|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 6, 2014 5:22:05 GMT -8
Ok, as someone who doesn't always need sound equipped engines, it is my hope that we are not heading down the path BLI has taken, where future engines only come with sound, thereby forcing everyone to pay the extra bucks for something that some of us simply do not require.
I will be happy as a clam as long as manufacturers continue to offer the DCC-ready, non-sound engines--but if/when it changes over to BLI's model of forcing you to buy the extra stuff you may or may not need, well, then the used stuff out there will become much more valuable.
My 2c only. YMMV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2014 5:50:27 GMT -8
Ok, as someone who doesn't always need sound equipped engines, it is my hope that we are not heading down the path BLI has taken, where future engines only come with sound, thereby forcing everyone to pay the extra bucks for something that some of us simply do not require. I will be happy as a clam as long as manufacturers continue to offer the DCC-ready, non-sound engines--but if/when it changes over to BLI's model of forcing you to buy the extra stuff you may or may not need, well, then the used stuff out there will become much more valuable. My 2c only. YMMV. I think the word "force" is perfect for describing BLI's sound only selection. It wouldn't be so bad if the sound decoder used by BLI didn't suck pond water. There are many that would PREFER to do their own installs using the decoder OF THEIR CHOICE. I have two theories, and they are only my educated guesses, for BLI's only offering sound/dcc. One, it simplifies the manufacturing process. They tell the factory we need 10,000 SD40-2's. The factory pumps them out and doesn't have to change the line when it comes to assembling the drives. The other thought, is that reservations for sound so outpaced DCC ready, that by dropping the DCC ready it resulted in a savings in the manufacturing. |
|
|
|
Post by bnsf971 on Oct 6, 2014 6:38:21 GMT -8
Jim, I know in the car business, it does result in a manufacturing cost savings if every vehicle has for example power steering and automatic transmission.
I would guess the same would hold true in any manufacturing process. The fewer times the line has to be stopped to change options, the more savings in labor time and number of different parts needed should result in lower per unit costs.
Also, if a hobby shop wants to order one of each item, they only have one item to order rather than two.
I remember both GE and EMD discouraging standard cab unit orders, first charging more for the standard cab, then finally not even offering it as an extra cost option. BLI seems to have followed that business model with sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 6, 2014 7:31:46 GMT -8
I humbly offer theory #3: Actual pre-orders for all units were trending down so low that they were forced to make the "DCC/Sound only" selection just to hit the minimum build quantities. Better to have 2 road numbers made one way or in one version, than to attempt to have two versions each of two road numbers...ie four total stock numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brakie on Oct 6, 2014 8:25:56 GMT -8
Mark,I wonder if the speaker from a broken ipods,ipads,cell phone etc could be salvaged and used? I'm way ahead of you on this. I put a speaker out of an obsolete cell phone in a GP38: Sounds pretty dang good..Thanks. I like sound but,the current speaker in my Atlas older Classic GP38 doesn't seem to be getting the job done. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark R. on Oct 6, 2014 15:45:27 GMT -8
Speakers with enclosures from current electronic devices are available all over ebay for dirt cheap. The trick is knowing which ones sound the best. I regularly ask people to play something on their electronic device so I can note the sound quality and the model it came from.
Mark.
