sound locomotives then it isnt a problem unless of course you have that one operator that leaves the bell on
I run heavy electrics, so the sound is built in to the mechanism. Humming and gear noise! Growing up along the tracks of the New Haven, and riding subways in NY, wheel, gear whine, and motor noise seems to be the main show. You don't need digital sound for that. The models are their own synthesizers, and it's analog, like the real ones. You can't beat that!
I grew up with American Flyer locos, and fell asleep many a night listening through the ducts to my father's S gauge engines chuffing away in the basement. So, sound is nothing new to me. I have watched and listened to many actual steam locos in 1:1 as well as live steam scales. Much of BLI's engine sound is superfluous, and couldn't be heard at the scale distances at which we watch our trains. Some obvious sounds which I've noticed when watching real steam, such as rod clank with the throttle closed, don't seem to be simulated at all.
Having run live steam engines, I do enjoy the sound, and one of the pleasures is the variation in exhaust as you hook up (reduce cutoff) as the engine gets to cruising speed. I listen for that in the BLI engines, but I can't hear it happening. Also, the direct mechanical pleasure of operating an actually-mechanical loco bypasses the weird button-pushing and codes that are involved in digital control. Coding in commands on a keypad is NOT what steam or early diesel railroading was about. It just ain't natural!
At speed, a steam locomotive's exhaust is more of a pulsing roar than a discrete chug chug chug, and my imagination seems capable of bridging the gap between the rumble and grinding of an old-school, all-metal model locomotive, and any attempts at simulating the actual sounds and playing them through a 1" speaker in the tender.
In spite of the above, I generally like the BLI steam locos for their sound, but I am already committed to a fleet of non-digital-sound engines, and I am not about to go spending a few more thousand dollars (and countless hours) re-vamping them with sound. The short half-life of digital technology also deters me. Sound systems from last year are obsolete next year. The year after, the off-train controls become non-backwards compatible (I think).
And one more thing: riding real steam locos and watching them from trackside, the exhaust sounds are dependent on the "scenery" for resonance, echoes, and all kinds of modulation. I don't hear any of that in digital sound. It has a dead quality.
Other than that, I like sound!
When properly set volumes, i.e.: what you hear at a scale 1000 feet = what you hear on the prototype at 1000 feet., I find it makes me want to run everything prototypically, thus enhancing the enjoyment! I allow time for everything, from pumping up the air, standing brake test, to slowing to a crawl to allow the switchman to get off, throw a switch, and wave me through. Also having the proper whistle and bell signals adds to it all. We are after all modelling Railroading! John
Robt. LivingstonAlso, the direct mechanical pleasure of operating an actually-mechanical loco bypasses the weird button-pushing and codes that are involved in digital control. Coding in commands on a keypad is NOT what steam or early diesel railroading was about. It just ain't natural!
Also, the direct mechanical pleasure of operating an actually-mechanical loco bypasses the weird button-pushing and codes that are involved in digital control. Coding in commands on a keypad is NOT what steam or early diesel railroading was about. It just ain't natural!
I agree with you on this point for sure. The way everything is crammed into a controller with a keypad is an incredibly tortuous experience. I would like to see better throttles. If there's any dcc throttle-makers out there that would like to discuss an idea for a new product, let me know.
I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one with a gripe about the keypads. When I was an industrial design student c. 1970, transistor throttles with acceleration and braking were the latest thing. A friend of mine took the TAT IV schematic from model Railroader, and built up a prototype model of a throttle using heavy, machined components. He used a rack and pinion gear to drive the speed control potentiometer, with a brass lever handle that resembled the throttle of a steam locomotive. It was an artful job, and the engineer felt like he was pulling the throttle of a real locomotive.
I like my DT400 and I also like the UT4 that my 5 year old granddaughter uses so she can't get in trouble.
Robt. LivingstonI'm glad to hear I'm not the only one with a gripe about the keypads.
Same here, the 32 buttons, endless wheel knobs, and small computer icon displays are all reasons I stayed with DC.
When I was seriously considering DCC, Easy DCC was the only wireless handheld that looked easy to use.
When I operate on friends Digitrax DCC layouts, I always try to get the UT4R!
