Sound in the Caboose

What do the guys do that run modern trains that don't have a caboose?

Bernd

I used to want to go that far, even farther...

...when it pertains to "realism" UNTIL I went to Steamtown in October of 2011.  There I was able to take a cab ride (sitting in one of the brakeman 'jum' seats) for one of the short steam excursion trips it makes every day when the museum is open.  I think it was $35 or $50 for the opportunity, but it was one of the best things I ever paid for because even though it was for only about 3/4 of a mile (if that!) I appreciated that there is no way I will be able to truly simulate the prototype.  For one thing, I can't shrink myself to 1/87th size, and without doing that it is virtually impossible (short of installing a ton of miniature cameras and building a full size replica of the the cab, and then that is only simulating the engineer's position, not the brakemans!).  While sitting in the cab, there was limited visibilty of the train, on the layout, we have a "helicopter" view most of the time, being able to see the entire train. 

I still will have sound in all of my locomotives, and adding sounds in other cars is something I would do, but to try to simulate what it would sound in the cab I'm not sure it is worth it because in the end we can't simulate what it truly is like in the Cab.  The surroundtraxx solution is more likely something I might look into, as that is more of a "railfan" perspective.

Ken L

Is it worth it?

As much as I like the idea of modeling every ambient sound around a railroad, sound is expensive.  People already complain about the cost of rolling stock, and many (such as myself) buy little or no new rolling stock because we can't stomach the $30-$50 price tag.  Now add another $50-$100 on top of that, and companies could quickly price themselves right out of the market.  Even without the sound, making it sound-ready (metal wheels, wipers, circuitry, sockets, etc.) will raise the price noticeably.

Is it worth it?

I have noticed that sound gets monotonous and distracting after a while.  Maybe that's because we don't have enough, so what we do have stands out too much.  Or maybe we tend to have the volume too high, and we all need to learn to turn the volume down a few notches.  But, how far can you turn it down before you have lost the benefit of having the sound in the first place?  Adding additional sounds may muddle things beyond pleasant recognition.

Is it worth it?

If I had cameras in the cabs of my models, with live video fed to a cab mock-up, then I'd really appreciate the concept of in-cab sounds.  Of course, to be prototypical, you'd also want to add all the rattles, squeaks, and radio noise (for modern era stuff) that do little more than get on your nerves.  You'll also want an absolutely deafening (quite literally!) horn for those models which have the horn on the cab roof.

However, since I don't operate while sitting in a cab mock-up, but rather from the point of view of a railfan or operator (or eye in the sky) watching the entire train, there would be an odd disparity between the sounds of being inside a cab and the sight of the whole train, indeed the whole countryside.  Also, I'm not especially keen on the idea of hanging more stuff off my head (headphones, mics, VR goggles, who knows what else...).

Is it worth it?

The push toward greater realism is a wonderful thing, but it comes at a price.  The question of whether it's worth it or not is going to be an individual decision, and the answer will be different for each of us.  For me, the cost and complexity are too high.  I balk at the price of sound decoders now.  I envy those of you who can afford basement empires with a hundred brass locomotives with sound in every one.  I respect those of you who can look at a train on a layout and truly imagine that you're in the cab of the locomotive.  I can't do either one, unfortunately.  I sincerely hope that our hobby does not move uniformly toward what this column suggests (as it has mostly done with DCC) simply because I can't afford it!  By all means, go for it if the cost is worth it to you, but I hope we plebeians will still be able to play with our trains.

Let's think about this...do-able...Now....

Dear Joe,

Interesting thoughts, although by strange coincidence, those modellers with an _audio_ bent (such as the team on the LayoutSound yahoogroup) have been thinking (and in some cases actively working on) exactly the concepts you're pondering now for at least 3 years that I'm personally aware of, likely more...

Let's take a little walk thru the ideas, and see what the "state of the art" actually is...

- Why stop with Loco sound?

Why indeed! We are surrounded by audio every moment of our lives, and our ears actually hear far more than we consciously realise. When a train passes, (that's a train, not just the loco consist), it's a sensory-filling auditory experience. Now, whether Scale Models should or should not be capable of "full scale" dB SPL is an entirely seperate conversation, but that only the loco should "have a voice" simply doesn't mesh up with our real-world experience. And, generally, when modelling, aren't we trying to recreate in miniature what we see/hear "in real life"?