|
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Oct 6, 2014 18:27:04 GMT -8
Wow, this one is off to an ugly start. I thought it was a thread to discuss what's coming up with sound -- at least by the title - then find it's mostly a hearts-on-the-sleeve "Why I hate sound..." thread. I can understand people understanding there's going to be disagreement on the internet, but seriously, there's more than enough electrons to go around so that "Why I hate sound..." can be it's own thread. Then both points of view might get a chance to achieve something...although I'm not exactly sure what that would be for the "Why I hate sound..." folks, since it looks like sound is here to stay. Maybe it's the weird yardsticks that get used in this game. Now, this is just my opinion, so it is what it is and not intended to argue that if you feel different that's just wrong...as it's not. But I think it shows the starkly different epistemological baggage we bring as individuals to these discussions... Why would you even expect a model to sound exactly like a real loco? Where does the imagination come into play there? To do that you get a real loco.  And imagination is then strictly optional. But then what's the point in the model?  Philosophy is fun, because I think we often don't think through the implications of our expectations. If I was expecting a real loco awaiting me when I open the layout room door I just wouldn't see the point in building the model, because the model is absolutely certain to fall short, every time. And besides, I've got the real thing, since it's the only true thing anyway. In fact, the more I worry about it being an exacting miniature copy of the original, the more disappointed I'm likely to be in my efforts. I gave up that approach years ago. Sometimes it's very much like the original, sometimes the original is in spirit only by the time I finish with it. I enjoy even more hacking that into something that is truly my own. I simply enjoy building things. But in the end it is a model, not a miniature whatever, in my eyes. Now I just enjoy building the model, do the best I can, and generally find at the end that it's a believe and credible result, thanks to the wizards that put together the stuff we build with. It's the practice of building that makes me better, not the paralysis of angst over what's not quite right. Besides, I've generally found in life that if you're getting some things wrong, it's because you're getting a lot of things right. You can't fail if you don't try. Now I feel better, but will have to come back later to discuss what I think the future of DCC holds. Obsession with perfection is a giant energy suck that leaves me exhausted and whatever I'm trying to do no closer to being accomplished. That's why I find it so useless to being creative. Yes, do the research, know the limitations of your materials and your skills, but then be happy and build. |
|
|
|
Post by rockisland652 on Oct 6, 2014 19:53:58 GMT -8
Tsu II is coming...I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by lvrr325 on Oct 7, 2014 2:24:15 GMT -8
I just don't want to pay an extra $100 a locomotive to have sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 7, 2014 6:08:10 GMT -8
I don't hate sound, but I said after a few laps it becomes mind numbing for me so I just don't need it...and in HO it has most often been rather poorly executed due to speaker size/enclosure issues, etc.
I'm not totally against sound per se, but in a discussion of value for the dollar spent, I do think sound is generally over-rated.
I actually have several engines on hand that have sound and DCC, and for what they offer, they were not worth the extra $100, period.
Let's see: The BLI Santa Fe 4-8-4 has generally crappy sound that cuts out at any given time it is running and 3 whistle options--all of which are wrong relative to the prototype, and the smoke blowing fan already died after only a few hours running (but that's a separate QA/QC issue for another thread entirely). The BLI E-7 has ok sound, though I'm pretty sure it's not the correct sound and horns for that engine, either. The Proto 2000 GP-30 has ok sound, but you can hardly hear it and there were no--zero--instructions at all with the model regarding how to adjust its sound settings. At least BLI does a good job of listing all their cv's so the buyer can easily make sound adjustments. I will applaud BLI for doing that well. Previously, I owned a series of Alco RSD-15's, a couple earlier model Bowser Centuries, A few Atlas units, some Athearn Genesis F Units and SD45-2's, and Proto 2000 U30B's and RS-27's that had sound.
