|
|
Post by bnsffan on Sept 24, 2013 6:16:33 GMT -8
I have never worked for a railroad, or spent a lot of time around a railroad. However, I did make one patrol on a Guppy III which had four GMV16s, two of which were snorkel adapted. After that I spent many years on Nucs some of which had an FM10 located beneath my bunk.
Now with that out of the way, I like models that are DCC/sound ready right out of the box. I am slowly replacing my SD40-2s and C30-7s with SD70ACes and SD70MACS.
Respectfully,
BNSF Fan
|
|
|
|
Post by brokenrail on Sept 24, 2013 10:27:42 GMT -8
A lot of engineers (mostly new ones) don't like running with the lead unit isolated because it takes away some of the feel. The noise of an engine going through throttle changes adds to the "feel" of running a locomotive. In the older power many would disconnect the pipe that vented the air through the floor so they'd get that satisfying feeling of the brakes working. I don't need either but then I've been at it for a long time. I'd think that the sound of a model engine revving up would help one feel the throttle in the same way even if the sound wasn't pitch perfect.
The concept of the this survey was pretty obvious. After a day of sitting in noisy locomotive do we want more of the same at home? The answer, as stated above, was turn it down. We don't need the ear-splitting volume. A lot of us think running SD40's and especially the later -2's were the "good old days" and for good reason. They were great engines. However my biggest gripe with them was the noise. I much prefer the modern cabs that are far quieter.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Sept 24, 2013 11:27:18 GMT -8
SNIP The concept of the this survey was pretty obvious. After a day of sitting in noisy locomotive do we want more of the same at home? The answer, as stated above, was turn it down. We don't need the ear-splitting volume... Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. I'm not sure your conclusion that sound is OK at a reasonable volume, which actually matched my conclusion, was the conclusion drawn by the survey maker, though, but I'll let him speak to that. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Sept 25, 2013 13:47:35 GMT -8
Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. I'm not sure your conclusion that sound is OK at a reasonable volume, which actually matched my conclusion, was the conclusion drawn by the survey maker, though, but I'll let him speak to that. The survey consisted of just two Yes or No questions, so I draw no conclusions concerning volume. All I wanted to know was railroads vs. non-railroaders preferences with sound equipped model locomotives. Robert, OK. One conclusion you did draw was this: My primary purpose was to look at railroaders vs. non-railroaders preferences, not the overall sound vs. no sound numbers. As I suspected, railroaders are more likely to not like sound effects. 36% more likely. As a railroader, and long-time modeler, I suspect the reason is that railroaders realize, more than non-railroaders, that the sounds that they are so familiar with just do not scale down well- at all.Is it possible that part of that 36% really doesn't have much to do with model train sound fidelity or not, per se? Given that railroaders are more likely (I'm not sure how much, but maybe someone knows some stats?) to suffer from job-related hearing loss, could it be that part of the difference is accounted for by a general dislike of background sound that interferes with conversation, etc when one is unfortunately suffering from it? In that case, it has less to do with the fidelity of the sound output than with the fact that it's there at all? That's one reason why I keep sound levels low on my layout. I am curious if one of your interests in the survey is improved sound fidelity in model locos? There are ways to achieve that now, but it's a bit of a hack. And then there's the issue of low-frequency sound being perceived as omnidirectional, which complicates the whole idea of multiple locos operating in even large size layout rooms if super-realistic sound reproduction was available RTR. Maybe the next step up after super-realistic sound would be the super realistic layout lengths needed to properly take advantage of it by spreading operations out rather more realistically than most of us able to achieve crammed in our basements? That would be a boon to clubs and, well, rich folks, but would kind of leave the rest of us in the dust, just having to be happy with our super realistic models without the facilities to accommodate super realistic sound operations. |
|
|
|
Post by nscaler711 on Oct 4, 2013 3:43:21 GMT -8
Not a RR employee, but I like Sound. I live 30+ minutes away from mainline trains in any direction so listening to HO Diesels rumble actually calms me down... and kinda gives me my daily dose for my addiction, is there a Loves Trains Anonymous around? That and I like tooting my own horn...  |
|
|
|
Post by sd40t2 on Oct 4, 2013 5:40:21 GMT -8
Railroad engineer.
Q1: Y
Q2: Y
Have to join the group that says they miss the bass.