NOTE! It's far easier and cheaper to add _layout_ sound to an given scene than it is to equip even every-second-car with onboard sound. And like the old MRC TechII throttle ads said "..just one additonal can improve the entire layout..."

IE it's not just the _moving_ items that deserve a voice...

- with decoders from Lok...

Hmmm, let's consider for a moment. Rollingstock generally doesn't have motors, so no need to pay for motor control that won't be used. A "sound only" decoder would be preferrable. Unfortunately, the only real "sound only" option from the US market is the Digitraxx "Soundbug" and "SFX" series, which sports a illusion-shattering 8bit 8kHz samplerate. (That's not such a big issue when you remember that the _user_programmable_ Lok decoders are still only 8bit 16kHz themselves!).

In the "soundbug"-families favour is that with a PR3, and some free software, it is "user programmable" with custom sounds, and can be programmed to trigger sounds based on Speed step, function, CAM/trigger input, and "random occurance" sounds. Also in it's favour is a RRP of around US$50, far cheaper than a Lok.

Sidenote, if we look sideways to our UK brethern, CT Elektronik and Zimo have high-audio-spec "sound only" decoders available (GE and MX series decoders respectively). However, at the current retail pricing, you could buy 3x Digitrax SFX0416 decoders for one Zimo GE50, so "your pays your $$$ and you makes your choices".

From a proto perspective, and a quickly way to "dip one's toe in the water", can I suggest that there are a number of R(emote) C(ontrol) L(ocomotive) radio platforms going round on various Class 1 and shortline railroads, which are prime candidates for initial "rollingstock sound" testing. These units such as the UP CCRCLs, CSX RCPs, and MRL Remote Cabooses have airhorns, brake gear, and other "loco like" noisemakers in prototype, which can be easily simulated with most any current diesel sound decoder (even not-user-loadable ones) by simply setting the "prime mover" element volume to zero or "off".

- What sounds are we thinking of?

Possible sounds for most any railcar include the ones your mentioned:
- flange squeal
- slack stretch/bunching
- draftgear/frame creaking

some others come to mind
- wheel flatspot (axle CAM triggered)
- active flange squeal (truck yaw switch via CAM input)
- mech reefer sounds (yes, I know Athearn has done it, but this is an opportunity to do it better and cheaper)
- cattle/sheep (remember the old "upset cow" SFX units for the P2K Mathers stock cars?)

and others which to be honest I can't recall right now...

I totally agree that yes, it _is_ relatively easy to do, _right_now_. Not in a years time, or 3 months time or 3 seconds time, but _Now_. Just as with _Layout_ sound, the hardware to do it has been available for decades now, at prices that are only fractions the cost of a single HO locomotive. The big problem, honestly, is not the hardware. rather, the realisation that all of the audio playback hardware in the world is nothing but paperweight without a _sound_ (digital audio file, or other audio signal source), to play.

- How about multi (audio) channel effects via layout-based walkie-talkies?

Adapting Lance M's Sennheiser Headphone system to act as a "2-channel" device, where Channel A = TSU loco sound, and Channel B = "talk to the dispatcher", may pose some challenges. The Sennheiser headphones lance is using are designed for the Home Theatre market, and as such have no "channel selection" capabilities of their own. If we attack it from the other direction, and start with "walkie talkie headsets" which each crew member and the Dispatcher is equipped with, then it may well be possible to connect a TSU to a walkie-talkie transmitter, (it's just an audio signal after all), and have the resulting "loco sound" appear "in channel" anytime the walkie-talkie unit's "Push-to-talk" button is _not_ keyed.

The downsides I see with this are:
- _everyone_ with headsets on the channel would be swapped with "loco sound" whether they wanted it or not. Turning your particular walkie-talkie down likely won't work, as it would make hearing the Dispatcher when s/he transmits almost impossible, thus rendering the whole concept unworkable.
- manually "switching to the "TSU channel" " may work under some circumstances, but again if it doesn't allow the dispatcher (or other crews on the "road channel") to "break over" the TSU loco sound, then it doesn't really work for our purposes...
- most "model RR budget" grade walkie talkie headsets are far from capable of the same audio performance of Lance's Sennheiser RS170 headphones. Ergo, the "high fidelity audio reproduction" of the TSU loco sound you started with is compromised. (3 steps forward, and 2 steps back)

The "8 channel" units you found were likely 8 _radio_ channels, not 8 _audio_ channels, and thus would be hamstrung by the above issues. I'm not saying that it's not a good idea, but getting a truly workable solution which does what you need it to _in_practise_ is respectfully going to need a little more work...