Of all those, the Proto 2000 RS-27's sounded the best to my ear, but of course I did not see/hear the real ones--ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 6:21:46 GMT -8
I don't hate sound, but I said after a few laps it becomes mind numbing for me so I just don't need it...and in HO it has most often been rather poorly executed due to speaker size/enclosure issues, etc. I do not want to be forced to buy sound only, for the extra $100, as BLI is now forcing their buyers to accept. I'm in full agreement with Mexico, that the sound or nothing with BLI is a burr under my saddle. Sound is very personal. If a decoder doesn't put out what I like as far as sound, being forced to accept that AND pay the higher price is a turn off and very possibly a no sale. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Oct 7, 2014 6:27:14 GMT -8
I just don't want to pay an extra $100 a locomotive to have sound. I sorta feel the same way about automatic transmissions. Finally ended up owning a vehicle with one because finding a decent manual transmission vehicle these days is a lot harder than finding a non-sound loco. Yet I do not see much point in complaining about this. There are more important battles to fight than one that's already been lost. Consumers tend to buy locos with sound, just like they want cars with auto transmissions, and vendors bring things to market that meet those needs. Assuming DCC/sound is here to stay, those who don't want to hear more about that can now be dismissed from class... One of the first things/low-hanging fruit that comes to mind is to tie the sound decoder in a loco into a supplemental under-the-layout sound system with enough speakers and amplification to satisfy most folks ears. Those who like it loud will be happy, although even here I doubt it will be the same as the real is. I don't see much need, as I keep my sound decoder volume low in order to help selectively compress (maybe "expand" in this case) the sound to make the loco seem more distant than it is. I've seen reports of people experimenting with this by using stationary decoders. Surroundtrax by Sountraxx is a step in this direction and could be enhanced to incorporate a more sophisticated approach like this, but it's obviously a field where lots of different ideas could pop up. More drop-in decoders: As more features like lighting and supplemental sounds are added, the wiring requirements escalate inside the shell. The Euro 21-pin decoder interface is one example trying to address this wiring proliferation. Use of fiber optics is another solution. Standardization of the decoder interface is likely to be followed by more standardization of decoder form factors so that the days of hacking weights, etc to get decoders and speakers to fit are likely waning. Decoders as internet appliances: Now that your home security system, refrigerator, and baby monitor can all be online, why not a similar interface for DCC systems? Then each decoder will be individually addressable. Need new sound files? Search the internet than download them directly to the decoder. Problem with the decoder? With your consent, the mfg could then go into the decoder and check to see what the problem is and maybe even offer an update to the software they can download to the decoder. Decoders so expensive people start stealing them like cars and phones? Expect that individual decoders will have the equivalent of a MAC address, a specific identify for that decoder. Someone steals your loco at a public show? Do what many car and phone users have done and install and app that will track your loco on the internet if the thief is dumb enough to log it onto the internet. More decoders for rolling stock. The SoundCar from Soundtraxx is a good beginning, along some past work on stock cars and reefer sound units. A whole train of cars emitting air, brake, flange squall, and various other sounds that cars make as they roll along could be incorporated into what is effectively a rolling mural of sound. It' might not be real, but the sounds of trains come from lots of other places than the head-end power. What's come along so far has just scratched the surface. Tininess: Electronics keep getting smaller, although things that are too small can be hard to hold and operate. In any case, expect decoders to keep shrinking. On-board support for LEDs: This is some low-hanging fruit that a few decoders now provide via SMD transistors right on the board. Look for this to become the defacto standard on boards, particularly smaller ones designed for tight mounting spaces. RTR SMD lighting: Detail vendors could start offering headlight assemblies that package SMD LEDs in a realistic reflector inside the headlight assembly. Same thing with marker lights. These will be standradized so they plu and play well with decoders. Paperless operating systems: Yeah! No more car cards to fumble with, it'll all display on your throttle. Onboard cameras proliferate to operate: While usually something done as a one-off video tour of the layout with current technology, cameras and transmitters are getting small and cheap enough that locos may start coming equipped with a camera and you'll be able to operate it via the video. This will make operating those layouts with narrow aisles easier, as most operators can be located outside the layout room and log in remotely. Stationary terminals would be available, but I suspect most will incorporate a DH video display right on your throttle just like your phone gives you now. Wearable throttles: We already have various vests and pouches to hold all the paperwork, pencils, uncoupling probes, etc. Mobile computing technology is turning towards wearable computers. Put the two trends together I say and no more expensive dropped throttles. |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 7, 2014 7:00:57 GMT -8
I actually liked the supplemental, under the layout sound systems. They at least had the booming bass overtones and the rumble that some of us would want, and in my opinion, were much more realistic than the tiny "girly man" (lol--I still like Arnold S.) systems in HO engines today. Dallee Electronics, if I recall, had a system that was promising--with three cylinder and articulated sounds...
|
|
|
|
Post by bnsf971 on Oct 7, 2014 8:07:43 GMT -8
If it makes anybidy feel any better, a motor only decoder is about $20, so the difference is only $80 between sound and non-sound.