Sheldon
I have 58 locomotives, 30 of them have sound. Everything new either comes from the factory with sound or I already have plans to add sound when I purchase it. The others I am slowly going back and adding sound. Finding room for the speaker is generally the #1 challenge. I personally like sound and feel it adds another level of realism. Is it the same as having your teeth rattle when you are standing 50' away from a Dash 9 as it roars by ? No. But compared to total quiet, except for the clicking of the wheels, I find it adds something. I am just realistic as to how much realism you can get from a 1" speaker.
Engineer Jeff NS Nut Visit my layout at: http://www.thebinks.com/trains/
Phoebe Vet I have 12 engines, 3 of them have sound. Experience shows that the sound engines get the most use. The only down side is that the granddaughters blow the horns and whistle almost constantly.
Same here. My sound units get far more usage than the nonsound units. I'll often consist a couple of sound units with a nonsound unit, just so the nonsound unit gets some usage.
The day I give up my DT400 is the day they pry it from my cold....oh, okay, it has been done before. Well, it was a good saying, and applies to me in spades. I like buttons, even if they don't pertain to any train produced before about 1940. I don't have an interest in analogs to a real train throttle because I am not interested in anything more than enjoying my sound equipped steamers as if I were an observer somewhere near the tracks. If it takes a couple of presses and a knob twirl to get them underway, that's just marvy.
I had soundless engines years ago, and it just isn't the same fun for me unless they have a speaker and that tinny, staticky sound. Frankly, all the gear noise when they run quiet puts me off...I wonder if it is going to fail ere long.
-Crandell
Three pages of respectfull opinions and insightfull comments and no flaming - I guess we really can all just get along after all.
Seriously, I will admit, that even at what I consider the poor sound quality of HO or smaller scale onboard sound, the idea of a one locomotive, intimate setting, small layout with sound makes sense and can be very effective. That is however a modeling goal not on my current goal list.
With my current goal, modeling a larger system, with multiple trains running all the time, I find the competing noise of several sound equiped locomotives very unpleasant.
And, as noted before, in a larger scale, with that one loco senerio, it would be a yes.
Robt. LivingstonI'm glad to hear I'm not the only one with a gripe about the keypads. When I was an industrial design student c. 1970, transistor throttles with acceleration and braking were the latest thing. A friend of mine took the TAT IV schematic from model Railroader, and built up a prototype model of a throttle using heavy, machined components. He used a rack and pinion gear to drive the speed control potentiometer, with a brass lever handle that resembled the throttle of a steam locomotive. It was an artful job, and the engineer felt like he was pulling the throttle of a real locomotive.
Yes, that sounds like the kind of thing I'd like to do. I have some specific features I'd put in though.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Three pages of respectfull opinions and insightfull comments and no flaming - I guess we really can all just get along after all. Seriously, I will admit, that even at what I consider the poor sound quality of HO or smaller scale onboard sound, the idea of a one locomotive, intimate setting, small layout with sound makes sense and can be very effective. That is however a modeling goal not on my current goal list. With my current goal, modeling a larger system, with multiple trains running all the time, I find the competing noise of several sound equiped locomotives very unpleasant. And, as noted before, in a larger scale, with that one loco senerio, it would be a yes. Sheldon
Sheldon:
I think the reason it's stayed--and will probably stay--respectful is that we all realize that sound (or not) is an extremely individual and personal thing. For myself, I've enjoyed reading the really disparate responses from a number of fellow modelers that I happen to respect quite a bit.
For instance, I got a huge kick out of Crandall saying how much he loves keypads (they scare the whack out of me, LOL!). I remember a buddy of mine who works at my LHS letting me run a keypad with one of the BLI steam locos on a DCC test-track when I mentioned that I was 'curious' about DCC. I got partway through it (nervously) and finally blurted, "Where's the *** THROTTLE?" End of experiment, but I had to admire his absolute virtuosity with the darned thing when he took over for me. It's a learning process, but frankly I'm afraid that during the 'learning' process itself, I'll have one of my lovely brass steamers somehwere at the bottom of one of my many canyons.
The neat thing about this hobby is that there's room for all of us--sound/non-sound, DC/DCC. For me, that's what makes not only the hobby, but many of my fellow hobbyists Great.
