Synchronized Chuff & Smoke With Steam Blunami Installation

@Ryan Selvius posted:

The LionChief sounds seem to have some limitations at higher speeds but I can say from my experience with Railsounds II through the latest Legacy Railsounds, the 4 chuffs per rev goes through a bit of an audible shift in the chuff cadence as the locomotive speeds up and it really sounds quite impressive. Not every chuff hits with the same fixed intensity which is correct with a real locomotive. Each of the 4 chuffs has its own dynamic variation in volume and intensity which is something Lionel’s sound engineers did a remarkable job of simulating in the Railsounds package. It doesn’t sound like a machine gun at all to me.

Yep, the full Railsounds doesn't have the issues of some of the LC+ 2.0 stuff has.  OTOH, the LC+ 2.0 Polar Express locomotive appears to have Legacy quality sounds without those issues.  I also have an LC+ 2.0 PRR RS3 that has what appears to be the full Legacy sound set, including all the somewhat annoying creaks and groans.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I certainly agree that the sound isn't all that far off for most of them at speed.  However, if you've ever run the LC+ 2.0 Docksider 0-6-0T locomotive at speed, you'd see that once it gets going at all fast (actually not all that fast), the sound suddenly totally breaks up into an unrecognizable hash, not just a fast chuff like a machine gun.  There is apparently a flaw in their higher speed chuff sound algorithm for this particular locomotive.  That's the reason that a bunch of us decided that this particular model needs a chuff lobotomy.

No disagreement here. I'm only speaking to the PS2, PS3 systems and the RailSounds system from about 5 and up.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

I think we'd have to agree to disagree about the "solid support" and "availability" you mention. I can count on one hand and have fingers left over the entire staff of the MTH entity working on DCS, one car crash could wipe out the company. One key player deciding to move on could have the same effect.

“Solid” was probably an over statement here but at least they made a move in the direction of continued product support which is a lot more than anyone can say about Lionel. There’s a pretty significant difference between “we’re selling off the business but electronics/parts will remain available” and “we have NOS parts for product older than 5 years on hand but we decided to get rid of them instead of making them available to customers.”

@Ryan Selvius posted:

“Solid” was probably an over statement here but at least they made a move in the direction of continued product support which is a lot more than anyone can say about Lionel. There’s a pretty significant difference between “we’re selling off the business but electronics/parts will remain available” and “we have NOS parts for product older than 5 years on hand but we decided to get rid of them instead of making them available to customers.”

Well, it's hard to argue that it was a lame decision to dump all the electronics before the 2010 models, but to be fair, it's parts 15 years old and more that they dumped.

To be honest, I don't understand that move at all.  Again, the cynic in me has to think it might just might be the "we'll just make the old stuff unrepairable so they have to buy new stuff" mindset.  Since all the mechanical parts are still there, dumping that fairly small percentage of the old parts doesn't seem to be a space issue.  Also, since they never showed up on the used market, they apparently didn't sell them to anyone, so they probably ended up behind the plant in the dumpster.  I wish I had been on hand for that dump!  OTOH, I'm committed to keeping the old stuff running, and I have the parts to make that happen.

"at least they made a move in the direction of continued product support which is a lot more than anyone can say about Lionel."

I admire your optimism, but I don't think the facts of the current situation support your analysis.  Which company is likely to still be a going concern 5-10 years from now?  20 years from now, for the younger hobbyists?  No one knows for sure, but the history and today's circumstances suggest the odds are better for Lionel.  They have warranty repairs available, which cannot be said for the MTH product line at present.

They continue to make a handheld remote for their command systems, the cab-1L.  During the period when the Legacy base became unavailable, and the Base 3 vaporware,  new Lionel command locos could be operated in command mode using the Universal Remote or their app. $50 or free.

DCS's remote is long discontinued.  The last iteration of their app had problems.  The TIU or Wi-Fi TIU has been unavailable, just like the Lionel Legacy base and the planned Base 3.  Sure, Legacy boards aren't available, but ERR products were available when PS3 boards were unobtainium.

So at worst, it seems to me the edge goes to Lionel for the last few years, and Lionel's future looks more assured to some of us.   They have a catalog too .