|
|
|
|
Post by grabbem88 on Oct 7, 2014 8:27:03 GMT -8
If it makes anybidy feel any better, a motor only decoder is about $20, so the difference is only $80 between sound and non-sound. I keep reading this post and although I'm sure it's sincere and being honest but I can't seem to stop from laughing in the humor in it.. |
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Oct 7, 2014 9:16:16 GMT -8
If it makes anybidy feel any better, a motor only decoder is about $20, so the difference is only $80 between sound and non-sound. Yeah, at MSRP, that's true. But at 20% off, that $100 decoder is only $80, so the net difference is only $60 -- or $64 if you consider I could get the $20 decoder similarly discounted. Of course, those who insist DC is on the verge of a big comeback versus DCC will now get their feelings hurt no matter which way we slice it... It's a good point to make another prediction. Sound prices have been soft lately, but there's obviously lots of room for them to go down further. Bachmann's recent deliveries of DCC-sound locos whose price point is not to far from $100 (YMMV) suggests that much DCC-sound is overpriced at current MSRPs (although discounts can vary that). This does not apply to new and improved technology, like the TCS WOW or the rumored Tsunami II, which is as it should be. The hottest thing on the block should draw a good profit. On the other hand, the pricing on now 10+ year old technology should come down more than it has. |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 7, 2014 10:06:56 GMT -8
Doesn't matter if full price or discounted, the savvy shopper can still buy two "DCC ready" engines for every one "DCC and sound equipped unit".
And when I decide I don't need something, guess which one is less likely to sell, lightly used, at the local train store--the one with sound--it's a lot harder to sell, at any price point, according to the owners and not me. The average customer coming in my local store wants relatively low priced engines, and considers sound/DCC to be a luxury. There are still a lot of folks who think $100 is too much for any diesel. Above that price point, the engines become a harder sell and tend to linger. (caveat--NS heritage scheme engines seem to sell, but not much else).
Most of us on here are not the average customer, imo...far from it. We are a relatively small minority of the folks in the hobby.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2014 10:42:26 GMT -8
Recall that in January 2014 I conducted a quick survey on four forums(1) concerning the desire for sound-equiped models. Interpret the results as you like, but I think I know why non-railroaders prefer sound. The survey and results reposted:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I've long wondered if there's a negative correlation between modelers who like sound-equipped models and those who've worked on or around real locomotives. As a profession. Full-time railfanning is not the same!
So let's do a quick survey:
Q1: Have you ever worked for a railroad(2) and spent extended periods in or near operating locomotives? (Y / N)
Q2: Do you prefer model locomotives to have sound effects? (Y / N)
Results:
71 modelers responded.
35 percent had some professional railroading experience.
65 percent had no professional railroading experience.
Of the professional railroaders, 32 percent preferred scale model locomotives to have sound effects. 68 percent preferred no sound effects.
Of the non-railroaders, 50 percent preferred scale model locomotives to have sound effects. 50 percent preferred no sound effects.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(1) "D" List, RPM-Forum, Diesel Detailer, Atlas Rescue Forum.
(2) Includes commuter rail operators, Amtrak, FRA inspector, etc. Volunteering for a museum does not count.
|
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 7, 2014 11:55:36 GMT -8
Interesting--was not familiar with the results of the survey.
I'm sure the sound will get better from where it is now, but I believe the basic limitations of HO scale sized engines to be a significant detriment.
If I could afford it, I would go with under the layout sound, to get the low frequency rumble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul Cutler III on Oct 7, 2014 14:44:44 GMT -8
Under the table sound is pretty simple with DCC. It's only complicated if you want it to follow your engine around. Since bass sounds are more non-directional than treble sounds, it's not as important.
Step 1). Buy a sound decoder that fits your model's type (Alco, EMD, GE, etc.).
Step 2). Wire up said decoder to a stationary amp and speaker/sub-woofer under the middle of your layout, and give it an address.
Step 3). Do some "basic" consisting by changing the address of your non-sound loco to the sound decoder's address.
