N Scale sound in locos sound terrible to me

[jdcolombo]

Given the limitations of the keep-alive capacitors (for N scale), would it be better if the decoder and keep-alive were designed such that the keep-alive supplied power only to the processor portion of the decoder, but not to the bridge transistors that drive the motor? In that way the decoder would be prevented from resetting/rebooting, while the loco would still coast until contact with track power was restored. If someone really needs 2-5 seconds of "hang time" to compensate for dirty track, then the track is beyond due for a cleaning.

My experience has been that 440uf of keep alive in N scale will keep the sound from resetting as long as your track and locomotive wheels are reasonably clean.  I have never felt the need to try to isolate the keep alive to just the sound circuits (I use ESU LokSounds exclusively) and I do perceive some marginal benefit of having the keep alives feed the entire decoder, but YMMV (Peteski has suggested using keep alive only for the sound/lighting circuits in N scale for just the reason you identify).  On the other hand, I have been known to stuff five 220uf caps in my steam locos, which seem to need more "help" than my diesels.  And in one case (my brass Key Berkshire), I used a TCS KA-3 as a keep alive, which will keep the engine running for several seconds. 

John C.

[Jim Starbuck]

I appreciate the addition of “to me” in the thread title.
Sound is “terrible” is not universally agreed on any more than sound is “great”.

I’m with John C here. I’m not trying to sell sound to anyone and if my newfound enthusiasm for it has come across that way it was never the intent. I enjoy the tech aspect of challenging decoder installs and the added life it brings to a locomotive ‘s operation. If someone is delighted by directional lighting on DC that’s great for them. The same goes for smoke equipped engines running at ludicrous speed and negotiating square corners. Go for it.

Admittedly, I only own three sound equipped engines which are all switchers and fully understand this is an extremely limited sample of locomotives. My experience however, is that adding sound or just decoders is not a death sentence to performance and reliability. I have a theory and it is just that. I haven’t tried to quantify it in any way shape or form and even hesitate to bring it up as I suspect it may bring much debate but tell me where I’m wrong. Locomotive weight as it applies to performance has already been discussed to be sure.
What I’m  talking about is how it relates to small switchers so here goes. (Please insert grain of salt here)
Is it possible that the very fine motor control afforded by many decoders when properly set up can actually help a small engine’s ability to overcome static weight and get a heavier train rolling without wheel spin more than “dumping the clutch” on power supplies with less finesse? My thought here is that weight is only one part of an engine’s performance and the weight lost in some sound installs is made up in part by finer motor control. This is total speculation on my part as I have zero education in physics but my little engines seem to pull just fine after installing sound.

Jim

[C855B]

... momentum is the bigger concern ...

Configurable, while keep-alive is not. I set momentum to zero on everything. Much experience with others' poor driving skills (and my own sometimes) and the need to stop before crashing into something after loss of attention. I have three cabooses on the workbench in need of collision repair.

[davefoxx]

Configurable, while keep-alive is not. I set momentum to zero on everything. Much experience with others' poor driving skills (and my own sometimes) and the need to stop before crashing into something after loss of attention. I have three cabooses on the workbench in need of collision repair.

When I was in N scale, I did the same.  Now that I am in HO, and, more importantly, using sound decoders, I am using the momentum effect to try to match with what the sound is doing.  For example, the prime mover should start ramping up before the locomotive moves.  It also breaks realism if the brakes were to squeal after the locomotive is stopped. 

DFF

[CRL]

I appreciate the addition of “to me” in the thread title.
Sound is “terrible” is not universally agreed on any more than sound is “great”.

I’m with John C here. I’m not trying to sell sound to anyone and if my newfound enthusiasm for it has come across that way it was never the intent. I enjoy the tech aspect of challenging decoder installs and the added life it brings to a locomotive ‘s operation. If someone is delighted by directional lighting on DC that’s great for them. The same goes for smoke equipped engines running at ludicrous speed and negotiating square corners. Go for it.