- "so, who's willing to take on this challenge?"

Well, as mentioned above, the crazy kids over at the LayoutSound Yahoogroup http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LayoutSound/ have been all-over this style of "rollingstock-based sound" project for over 2 years now, along with many other Model RR Sound missions and deployments. Dr Geoff Bunza and a number of other MRH contributors are members of the LayoutSound list, and have the necessary decoder programming skills to "make it happen". Did you see Dr Geoff's recent thread RE adding sound to a seaplane? All the same hardware and skills as for a freightcar-sound project, literally!

I also know that "Freightcar sound" has also been discussed previously here on MRH forum, and on the UK "RMWeb" forum to mention just 2 examples, and modellers from both sides of the Atlantic have persued the idea in consequence. I am also aware of at least one Aussie effort which recently demonstrated many of the effects under consideration, relevant to a rake of 20x 7mm scale 4-wheel non-airbraked wooden coal hoppers pulled by a TSU-equipped steam loco.

The LayoutSound group membership also rosters various hardware and software guys who wear their heart on their sleeve when it comes to "built for model RR devices with take-no-prisoners audio performance". (Big shout out to the team at Pricom, home of the DreamPlayer http://www.pricom.com , and Matt Harris - main-man behind the JMRI "SoundPro" application)....

Annnnd, as above, let's not forget that without a sound to play, even the most audio-potent railcar is just an NMRA-overweight lump of plastic/metal/silicon on wheels. The FREE cross-platform audio editor app Audacity http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ can provide most all of the audio firepower a newcomer sonic-modeller needs to "roll their own" decoder-ready sound files, and the LayoutSound team have Pro sound-design/editor members who are more than willing to share their techniques...

In answer to your parting question "so, who's willing to push this?", I'd respectfully suggest that the LayoutSound group, and other sonic-minded modellers worldwide have already been chasing this and many other "high-resolution model/layout aural enhancement" ideas for decades now.

It's not a case of "who's willing to go forward with the idea?",

but rather "why's it taken the rest of the model RRing world soooo long to catch up?"

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Simple answer

$$$$$$$$$$

What if no Cabooses on my layout? : For Bernd

Dear Bernd,

Many answers are possible:

- UP CCRCL remote control "sleds" (ex B23-7s)
http://trainshooterman.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures%5C38608%5CR%20UPY%20174%20ALEXANDRIA%20LA%207-31-09.JPG

- CSX RCP units
http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z253/georgiaroad/RCjobworkingNorthYardMontgomery.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fan-t/6307070820/in/set-72157627756009743

- MRL Radio units
http://users.eastlink.ca/~othen/video/MRL703%20SD35%20remote%20switching%20Laurel%2023%20May%202010%20small.jpg

- "switcher floats"/"shoving platforms"
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures%5C42051%5CIMG_3777.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/linkdude678/5927357630/
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/pictures%5C60848%5C10%2010-26%2013.jpg
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net//pictures%5C68343%5C11%2006-12%2012.jpg
http://eddiesrailroad.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/belt-railway-of-chicago-shoving.html
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=1576951
http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3047140

Point being, there are plenty of "cars which bring up the rear" of freight trains, even in this alegedly "post caboose" era...

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS with a Digitraxx SFX0416 sound-only decoder and a 9mm exciter instead of a traditional speaker, it's entirely possible to put programmable, user-loadable, DCC controllable sound in an _empty_ HO flatcar.

Now, an On30 empty logging skel car or disconnect however, _that_ would be more challenging...

PPS hey, even the mainline runners with their stack trains can get in on the action, why not equip a 40' container with a basic sound circuit (doesn't even need to be DCC, a cheapo MP3 player + HB speaker would get you away), and explain it as another Canadian National "Distributed Braking" container?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18171644@N03/3279330831/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/18171644@N03/3279330657/

Not sure that's valid...

Dear Ken,

With the Digitrax "Soundbug" family being available for as low as US$30 on special,

and US$5 mp3 players being capable of providing any "random occurance" sounds in an onboard-do-able format, (Consider, a DIY Athearn-style "sound equipped" mech reefer, cheaper, with better sound reproduction, and _exactly_ the sound the modeller-in-question's ears tell them "sounds right") I'm not sure I see price as a honest-assessment-valid justification.