Okay, now back to that terrific big 1962 brass DC Yellowstone of mine that I use to raise and lower the garage door and sounds like a coffee-grinder doing a pot-ful of Vienna Roast, LOL!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
twhiteOkay, now back to that terrific big 1962 brass DC Yellowstone of mine that I use to raise and lower the garage door and sounds like a coffee-grinder doing a pot-ful of Vienna Roast, LOL!
You use that poor thing to lift up the drawbridge?.
The RS's that have sound tend to be run in our house one at a time--if I'm running them myself. I generally like their sounds
The concept of sound adding to the overall feeling of railroading condensed to HO size is good but collides with the laws of physics for the time being. I am watching the development of the Sountraxx system using locomotive mounted transponders and multiple channels and speakers to follow a train through the model railroad. The benefit to me would be the depth of the sound afforded by bookcase speakers; their depth of sound in particular the bass frequencies that HO locomotive mounted speakers cannot attain in today's world.
Quick math tells me it will be likely be more expensive but that to me that would be offset by the overall contribution to the perception of a real railroad being observed.
Texas Zepher twhiteWell, after thinking about it, there is one sound that makes me kinda/sorta grin and chuckle, and that's the cattle in the BLI 'sound' cattle car. When I first saw those I thought how silly and toy like. But I found a sale of them and purchased one for a friend. We had so much fun with that car that I went back and got a fleet of them. They are a big hit where ever I take them.
twhiteWell, after thinking about it, there is one sound that makes me kinda/sorta grin and chuckle, and that's the cattle in the BLI 'sound' cattle car.
Did you add the ole factory smells?
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Let's NOT get into smells! (Diesel fumes, overheated journals, high-sulfur coal...)
I'll readily admit that some folks have a love affair with their sound-equipped locomotives. Unfortunately, there are several factors that prevent me from joining their party:
In light of the above, I think that I'll continue the tradition of the Submarine Service by running silent.
Just my . Other opinions are legitimately different.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with catenary motors that sound like their prototypes and steamers that don't)
A lot of people have made an issue of the inability of those small speakers to reproduce the rich base and volume of the real thing.
I'm curious, do you really want that kind of sound filling your house and train room?
If you stand, say, 200 feet away from a real steam locomotive, it should sound the same as an HO loco that you are viewing at 200/87, or 2.3 feet. Pretty typical distance for model railroading.
Now, those of us fortunate enough to have seen real working steam locomotives may be spoiled for simulated sound. It could be that the model railroaders who buy the sound equipped engines, with ever more complex menus of accessory sound, have not had a face full of steam. I really don't know. I expect several to sound off on that issue, and assure us that they own and drive real steam locomotives, on real mainlines, under actual working railroad conditions, every day.
In any case, I am not an enemy of sound; I rather like model steam locos that go "chug chug chug." But for all the reasons outlined on this thread, but primarily cost and practicality, I won't be adding sound to my engines any time soon. I think the real way to do it is to get the sound system out of the engine altogether, with multiple speakers all over the room. Given the nature of computers, I'm sure it could all be programmed so that each loco has a signature read by a central processor, knows where every loco is, and modulates the sound depending on whether it is on the invisible staging or out in the open, or, say, passing a cliff or a building that throws back an echo. And on and on. But today, spending all that time and money to upgrade an existing railroad full of engines isn't likely, at least for me.
I treat is all as an adjunct to a grand illusion. My imagination fills in all the missing stuff, and that includes the bass. If I had really high-fidelity sound of a real steamer, my wife would not be very happy with me. Our dog could not be near us when we used our home theatre sound system with woofer making all the monster or heavy equipment growls and roars in movie soundtracks. So, I am content with making up any deficiencies in my head.
duckdoggerQuick math tells me it will be likely be more expensive but that to me that would be offset by the overall contribution to the perception of a real railroad being observed.
Actually, depending on layout size and concept, and as the size of the loco fleet increases, layout based sound may well be less expensive than onboard sound. Once fully installed, each new loco would be a software programing issue with no hardware.