Admittedly, I only own three sound equipped engines which are all switchers and fully understand this is an extremely limited sample of locomotives. My experience however, is that adding sound or just decoders is not a death sentence to performance and reliability. I have a theory and it is just that. I haven’t tried to quantify it in any way shape or form and even hesitate to bring it up as I suspect it may bring much debate but tell me where I’m wrong. Locomotive weight as it applies to performance has already been discussed to be sure.
What I’m  talking about is how it relates to small switchers so here goes. (Please insert grain of salt here)
Is it possible that the very fine motor control afforded by many decoders when properly set up can actually help a small engine’s ability to overcome static weight and get a heavier train rolling without wheel spin more than “dumping the clutch” on power supplies with less finesse? My thought here is that weight is only one part of an engine’s performance and the weight lost in some sound installs is made up in part by finer motor control. This is total speculation on my part as I have zero education in physics but my little engines seem to pull just fine after installing sound.

Jim

It would appear in your theory expressed above that the reason for the improved operation of the switchers is the DCC component. The sound component has no effect, unless you’re suggesting the switcher can pull harder if it makes grunting sounds and says “come on you sumbitch”. 😝

[Jim Starbuck]

It would appear in your theory expressed above that the reason for the improved operation of the switchers is the DCC component. The sound component has no effect, unless you’re suggesting the switcher can pull harder if it makes grunting sounds and says “come on you sumbitch”. 😝

The idea was that the Loksound decoders I’ve been using have excellent motor control.
The grunting noises are most commonly attributed to the operator. 😖

[CRL]

^^^^ Coffee and a bran muffin usually works for me. 

[robert3985]

I forgot to list one other issue I have with sound equipped locos... it seems to generate an awful lot of additional problems as evidenced by the DCC / Electronics Sub Board in this forum. Since I highly value reliability of track work and equipment, adding sound to the equation is just one too many levels of complexity than I care to deal with. I’m still trying to come to grips with converting all my locos from DC to DCC.

Thanks for all the comments on both sides of the issue. It’s nice to know I’m not alone.

I have had zero "additional problems" with my sound DCC engines.  I'm convinced that that vast majority of "additional problems" with DCC installs is due to installer error and ignorance rather than because of the decoder itself.  Also contributing is poor trackwork and substandard track wiring.

I did a lot of research before deciding on which DCC product to go with, and I built a test-module to both familiarize myself with my DCC system, and to easily determine what style of wiring to go with before ripping out and replacing my layout's old DC rat's nest of wiring.

Since my factory sound-equipped Athearn Big Boys and Challengers were the impetus for me to go with DCC after all my years of procrastination, I also researched the difference between programming sound decoders vs non-sound decoders and installed a PTB-100 program track booster in my initial DCC installation on my test module, so I never had any problems programming my sound decoders because I installed the right equipment to do the job at the start.

Face it, all of us here play with toy trains. I confess that, in addition to annoyingly poor sound quality, model sound makes the models seem even more toylike to me, not far removed from the chuff-chuff of old tinplate stuff (or, far worse, "smoke"). My preference is to enjoy the sight alone, and allow my imagination to supply the sound, which consequently has perfect acoustics every time.

DKS, I agree 100% that us model railroaders are really just playing with toy trains, but, using "DKS Logic" (as stated in the above quote) your imagination should also be able to supply perfectly prototype track, and perfectly prototypical details on your toy trains, and supply them with perfect motion along with your imagination's "perfect acoustics".  So getting rid of annoyingly poor track details, and oversized and inaccurate parts, and toy-like motion and train movements would provide your imagination an opportunity to give you modeling perfection!   However, it's pretty evident that you don't do that...except with sound.

For me, no sound at all is the same as no motion, no details, no prototype, no scenery, no weathering...and more. For me, the lack of these things makes the toy trains much more toy-like.  I tolerate oversized spikeheads on ME flex because they're the best that's available, and I don't want to spend the time designing, etching and applying scale-sized spikes and tie plates to non-scale sized C55 rails.  I actually ENJOY looking at ME track that's well laid, painted, weathered and ballasted..even though I know it's too big (toy-like) in many respects.  The same for sound. 

I'd rather have my engines produce sounds, with me controlling many of them, than having mere silence...a silence which screams "TOY" much louder to me than playing polyphonic sounds through a too-small speaker.

Maybe my imagination just isn't vivid enough to fill in the blank spaces when running non-sound equipped motive power. 