Step 4). Crank up the volume on the amp and run your loco.
Optional: Use a sound-equipped loco in the first place, and turn down all bass sounds to zero on the loco while turning down all the treble sounds on the stationary decoder to zero. Then simply MU the loco to the stationary sound decoder. In this way, the bell and other high pitched sounds will continue to come from the loco, while all engine sounds will come from the under-the-table decoder.
It isn't that hard, folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by antoniofp45 on Oct 8, 2014 2:25:37 GMT -8
Glad to see some more positive, thought provoking responses on this topic. We all know that sound has its limitations but it seems that we're always going to see posts that cast topics like this as "Sound vs non-Sound", inspite of the OP's intent. As I silently read the responses, some of the posts, to me, are the classic "fear-threat" reactions seen on the DC vs DCC threads (DC is not going anywhere.....I don't need it....it's too expensive....DC is stil dominant!....) compared to (Sound is still to tinny, I don't need it, too expensive, it gets on my nerves after 5 minutes..etc. Guys, I respect those views but it's a bit frazzling since this topic's title bascially asked for responses regarding opinions on the technology's future, and expectations. Reminds me of a thread I saw on a car forum where a poster asked a question regarding a Toyota vehicle part. Immediately some of the posts that followed were along the lines of: 1) "Toyotas are overrated! 2) This model lacks performance 3) I don't need a Toyota. etc. Yet the OP was not asking about performance stats or the product's economic status! Mlehaman, your post on the previous page is my favorite as some of your thoughts accurately describe mine. I can only add that having witnessed the 2001 birth of "Readily Available" on-board Sound in HO (BLI Hudson, BLI GG1), I have a HUGE appreciation for how far sound has come since then and have no doubt that DCC/Sound MFG is moving in the right direction, even if at a slow pace.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wow, this one is off to an ugly start. I thought it was a thread to discuss what's coming up with sound -- at least by the title - then find it's mostly a hearts-on-the-sleeve "Why I hate sound..." thread. I can understand people understanding there's going to be disagreement on the internet, but seriously, there's more than enough electrons to go around so that "Why I hate sound..." can be it's own thread. Then both points of view might get a chance to achieve something...although I'm not exactly sure what that would be for the "Why I hate sound..." folks, since it looks like sound is here to stay. Maybe it's the weird yardsticks that get used in this game. Now, this is just my opinion, so it is what it is and not intended to argue that if you feel different that's just wrong...as it's not. But I think it shows the starkly different epistemological baggage we bring as individuals to these discussions... Why would you even expect a model to sound exactly like a real loco? Where does the imagination come into play there? To do that you get a real loco. And imagination is then strictly optional. But then what's the point in the model? Philosophy is fun, because I think we often don't think through the implications of our expectations. If I was expecting a real loco awaiting me when I open the layout room door I just wouldn't see the point in building the model, because the model is absolutely certain to fall short, every time. And besides, I've got the real thing, since it's the only true thing anyway. In fact, the more I worry about it being an exacting miniature copy of the original, the more disappointed I'm likely to be in my efforts. I gave up that approach years ago. Sometimes it's very much like the original, sometimes the original is in spirit only by the time I finish with it. I enjoy even more hacking that into something that is truly my own. I simply enjoy building things. But in the end it is a model, not a miniature whatever, in my eyes. Now I just enjoy building the model, do the best I can, and generally find at the end that it's a believe and credible result, thanks to the wizards that put together the stuff we build with. It's the practice of building that makes me better, not the paralysis of angst over what's not quite right. Besides, I've generally found in life that if you're getting some things wrong, it's because you're getting a lot of things right. You can't fail if you don't try. Now I feel better, but will have to come back later to discuss what I think the future of DCC holds. Obsession with perfection is a giant energy suck that leaves me exhausted and whatever I'm trying to do no closer to being accomplished. That's why I find it so useless to being creative. Yes, do the research, know the limitations of your materials and your skills, but then be happy and build. |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 8, 2014 4:42:34 GMT -8
For the record, I actually liked the sound equipped engines until I came on forums like this one and the Atlas forum and learned just how egregiously bad many (but not all) of the importers have been at one time or another about using the wrong engine sounds (wrong number of cylinders), wrong horns and wrong whistles. Once I learned the facts, and tried numerous sound-equipped engines on my own to boot (partly because in some cases I wanted something for which the DC only versions were all gone), I changed my tune a bit.