Yes, there will be $$ involved, but not

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$...

Honestly, the bigger issue is, and has been for the last decade-or-more, that without a _sound_ to play, any audio hardware is just a paperweight... I can cite a number of examples from the last few decades where quite decent audio equipment was available to the Model RR public at prices that were honestly astounding for the capability-on-offer, only to have the unit die a commercial death because it didn't have "the" (whatever that was, for whichever particular modeller was asking) sound...

In contrast, obviously audibly horrible 8bit 4kHz "greeting card" sound modules have and continue to sell like hotcakes at over $50 in some cases http://www.ittproducts.com/products.html for a _single_shot_ "gag" sound effect per module,
because it was/is a "plug n play" situation with a sound which is _already_ sound-designed/preloaded...
(Think of the difference/market-appeal between the Loksound V4 user-loadable and Select/TSU Pre-loaded decoders.)

Also, the above stands as another hole in the $$$$$ argument, 
IE modellers were and still-are _already_ paying $$ for what is unashamedly _low_res_ single-shot ISD-based sound modules.

If better-res, user-loading, fully-programmable sound units were available for the same or _less_ $$, then why wouldn't they want to "go there"?

Please don't mishear me, I'm not saying that the modeller who consciously elects not to take up sound is in any-way in error. (I'll stand by your right to "just run trains", sound or no).

However, those who already _have_ decided "I want sound" in their layout or rollingstock are likely to have "voted with their wallet" on products which honestly are stuck in the early/mid-80's era of digital audio storage/playback, and the model RR sound "state of the art" has well-and-truly moved on...)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS here's another possibility for rollingstock sound. With a true Stereo/2-channel onboard-capable playback device, it's entirely possible to create an imaged sound file which "throws sound" beyond the car-with-the-soundgear. Result? Imagine a 3-car passenger consist, soundgear in the centre car, which emulates the sound of a conductor walking _between_ the cars in 1-2-3 sequence "...tickets please!..."

I think I misunderstood your question, Prof

If a modeler has decided that sound is desirable and affordable, then of course I support the idea that it ought to be the best possible for the lowest price practical.  There are plenty of examples of model railroaders (and particularly American modelers, for some reason) using outdated technology, accepting lower than average quality, and paying higher than reasonable prices.

If that's the reason for your question about why it isn't already being done, then I misunderstood the question and I apologize.  I thought the question was why isn't everyone using environmental sound already, in which case I offer my answer above.  As much as I like sound equipped locos, I'm unable to afford sound in more than a handful at the moment.  The idea of having to equip the rest of the layout with sound devices as well simply puts the hobby out of my reach financially.  Even at $5 per unit (and I doubt the complete unit could be built for that, including the cost of speakers, wire, etc.) it adds up quickly.  Two or three will add one or two more pieces of rolling stock to my roster, and ten would supply a new locomotive.

Given the state of our hobby, where the vast majority of new products seem to be RTR with all the bells and whistles, any proposal which promises to increase the cost concerns me.  I'm already pretty much priced out of the new market for most stuff, and I'd hate to see the situation get even worse, or more modelers deciding that collecting gold-plated truffles would be a cheaper hobby.

...

Well, it looks like my idea to put a decoder in every car [for coupler operation] has now morphed into "a sound decoder in every car!!"

What would this allow us to do?  Hmm, lets see, has anyone ever heard a train pump up the brakes, that lovely chain reaction through the line of cars?  You could replicate that.  And how about brake squeal?  yes, that too.  And how about that lovely sound of a car with flat sides on a wheelset, or a truck?  You know, the flub flub flub sound?  If there's a speak over each end/truck, an A and a B speaker, you could program one set of wheels to have a flat side.  Coupler sounds...breaking coupler sounds accompanied with uncontrolled releases, replicating real coupler failure followed by brake deployment [either prototypically, or unprototypically by additional friction plates dropping onto the rails/onto the roadbed between the rails...hotbox lights for the steam guys, so a red light appears under one of the trucks...

Now this may mean instead of trying to model Empires or systems like we've all been doing where we have hundreds and thousands of cars [and the extremists cry "if we do it in one, we HAVE to do it in ALL!"], we may have to focus on Just model Train #442 as it appeared on March 27th, 1994, as it travels between mile marker 443 and 447.  Hey, that's three real miles of mainline in my basement, to scale!!!