However, being an engineer the sounds heard in the cab of on a hard working engine are way different than those heard on the outside. I mean the growl of the traction motors and the exhaust.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Oct 4, 2013 6:41:24 GMT -8
Railroad engineer. Q1: Y Q2: Y Have to join the group that says they miss the bass. However, being an engineer the sounds heard in the cab of on a hard working engine are way different than those heard on the outside. I mean the growl of the traction motors and the exhaust. sd40t2, Now that's a new perspective on things! Never thought of it like that. Maybe some enterprising manufacturer will latch onto that idea and provide a CV to toggle the sound from "outside" to "inside the cab"? Which leads to another great idea, maybe one that both sound partisans and sound-h8ters could agree on -- wireless, DCC/Sound-enabled headphones.   Full-coverage headphones have been used by kids for years, seeking da thump in music by means of this portable, mostly unobtrusive device. In one fell swoop, the biggest problem of super-realistic sound is solved at the same time innocent bystanders who prefer their engines quiet except for all those grinding BlueBox gears don't have to listen to your racket. 'Da Thump 'phones would be hooked up wirelessly to the DCC command station and transmit the sound of the engine you're controlling. Next year, we'll add another exciting feature to 'Da Thump -- 'Da Thump Glass, where a tiny heads up display attached to 'Da Thump 'phones feeds us info on our loco's performance, remaining fuel, CV settings, etc, as well as up coming signals and an online car card database that allows you to do away with toting all those pesky cards around the layout any more. Genius! |
|
|
|
Post by sd40t2 on Oct 4, 2013 7:40:27 GMT -8
I think it is allready there:
- sounddecoder under the layout, connected to a PC.
- sound goes from PC via Bluetooth to wireless headphone.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Oct 4, 2013 12:37:39 GMT -8
I think it is allready there: - sounddecoder under the layout, connected to a PC. - sound goes from PC via Bluetooth to wireless headphone. Yeah, but you have to actually know how to make something like that work, get your hands dirty, get the soldering iron hot maybe. I'm talking about getting rich from the crowd who are seeking an off-the-shelf, open-the-box branded solution to life's problems ... Seriously, I haven't really looked into these things, mostly heard people chatting about them from time to time. But it mostly seems like solo folks looking to put da thump beneath the layout. Supporting 8 users with headphones in a typical ops session tends to scale rapidly if you're also transmitting 8 channels of audio over the wireless link, although maybe that could be built into the user side, the "decoder onboard user" model, so to speak. That's a bit of a different twist, but would better support multiple users than something adapted from under-the-layout. |
|
|
|
Post by sd40t2 on Oct 5, 2013 1:16:35 GMT -8
I agree, but don't loose Murphy out of your sight. While the ears are half plugged, the sound of a derailed car won't be heard and a wreck will be right around the corner.  |
|
|
|
Post by nscaler711 on Oct 5, 2013 3:11:05 GMT -8
I agree, but don't loose Murphy out of your sight. While the ears are half plugged, the sound of a derailed car won't be heard and a wreck will be right around the corner. not necessarily true... every once and while i run trains with ear buds in, and have yet to not notice a derailment... of course when i do the ear buds come out and minor languages problems appear |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Oct 5, 2013 3:23:54 GMT -8
I agree, but don't loose Murphy out of your sight. While the ears are half plugged, the sound of a derailed car won't be heard and a wreck will be right around the corner. not necessarily true... every once and while i run trains with ear buds in, and have yet to not notice a derailment... of course when i do the ear buds come out and minor languages problems appear Got a solution for that. Just need a tiny microphone embedded in the decoder on each engine that is optimized to pick up the clatter of wheels bouncing along the ties. That might be a little tricky to implement if you like to run 150-car freight's, although maybe a good reason to set-up the motive power to run as DPU... |
|
|
|
Post by bnsf971 on Oct 5, 2013 4:42:15 GMT -8
I have several friends that are railroaders, and their opinion of sound seems to depend on what job they performed on the railroad. For those in engine service, it was almost 8-1 against sound, and those working on the ground, was 3-4 for sound. The engine service crowd almost to the man told me after many years of sitting in the cab a few feet from a screaming turbocharger on an EMD or a thumping, banging, whooping compressor and blower on a GE or ALCo for 12 hours at a time, they never wanted to hear that noise again.
I can relate, because my primary career for about 35 years was in the auto and truck industry, and the last thing I want to do is listen to a car or truck running while I am trying to relax.
|
|