So there are actually times when it is useful to be ignorant but completely happy.
I do think some of us are obsessed with finding every possible flaw of a given model, when we should be more thankful the model even exists at all, but that's a whole other topic. Over-analyzing and finding every minute flaw takes some of the joy out of owning these models.
Sometimes--often times--I'm much happier not knowing about all the little flaws and being happy with "good enough"...especially since some flaws cannot be easily fixed.
|
|
|
|
Post by riogrande on Oct 8, 2014 5:31:47 GMT -8
I do think some of us are obsessed with finding every possible flaw of a given model, when we should be more thankful the model even exists at all, but that's a whole other topic. Over-analyzing and finding every minute flaw takes some of the joy out of owning these models. Sometimes--often times--I'm much happier not knowing about all the little flaws and being happy with "good enough"...especially since some flaws cannot be easily fixed. Lets try to fair. It may seem at first glance that some are obsessed with finding wrong things with models, but more likely there are people with a great deal of knowledge about a diesel who can't help but notice the mistakes and comment. If there is something I know a lot about, mistakes are instantly evident. OTOH, it may be nice to be blissfully ignorant, but it is also very satisfying to be able to model to a higher degree of fidelity too and in a more realistic way! There is room in the hobby for both. |
|
|
|
Post by WP 257 on Oct 8, 2014 5:44:41 GMT -8
I'm trying to be fair, and I would agree with much of what you just said.
However, I feel some of us take overt pleasure in slamming a manufacturer's new product without fully considering that sometimes compromises have been or are made for the sake of running ability on the average HO layout, where radii much tighter than the prototype ever negotiated at high speed, if at all, are quite common, and vertical curves are not nearly as smooth as the prototype.
And yes, there is room in the hobby for everyone.
Now back to the future direction of DCC and sound:
|
|
|
|
Post by emd16645 on Oct 8, 2014 5:46:50 GMT -8
Decoders as internet appliances: Now that your home security system, refrigerator, and baby monitor can all be online, why not a similar interface for DCC systems? Then each decoder will be individually addressable. Need new sound files? Search the internet than download them directly to the decoder. Problem with the decoder? With your consent, the mfg could then go into the decoder and check to see what the problem is and maybe even offer an update to the software they can download to the decoder. Decoders so expensive people start stealing them like cars and phones? Expect that individual decoders will have the equivalent of a MAC address, a specific identify for that decoder. Someone steals your loco at a public show? Do what many car and phone users have done and install and app that will track your loco on the internet if the thief is dumb enough to log it onto the internet. On-board support for LEDs: This is some low-hanging fruit that a few decoders now provide via SMD transistors right on the board. Look for this to become the defacto standard on boards, particularly smaller ones designed for tight mounting spaces. RTR SMD lighting: Detail vendors could start offering headlight assemblies that package SMD LEDs in a realistic reflector inside the headlight assembly. Same thing with marker lights. These will be standradized so they plug and play well with decoders. I think you have some great points here. Not to start a flame war here, but isn't alot of what's mentioned here is what Chris of Railflyer fame is trying to accomplish with his wifi system? |
|
|
|
Post by canrailfan on Oct 8, 2014 6:19:20 GMT -8
On the average home layout it is very difficult to make a system like Surroundtraxx work well. While it is possible to have the sound follow a single train around the layout using multiple speakers, it's almost impossible to avoid having that sound audible throughout the entire room. With five or six trains running during an operating session, the sounds are no longer localized. A friend who purchased Surroundtraxx spent almost two years experimenting with it and finally took it out and sold it. With multiple trains running he decided a speaker in each loco worked much better.