The last iteration of their app had problems. -
The latest iteration of the iPhone app (3.2.3 released a couple of days ago) is stable and working quite well.

Sure, Legacy boards aren't available, but ERR products were available when PS3 boards were unobtainium. -
Several ERR products were also in short supply during COVID and currently, ERR is limiting R4LC board purchases to a max quantity of 2 per customer:

The Cruise Commander M is also currently out of stock and has been for a short while now but is supposed to be back next month? Those also spent considerable time last year on the unavailable list. Mini Commanders are sold out and will never be built again.

Also, ERR had a convenient price hike last year while the PS3 upgrade kits remain at there same $200 price tag they had for almost a decade now.

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

Well, it's hard to argue that it was a lame decision to dump all the electronics before the 2010 models, but to be fair, it's parts 15 years old and more that they dumped.

To be honest, I don't understand that move at all.  Again, the cynic in me has to think it might just might be the "we'll just make the old stuff unrepairable so they have to buy new stuff" mindset.  Since all the mechanical parts are still there, dumping that fairly small percentage of the old parts doesn't seem to be a space issue.  Also, since they never showed up on the used market, they apparently didn't sell them to anyone, so they probably ended up behind the plant in the dumpster.  I wish I had been on hand for that dump!  OTOH, I'm committed to keeping the old stuff running, and I have the parts to make that happen.

Amen John there is never a reason to walk away.4.0 5.0 and 5.5 are not that far apart and when I asked a friend who is a jobber to look at each board. There was nothing that could not be bought or the newer version. I hate to think it but you are right buy new rather than repair.

That’s the big difference from HO to O and in O there is no excuse.

@ThatGuy posted:

Amen John there is never a reason to walk away.4.0 5.0 and 5.5 are not that far apart and when I asked a friend who is a jobber to look at each board. There was nothing that could not be bought or the newer version. I hate to think it but you are right buy new rather than repair.

That’s the big difference from HO to O and in O there is no excuse.

Well, RS5 and RS5.5 are the same hardware, it's just the contents of the processor and sound chips that changed.  The RS4 board wasn't that much different than the RS5/5.5 board, but they added the coupler & rear light feature on the RS5 board as well as being able to address more memory for the larger files.

OK guys...from the last comments it appears that the topic at hand has once again gone to complaining about Lionel and its decisions.  How many times do we need to discuss this?  How many times do threads have to be hijacked and turned into derailments?  Get back on topic!

I contacted SoundTraxx yesterday to comment on their lack of a chuff input on their Blunami product. Their response, as noted previously in this tread, is it isn’t necessary due to their “decoder is able to read the BEMF to determine the revolutions of the motor”. In their response they say a cam can easily be synchronized with motor revolutions to have sound & smoke synchronous.

Thoughts on this?

@Trainmstr posted:

I contacted SoundTraxx yesterday to comment on their lack of a chuff input on their Blunami product. Their response, as noted previously in this tread, is it isn’t necessary due to their “decoder is able to read the BEMF to determine the revolutions of the motor”. In their response they say a cam can easily be synchronized with motor revolutions to have sound & smoke synchronous.

Thoughts on this?

Not true. You can use a cam or other means to drive a smoke fan at 4 times per rev but it can’t be synchronized with sound reliably. BEMF doesn’t know wheel/valve position at startup so sound can start anywhere in the rotation.

Pete

@Norton posted:

Not true. You can use a cam or other means to drive a smoke fan at 4 times per rev but it can’t be synchronized with sound reliably. BEMF doesn’t know wheel/valve position at startup so sound can start anywhere in the rotation.

Pete

IMO, that's a total crock!  If you used a cam, it would be perfectly synchronized with the drivers. BEMF doesn't enter into the pictures, that's just controlling the speed, we're talking about inputting the chuff signal, not trying to generate it from BEMF, that's what they do now!

Now, if they're too lame to synchronize the chuff sound when they get the pulse, that's not a problem with synchronizing with the drivers.  Truthfully, most of our O-scale stuff that doesn't use an axle cam doesn't synchronize with the drivers.  Neither MTH or Lionel Legacy synchronizes to the drivers, somehow we live with that.