I like it... but of course you know I would!!

better diesel sound behavior, flange squeal

Top on my list for taking sound to the next level is better diesel sound behavior.  I think we can all agree that manual notching of sound is a pain.  But no sound decoder today auto notches based on load.  Tsunami changes the steam behavior based in load but not diesel.  I want to shove a cut of 12 cars up into a track at 5 mph in notch 3, then coast back out light at idle or at most notch 1.  As far as I can tell theres no technical reason why it cant be done, it probably comes down to how many potential customers would notice and care.

Flange squeal and other track noises are very interesting.  I think something often overlooked is these sounds tend to be specific to particular spots on the track - at a curve, the diverging route of a turnout, etc.  So it might be easier to a good effect with stationary sound decoders rather than on the train.  The other near noise is the sort of creaking you often hear from track while the train is still some distance away.

It would be very easy to get carried away and make an annoying racket.  But on occasion it could be fun.

- Ken

I'm somewhat surprised the Professor didn't mention

another contributor to model railroading sound, Fantasonics (I have some of their offerings, great starting place).

...

Oh, but that starts getting into adding accelerometers and gyroscopes into the locomotive - so they can "feel" changes in momentum!!!

Well, it looks like my idea to put a decoder in every car....

Before 1995?  http://www.tttrains.com/dcc/uncouple.htm

Great ideas

I  think the sound technology is still in infancy when it comes to actual applications available now on the marketplace. Modeling in O, I can take advantage of larger speakers, which helps with the motive power. I run steam and gas-engined critters, so auto-notching is not a problem for me...but I am surprised that is not already available in diesel decoders from the leaders. Why not?

Joe's idea that really intrigued me was the train sounds...a caboose or boxcar could provide the train sounds a bit back from the locomotive. I know the sounds most of you are thinking of, the Class A railroad symphony of flange squeal, straining sills creaking, wheel 'whoosh' and the like. What I would like to hear in my narrow gauge world is teh creaking of wood cars, the sound of some dry journals, and perhaps a flat wheel here and there. It would add an extra dimension of fun.

It seems all that is needed to make that happen is merging the needed source sounds (modern Class A or old creaky wooden trains) with a low-cost platform...seems to me that would not be hard to accomplish.

Dear Ken, Completely agree,

Dear Ken,

Completely agree, flange squeals on tight corners and thru yard-throat turnouts can be done easily, right now, mounted stationary on the layout. A Pricom DreamPlayer LITE + IRDOT or other appropriate detection device, and a pair of speaker elements from a discarded MP3-player speaker unit, or a pair of "domestic flight headphones", and you're ready to go.

Such a deployment again takes a leaf from the old MRC TechII throttle adds, IE one "sound module" installation effectively "improves" the realism for any and every vehicle which passes over the trackage-in-question. (whereas mounting an onboard sound system in one car only improves that car, and maybe one or 2 cars either side, see earlier comments RE imaging and "the walking conductor").

Of course, if you're going to monopolise a single LITE unit just to provide "flange squeal" at a given location, then taking full advantage of the "background sound" functionality (the ability to play a "ambience" WAV file, interupt with a randomly-selected "flange squeal" WAV on trigger, then return to the "ambience" soundtrack), gives a bonus R.O.I. and wider "layout sound" capability to the scene for _no_ additional hardware outlay... 

Where "flange squeals" coming from _onboard_ a car is more interesting is long cars such as autoracks, which take tight flange-squeal-inducing curves much more personally. In such cases, a simple "yaw switch" on one of the trucks would trigger the SoundBug via the CAM switch, thus the car reliably "squeals" on curves of X-radii or tighter...

As for "the clamouring racket", well, many modellers already fall into this trap with 2 or more sound-equipped locos. The crying shame is that the solution is literally on either side of the modeller-in-question's head, IE where their _ears_ are. Put simply, If it's too loud, turn it down.

I mean seriously, audio is not rocket science,
(and I stand by that, as I personally know a number of modellers who _are_ Rocket Scientists in their day job, and take their model RR audio quite seriously, so have all the elements available to mak ethe comparison... ),

and _your_ ears+brain combination form one of the most effective fastest-adapting dB meters around, which is perfectly calibrated to _your_ particular needs/wants/tolerances/frequency response. No need to quote dB SPL figures over a given distance, if your ears are telling you "it's too loud", then it is for you, and you have the power to turn that Master Volume CV _down_ in consequence.