As others have said, the volume of the sound on a model locomotive is typically set much too high. Lowering the volume so that it is only audible from 5 or 6 feet away goes a long way to increasing the realism. It also improves the quality of the sound from many speakers; a lot of 'bad sound' is caused by over-driven speakers.
One benefit of manufacturers offering DCC/Sound models is that their DC/DCC-ready versions usually also come with the same mounting for a speaker built-in. This makes it much quicker to add the sound decoder of your choice. I order Atlas and Athearn locos as DC/DCC-ready for this reason (I just hope this doesn't skew the manufacturers market view to say that DCC/Sound models aren't as popular).
David
|
|
|
|
Post by grabbem88 on Oct 8, 2014 6:30:41 GMT -8
Ok I did a quicky of my RS1 M&STL this only has one zimo speaker with a wood enclosure sound is down and is still too loud prototypicaly on this scale but I like it for demonstration purposes..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 6:36:50 GMT -8
I order Atlas and Athearn locos as DC/DCC-ready for this reason (I just hope this doesn't skew the manufacturers market view to say that DCC/Sound models aren't as popular). David I think that for everyone that orders a DCC ready model so they can install a sound decoder of their choice that they are a small minority of the total number of people buying the DCC ready model. So, I wouldn't sweat slewing the numbers. Most sound buyers want a factory installation, provided the decoder is acceptable. An exception would be the early Genesis units with the less than stellar MRC sound decoder. While I'm at it I'll through BLI's current Paragon II under the bus too. When a decoder and speaker(s) are factory installed, its a no muss no fuss purchase. Just take it out the box, program an address and play. Not knowing the total number ordered, M.B. Klein is sold out of ALL the DCC ready ALCO C-636's. They still have a few sound C-636's. But this actually means squat since we don't know the breakdown of the numbers ordered. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2014 6:44:56 GMT -8
I do think some of us are obsessed with finding every possible flaw of a given model, when we should be more thankful the model even exists at all, but that's a whole other topic. Over-analyzing and finding every minute flaw takes some of the joy out of owning these models. Sometimes--often times--I'm much happier not knowing about all the little flaws and being happy with "good enough"...especially since some flaws cannot be easily fixed. Lets try to fair. It may seem at first glance that some are obsessed with finding wrong things with models, but more likely there are people with a great deal of knowledge about a diesel who can't help but notice the mistakes and comment. If there is something I know a lot about, mistakes are instantly evident. OTOH, it may be nice to be blissfully ignorant, but it is also very satisfying to be able to model to a higher degree of fidelity too and in a more realistic way! There is room in the hobby for both. If we were dealing with $30 Athearn blue box models our expectations would be rather low. But we are dealing with $135 to $200 models. You don't expect the quality of manufacturing and attention to details of a Lexus when you are buying a Yugo. Likewise, when you are buying and paying the price of a Lexus, you don't expect the iffy manufacturing and lack of attention to detail of a Yugo. |
|
|
|
Post by bdhicks on Oct 8, 2014 7:16:22 GMT -8
If you read a thread where they're talking about prices, it seems like it's taken for granted that everybody will order sound-equipped locomotives. I've been getting into sound a little bit, but I'm far from going all-in. Of the 5 sound engines I have, 2 were only available with sound, 2 were rather unique units with complicated lighting that would have been troublesome to do my own install later if I wanted to, and 1 was just a really good deal. I did also pick up a few decoders that I am planning to try installing, but I haven't gotten around to it. It'd be nice to have a few nice sound equipped engines for club open houses.
Of course it doesn't help for me that no one has sounds for V8 710, I6 251, I8 3608, V16 3516, or V12 3512.
|
|
And imagination is then strictly optional. But then what's the point in the model? 
Philosophy is fun, because I think we often don't think through the implications of our expectations. If I was expecting a real loco awaiting me when I open the layout room door I just wouldn't see the point in building the model, because the model is absolutely certain to fall short, every time. And besides, I've got the real thing, since it's the only true thing anyway.