The MAJOR problem, at least IMO, is the smoke and sound aren't synchronized!  Those are two things that are readily observed.  It's almost impossible at any speed to see that the sound and/or smoke doesn't perfectly synchronize with the drivers, even using a cam.

I'm not nearly as worried about synchronizing the drivers with the smoke and sound as I am synchronizing just the smoke and sound.

Why can't they just be honest and simply tell you they don't want to do it or it's "too hard"?

Gunrunner, Doesn’t one of your products use BEMF to generate a signal? Can both products be somehow synchronized?

@Trainmstr posted:

Gunrunner, Doesn’t one of your products use BEMF to generate a signal? Can both products be somehow synchronized?

Nope, I use tach stripes for the Chuff-Generator, I have no idea how I'd use back-EMF to generate a signal.

FYI, I don't know if it matters but the TCSWOW board can generate synchronized chuffs.  I installed one in a Bluerail experiment I did a while back and was REALLY happy with it.  I was originally going to use a Tsunami (not Blunami, this was before then) with a separate Bluerail board, and bought one of GRJ's chuffer kits, but ultimately the Tsunami couldn't handle the big motor.  The TCSWOW501 board was actually cheaper than the Tsunami + chuffer kit anyway.

Here's a link to the thread:

https://ogrforum.ogaugerr.com/...c/154730474344205453

@gunrunnerjohn posted:

IMO, that's a total crock!  If you used a cam, it would be perfectly synchronized with the drivers. BEMF doesn't enter into the pictures, that's just controlling the speed, we're talking about inputting the chuff signal, not trying to generate it from BEMF, that's what they do now!

Now, if they're too lame to synchronize the chuff sound when they get the pulse, that's not a problem with synchronizing with the drivers.  Truthfully, most of our O-scale stuff that doesn't use an axle cam doesn't synchronize with the drivers.  Neither MTH or Lionel Legacy synchronizes to the drivers, somehow we live with that.

The MAJOR problem, at least IMO, is the smoke and sound aren't synchronized!  Those are two things that are readily observed.  It's almost impossible at any speed to see that the sound and/or smoke doesn't perfectly synchronize with the drivers, even using a cam.

I'm not nearly as worried about synchronizing the drivers with the smoke and sound as I am synchronizing just the smoke and sound.

Why can't they just be honest and simply tell you they don't want to do it or it's "too hard"?

Reading is fundamental John, Read it again. You CANNOT get synchronized sound.
A cam or optical detector can be perfectly synchronized with wheel position. ANY system that uses motor rotation will never give a pulse at the same wheel. position unless you somehow add a home signal. Your chuff generator only compounds the problem.

Pete

Correct me if I’m wrong, some kind of signal must be getting sent to the sound chip to generate the chuff. Couldn’t they provide that signal as another wire, so a smoke board could be developed like KarlDL did for electrocouplers?

Maybe if we asked for that instead?

@Norton posted:

Reading is fundamental John, Read it again. You CANNOT get synchronized sound.
A cam or optical detector can be perfectly synchronized with wheel position. ANY system that uses motor rotation will never give a pulse at the same wheel. position unless you somehow add a home signal. Your chuff generator only compounds the problem.

Pete

My desire is to synchronize the sound with the chuff, and I have no problem doing that with my Chuff-Generator.  I get exactly the same results as both MTH and Lionel Legacy as far as synchronization with the drivers, as you correctly observe, that's none.  Lionel, MTH, and my C-G all get the four-chuffs/rev, but without a wheel cam or detector, you obviously aren't synchronized with the drivers.

My whole point is that with the simple addition of the chuff input on the Blunami, I could have synchronized smoke and sound.  In my mind, that's the big whoop here.  I can tell from across the room that the sound and smoke aren't synchronized.

@Trainmstr posted:

Correct me if I’m wrong, some kind of signal must be getting sent to the sound chip to generate the chuff. Couldn’t they provide that signal as another wire, so a smoke board could be developed like KarlDL did for electrocouplers?

Maybe if we asked for that instead?

It could but Sountraxx has decided not to include that option with their Blunami. Other DCC decoder makers do have that option and I believe Soundtraxx has dine so in the past, just not in this line.

Pete