Hello Modelers
For anyone interested in hearing the recent innovation from Broadway Limited, James (jlwii) has just posted a review of the Rolling Thunder/Paragon 3 system.
I have the receiver on order from TrainWorld and I bought my own sub-woofer so I will be able to play with it soon.
I’m sure some modelers will love it and others will have a much different opinion but I’m sure everyone has to agree that the technology behind this system is worth a close look!
Enjoy, Ed
I don’t own a steam engine, but I found the Rolling Thunder sound to be impressive. I would love to hear how a diesel sounds with the system.
For diesel sound, see if this link works . . . .
My Rolling Thunder receiver just arrived a few minutes ago. I have the booklet in front of me and there is a page describing how the receiver “locks-on” to the first available locomotive until it moves out of range after which the next available locomotive will begin playing through the subwoofer.
You CAN dedicate one subwoofer to one locomotive using channels (there are 29 available) and setting the channel using CV 212 to a value between 1 - 29.
You can also increase the transmitter strength from the locomotive using CV 213 from lowest (value 240) to highest (128)
Multiple receivers can be spaced around a larger layout. You can set the range of channels that the receiver scans if you don’t need many channels the scanning will perform faster with a lower number of channels selected.
The receiver has a DCC address of 1 and can be programmed using ops mode programming. It says there are a number of options to “fine tune” in the receiver that can be changed with CVs. You can use BLI’s DC Master to make changes using the bell and horn buttons to step th`rough the CVs.
You can dedicate the receiver to one locomotive by setting receiver CV 142 & 143 to the channel of the locomotive.
It looks like BLI has really done their homework on this machine! I couldn’t wait for a future Paragon 3 locomotive so I ordered a Pennsy L1s so I can try this bad boy out.
Regards, Ed
If this works, I’m hoping in a few years that “Rolling Thunder Addons” will be available for other systems, or perhas the “Rolling Thunder Decoder” available separately.
I’m frankly still not happy with the bass response of speakers you can fit into an HO locomotive.
No speaker inside an HO scale locomotive will ever produce very good bass response - it defies the laws of physics.
The fact that Rolling Thunder and Surroundtraxx exist suggests that the manufacturers have realized all along that only one segment of the market would be happy with “on board” sound in the smaller scales.
Sound is very subjective, highly subject to room and layout conditions, and hard to “scale down” especially in scales as small as HO or N.
One of my other hobbies is designing Hi Fi speaker systems - so as of yet, no onboard model system in HO lives up to my standards, and I’m not sure any will every justify the cost in my view.
I have long suggested that “generic” layout based sounds would be more effective than onboard sounds - but as of yet I have not had the luxury of time to test that theory…yet the industry slowly moves in similar directions…
Sheldon
Never ever? I wouldn’t bet on that, given where technology and miniaturization has taken us in the last few years.
Rich
Rich,
Creating bass response requires moving a specific volume of air. As the speaker diameter decreases, it must have a longer stroke to move similar volumes. Bass notes require high volumes of air depending on room size, conditions, etc.
A 1" specker would need a stroke like a small piston, of an inch or more, to even start to get near the real bass region. That kind of stroke would introduce considerable distortion to both the bass note and the higher frequencies being reproduced.
Headphones are only able to reproduce bass notes witrh small speakers because of the small volume of air between the speaker and your ear - in room, different rules apply.
Yes - never. Even with “bass tube” or labyrinth technolgy, the length and cross section of that labyrinth requires way more cubic inches than the the biggest HO locos whole volume.
Never say never.
Rich
Yes, I agree. Never ever. It has nothing to do with the miniaturaization of electronics or computers. The laws of physics for sound waves and the biology of the human ear remain intact.
What about a hybrid system where you have on-board sound, which I agee, probably will never be able to create the low frequencies needed for realism, sounds that are hard to locate, say below 80 hz, you could use subwoofers under the table. It seems a combination of sound on-board and stationary speakers might provide a good sound experience - the onboard giving the directional sound which follows the diesels.
That’s what BLI’s Rolling Thunder is.
If they were to propduce after market N-scale decdoers with this technology I would be very interested.
Anuthing above 60Hz is.directional. from the looks of it the rolling thinder starts at around 300Hz. But with our small space that should matter much.
A slightly odd question- would it be feasible to do a decent bass in the larger scales? In particular G 1:29. I’ve seen full range 2 and 3 inch speakers which their specs say go down to 75hz or so…
Not odd at all…
I have a USA Trains NYC Hudson that has a pretty good “bark” to it. However…
Unless you are running indoors, the bass sound does not get reflected too much and the ambient noise level is much higher (lawnmowers, blue jays, chain saws, passing aircraft) so the sound levels have to be that much higher to compensate. The distances are greater on many G layouts, too.
Indoors, that’s another story. You can get a wider dynamic range and certainly lower bass frequency from the larger speakers and the larger enclosures that the carbody or tender provides.
Ed
Yep. Not until they manage to change the size of the various gas molecules in the air.
It’s the same reason that when you scale down a WW2 fighter airplane to model size, you have to adjust the wingspan and other parameters if you want it to actually fly. Air molecules do not scale.
In a small room, let’s say a typical bedrooom, small “bookshelf” speakers and can begin to reproduce some bass sounds - think of it this way, intsead of the 1" speakers in an HO tender sounding like a cheap 9 transistor radio, the larger speakers in a G scale loco can sound like a portable boom box.
Still not my idea of good sound, but better none the less.
BUT, in a large layout room, like my 900 sq ft space, even G scale locos lack much bass punch - let alone outdoors.
I have little interest in building a layout that only fills a bedroom…in any scale.
Sheldon
Ehh? No!
I have been competing at top level i F4C with both a Spitfire (1:5) and a Hawker Typhoon (1:5.5), and the only! difference is the wing loading!
No altered profiles or dimensions!
All of this discussion about bass response strikes me as an argument over loud volume and ear thumping sound. But shouldn’t the balance between bass, midrange, and treble be adjusted to scale? Shouldn’t bass response in HO scale sound a lot different than standing at trackside listening and feeling to a prototype locomotive passing by?
Rich
Rich,
It is not about loudness, it is about even hearing any bass at all.
If you were here at my house, with my HiFi system, I could put a test recording on and demonstrate, but it is hard to explain to those not familiar with the technical side of sound reproduction.
BUT, as to loudness, that is another problem, our ears do not hear the world in a “flat” response curve based on volume. We all hear mid range sounds (human voice range), better and louder than they actually are compared to other sounds.
Side note - have you ever noticed how few women are interested in HiFi sound? Even if they have strong musical interest or skill? There is a physicalogical reason.
Their ears are tuned to the voice range even more a