Robt. Livingston If you stand, say, 200 feet away from a real steam locomotive, it should sound the same as an HO loco that you are viewing at 200/87, or 2.3 feet. Pretty typical distance for model railroading. Now, those of us fortunate enough to have seen real working steam locomotives may be spoiled for simulated sound. It could be that the model railroaders who buy the sound equipped engines, with ever more complex menus of accessory sound, have not had a face full of steam. I really don't know. I expect several to sound off on that issue, and assure us that they own and drive real steam locomotives, on real mainlines, under actual working railroad conditions, every day. In any case, I am not an enemy of sound; I rather like model steam locos that go "chug chug chug." But for all the reasons outlined on this thread, but primarily cost and practicality, I won't be adding sound to my engines any time soon. I think the real way to do it is to get the sound system out of the engine altogether, with multiple speakers all over the room. Given the nature of computers, I'm sure it could all be programmed so that each loco has a signature read by a central processor, knows where every loco is, and modulates the sound depending on whether it is on the invisible staging or out in the open, or, say, passing a cliff or a building that throws back an echo. And on and on. But today, spending all that time and money to upgrade an existing railroad full of engines isn't likely, at least for me.
Robert, we are definately in the same camp on this for almost the exact same reasons.
I'd like to try and find some way to eventually get headphones to work on a wireless sound system----then that's just me dreaming right now
Now that we have mastered sound I feel that the next advancement in model railroading will be smell. Envision, if you will, a 75 car train of coal hoppers descending Cajon, brakes squealing, blue smoke drifting out from under the cars straining against the pull of gravity with the all invasive odor of hot composite material. Each car will have on its trucks a smoke and odor generator. My rendering plant and stockyards will certainly limit the number of visitors to my layout!
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
BRAKIETexas Zephertwhitethe cattle in the BLI 'sound' cattle car. I found a sale of them and purchased one for a friend.Did you add the ole factory smells?
Texas Zephertwhitethe cattle in the BLI 'sound' cattle car. I found a sale of them and purchased one for a friend.
twhitethe cattle in the BLI 'sound' cattle car.
For those of you who missed that particular joke and wonder what we are talking about here is the URL:
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/89603/1055243.aspx
Phoebe VetA lot of people have made an issue of the inability of those small speakers to reproduce the rich base and volume of the real thing. I'm curious, do you really want that kind of sound filling your house and train room?
I want to feel the floor rumble and the walls shake... but not upset my wife upstairs... is that so much to ask ???
:)
Robt. LivingstonIf you stand, say, 200 feet away from a real steam locomotive, it should sound the same as an HO loco that you are viewing at 200/87, or 2.3 feet. Pretty typical distance for model railroading.Now, those of us fortunate enough to have seen real working steam locomotives may be spoiled for simulated sound. It could be that the model railroaders who buy the sound equipped engines, with ever more complex menus of accessory sound, have not had a face full of steam. I really don't know. I expect several to sound off on that issue, and assure us that they own and drive real steam locomotives, on real mainlines, under actual working railroad conditions, every day. In any case, I am not an enemy of sound; I rather like model steam locos that go "chug chug chug." But for all the reasons outlined on this thread, but primarily cost and practicality, I won't be adding sound to my engines any time soon. I think the real way to do it is to get the sound system out of the engine altogether, with multiple speakers all over the room. Given the nature of computers, I'm sure it could all be programmed so that each loco has a signature read by a central processor, knows where every loco is, and modulates the sound depending on whether it is on the invisible staging or out in the open, or, say, passing a cliff or a building that throws back an echo. And on and on. But today, spending all that time and money to upgrade an existing railroad full of engines isn't likely, at least for me.
I think the best approach is likely to be a hybrid. There are both directional and non-directional aspects to the sounds. The deep bass and rumble are largely non-directional. So the largest remaining factors are magnitude (volume) and proximity. The midrange and high-frequency sounds on the other hand are highly directional and would probably sound strange coming from external speakers, no matter how good the tracking and 3d location was. There's always going to be a slight discrepancy between what you see and what you hear in an "all-external" solution. But if you have a decent system that can follow the trains "reasonably well", the locos can put out small sound to help you connect the sound to the loco, while the external speakers "fill-in" the details and lower-frequency sounds-- and the floor rumbling.