And frankly, I will NEVER expect my N-scale trains to sound like the real deal...

/>
Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[CRL]

We all have different things that annoy us. Some we can mitigate to an acceptable level, and others we can’t get to an acceptable level. Sometimes one annoyance can exacerbate or help mitigate another. One of my hot buttons is poor track work. Because of this, I use Peco code 55 track as exclusively as possible. I like the spring loaded turnout action which does away with the fugly oversized hand throws, which overcomes the non-prototypical look of the Peco turnouts. The bullet proof nature of the Peco code 55 buried web overcomes any visual objections caused by the tie spacing. Plus I like to bury my track to reflect the old branchline look with lots of dirt “weathering”, so the tie spacing isn’t as noticeable anyway.

My reference standard for train sound is what I hear from the prototype from a distance of about 200-300 feet. The current level of N-scale sound isn’t anywhere close to that, so I’d rather eliminate the problem and go for silence.

[peteski]

I love watching this thread. Very amusing.  CRL, you are doing a great job with all your counterpoints!  It shows that you have been a long-time lurker. Keep it up! 

[jdcolombo]

Configurable, while keep-alive is not. I set momentum to zero on everything. Much experience with others' poor driving skills (and my own sometimes) and the need to stop before crashing into something after loss of attention. I have three cabooses on the workbench in need of collision repair.

Actually, keep alive IS configurable, at least on ESU decoders.  There's a CV (CV 113) that you can set to tell the decoder how long to stay alive under a keep alive.

John C.

[Jim Starbuck]

Thanks John that’s good to know.
For caps is it a matter of the more the better?
My SW9 has 3 100uf because that’s what I had on hand during the build.  I’ve since picked up some 220uf but haven’t swapped them out. Would you recommend doing so?

[DKS]

DKS, I agree 100% that us model railroaders are really just playing with toy trains, but, using "DKS Logic" (as stated in the above quote) your imagination should also be able to supply perfectly prototype track, and perfectly prototypical details on your toy trains, and supply them with perfect motion along with your imagination's "perfect acoustics".  So getting rid of annoyingly poor track details, and oversized and inaccurate parts, and toy-like motion and train movements would provide your imagination an opportunity to give you modeling perfection!   However, it's pretty evident that you don't do that...except with sound.

Hmmm... I need to process this for a bit before responding... other than to assume, then, that your modeling is at 100% accurate?

[jdcolombo]

Thanks John that’s good to know.
For caps is it a matter of the more the better?
My SW9 has 3 100uf because that’s what I had on hand during the build.  I’ve since picked up some 220uf but haven’t swapped them out. Would you recommend doing so?

More is better.  General rule of thumb: as many caps of as high a value as you have room for, wired in parallel.

Just note that with a keep alive wired in, you will have problems programming an ESU LokSound using the LokProgrammer.  This can be cured by adding a choke, or you can do what I do, which is program everything exactly as I want, THEN attach the keep alive.  You can still make changes to some things using ops mode programming (programming on the main).

John C.

[DKS]

For me, no sound at all is the same as no motion, no details, no prototype, no scenery, no weathering...and more. For me, the lack of these things makes the toy trains much more toy-like.  I tolerate oversized spikeheads on ME flex because they're the best that's available, and I don't want to spend the time designing, etching and applying scale-sized spikes and tie plates to non-scale sized C55 rails.  I actually ENJOY looking at ME track that's well laid, painted, weathered and ballasted..even though I know it's too big (toy-like) in many respects.  The same for sound. 

I'd rather have my engines produce sounds, with me controlling many of them, than having mere silence...a silence which screams "TOY" much louder to me than playing polyphonic sounds through a too-small speaker.

Ah, now I'm getting a sense of what's going on. So, because I've been messing around with micro-layouts using stuff like (shudder) Unitrack, I'm stuck having to imagine *everything.* Well, when I'm able, I'll get back to modeling better track...



And you'll have to imagine 1:160 engineers, brakemen and pedestrians running about--unless there's no sound, in which case they don't exist... nor would any road vehicles, since there's no sound for them you can control... Ah well, we all have our priorities; according to "Robert Logic," a layout is worthless without sound.