Its a fine line between "Full scale sound", "miniaturised sound", and "scale sound", but rest assured without any prompting from me or anyone else, _you'll_ know "it sounds right" when _you_ hear it...
(Just don't be afraid to turn it _down_ until it _does_ "sound right"...)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS quick sidenote, using Digitraxx Soundbugs or equivalent for onboard rollingstock (not locomotive) sound works on analog as-well-as DCC. SO, just because one is still using Analog does not mean they are somehow locked out of the fun of flatspot, frame-stretching, and flange-squealing freightcar action...

Fantasonics : watch this space...

Dear Michael,

I know, and I'm ashamed of myself for the omission. However, in the context of onboard-rollingstock sound systems, AFAIK Fantasonics does not yet offer any "flangesqueal", "flatspot", or other direct-relevant-to-the-OP sound files on a "RTR" basis. That said:

1 - Watch this space. Fantasonics can move very quickly on new sound designs, if there's a given sound element or scene you desperately need for your layout, shoot them an email, it may be only minutes away... http://www.fantasonics.com ...

2 - Building your own "flangesqueals", "flatspots", and "frame creaks" is not actually that difficult. The FreeSound Project http://www.freesound.org and Youtube are possible sources of sonic kitbash fodder. Combine the FREE "Audacity" audio editor, your _ears_, and the PC you're currently reading this posting on, and it's very likely you have all the equipment required to create exactly the rollingstock sounds your ears tell you sound "just right"...
(Point being, the average modeller doesn't need FantaSonics to do the sound-design for them, all of the required ingredients are either already to hand, or freely available...)

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

I'm bemused by Joe's somewhat misleading title

for his editorial.  To me the title "The next level in sound realism?  The new hobby frontier" is far more inclusive than just DCC decoders and train/track sounds even if the body of the article didn't really get that far.  For anyone interested in a wide variety of applications to sound in model railroading I would urge joining the Yahoo Layout Sound group; if you do a bit of digging you will even see some discussion from Pricom about the possibility of a player small enough to put into a piece of rolling stock.

Please, let's stimulate more conversation

I want this editorial to stimulate more conversation and exploration. I freely admit I just covered the tip of the iceberg.

Please add some more to this dialog!

The hardware's done, only the sounds are missing...

Dear Verne,

You're soooo much closer to the truth than you realise. As far as the playback hardware goes, the self-same Digitraxx Soundbug family (sound-only, user-loadable, reasonable pricing) or equivalent is equally at home in a model of a 2010-era Mech reefer, as it is in a model of a 1890 Carter Bros 3' boxcar. No difference, none, nada, zip zilch, none.

(Of course, if we had a _CD-Spec_ sound-only decoder...
...oh, that's right, the onboard sound DCC manufacturers only _just_ realised that "CD spec performance" might be worth doing...too much to expect a CD-spec sound-only decoder at this early-juncture.... )

Scale is also far less of an issue RE shoehorning the physical hardware into the models "stealth mode" style, esp when one factors in the availability and capabilities of exciters instead of speakers as the "air-pushing" electro-mechanical elements in the equation. At the risk of repeating myself, even _empty_flatcars_ are fair-game, although logging skeleton cars and disconnects may pose a challenge...

The true showstopper in this equation, (again, at the risk of repeating myself), is that:

- no matter what the hardware, without a sound to play, it's just silent hardware
- whether your particular needs run to 2010-era mech reefer sounds, or 1890 Carter Bros wood boxcar sounds, the hardware is the same
- ..the surperb irony is that for every modeller who wants a specific railroad/era/car of sound,
achieving _exactly_ the sound they are thinking of is only minutes away with some source fodder and an Audio Editor. (You're entirely correct, sound editing is not "hard to accomplish" at all).

The point being, of the 2 "issues" you note as needing solving to make this work,
- the "low cost platform" you mention as being needed is already available,
(check that one off the list, although CD-spec digital audio performance and cheaper cost would always be welcomed... )

- so the only _actual_ outstanding issue is, what sounds are you going to load into it?
(and more to the point, if the sound you particularly desire are not available RTR,
what are you going to do about it? ).

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

PS No matter what playback hardware one elects to use, even if it's just a wooden train whistle,
As a close friend, modeller, and Pro Audio colleague is want to say

"...Remember, it's about the _Sound_..."

PPS Consider: a "sound only decoder" is not much different to a digital "sample and replay" music synthesiser. Both store digital audio in WAV file format, and play a given file on command.
The only difference is that a musical synth's "commands" come from the black-n-white piano-type keys,
whereas a sound decoders "commands" come from software and DCC data stream.

Maybe we should think of decoders not as "decoders which happen to play sound", but rather as "Digital Audio Playback" devices, which happen to be DCC controlled?

Considered in this way, we mentally would associate said units more with MP3 and CD players rather than relatively poorly-spec'd contemporary "DCC Sound decoders".

That we by-default expect _decent-audio_ response from our cheapo MP3 players would then lead us to quite legitimately ask "so why _can't_ our onboard Digital Audio Players perform just as good as our $5 used-for-jogging MP3 player?"

No Question

Given my penchant for sound, there is no question that as I build my layout, sound will become a significant part, along with animation.  And, really, how can you have animation without sound?  Just doesn't quite have the same reality to it.  I look forward to the developments and when I get to that point building my layout, I will certainly be picking the brains of those in the LayoutSound Yahoo group, as well as those here.

Thank you...

Professor...I get it, really! We are on the same page. The only difference from the cheap toys with sound cards playing .wav files over and over and what we need:

1) it should be triggered via a Function key on your DCC controller, gradually fading in when activated, and fading out gradually when deactivated.

2) Ideally, the rate should change depending on train speed, indicated via a cam mounted in the car carrying the module.

Have you pinged the good folks at Fantasonics yet, or shall I? I already have most of their ambient sound CDs, which are terrific. I would prefer to stay at the workbench and leave the sound mixing to someone with perfect hearing, mine is just monaural, if you get my drift.

WHY ?

When is it enough?

...

When you and you alone decide it's enough.

Speed related FX, CAMs VS Speed Step, furthur info

Dear Verne,

The "Soundbug" family allow the user files to be mapped such that they can react to:
- current speed step
- F-key (generally On/Off, but can be a modifier for other control inputs)
- "timed" occurance (INC "random")
- trigger from the hardware CAM input

For an insight to the current ways of achieving this,
(warning, due to Digitrax's way of coding their decoders, it's Deep and Murky in there!!!!)

check Fred Miller's "SPJ Helper" utility and site

http://fnbcreations.net/projects.htm

http://fnbcreations.net/SPJHELPER.pdf

(Dr Geoff, you got your ears on? Having some experience playing with SPJ Helper from your Seaplane and Wrecking Crane animations, I'm sure you've got some pearls of wisdom to offer... ).

RE any form of "speed related" SFX, you can elect to use either
- current speed step (think like "autochuff" in a TSU)
- hardware CAM input (same as a CAM on a TSU)

If you figure the viewer/listener can tell if a "audible flatspot" is occuring exactly 1x per wheel rev on a HO 33" wheel equipped car, then obviously accuracy is important, and a CAM hardware input is the only accurate-enough option.

If however, you figure the viewer/listener is unlikely to have the required "calibrated eyeballs" to discern such audio<> motion accuracy,

IE as long as:
- the train is moving slowly, the flatspot "thumps" are slow and low,
- when the train speeds up the flatspots increase in cadence, and crossfade into higher-pitched "thripthripthripthrip"
- but it doesn't have to be any "more accurate" than that

then maybe simple "SpeedStep related" sound-speed/occurance control is "good enough"

Of course, then we get into the idea that if you want to get maximum ROI from a single decoder in a given car, you may have another SFX which really _needs_ the CAM input to act as a hardware trigger,

- reed switch triggers given sound from the car when passing a given location on the layout
- ball-bearing "train handling" trigger a la John Allen's "hotbox" boxcar
- Truck Yaw switch for curve-radii-specific onboard flangesqueal
- triggerably "coupler clank" based on actual draftgear slack-action --> CAM input trigger
- etc etc (as far as your imagination might run)

and in consequence, any flatspot capability will have to be "relegated" to "only" using the SpeedStep speed modifier... (If there's only physically 1x CAM input line available, you have to choose which SFX really needs it the most... )

Rest assured that the teams at Fantasonics and Pricom are already well aware of the interest in this area, and this thread particularly. As noted previously, the LayoutSound yahoogroup have danced around this blackberry bush a number of times over the last few years, so if you'd like to be "on the pulse", the LayoutSound list is a rallying-point worth checking-in on...
(Of course, if you'd like to drop either/both Fantasonics and Pricom an email, I'm sure they won't mind... ).

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr