I didn't realize you could buy QSI decoders without buying a loco.
Are they selling these now?

Has anyone installed a QSI decoder in the Con Cor Proto 2000 F2
units? I am wondering what board or boards I will need to install in
the units. Thanks.

G'Day,
John F in California speaks of "buzzing tender sides, which is a clear
indication that the tender sides are not rigid enough. No amount of poly fibre back
fill is going to cure this. I would suggest running some Plastruct, or
similar styrene angles along the length of the tender - inside - to try to stiffen
them up.
The poly fill is only there to reduce internal reflections of the higher
frequencies.
The average DIY speaker enclosure, whether vented or sealed , is normally
constructed from 3/4" to 1" thick plywood, sometimes internally framed for added
rigidity. The back of the enclosure as a minimum, is lined with 1"
thick, cotton wool, poly fill or carpet under felt layer to absorb to above
mentioned high frequencies.
I say DIY enclosures, as these are built for performance, not price.
My own sound systems have the speakers mounted in brass tenders, which by
shape, or construction are quite rigid.

Best Regards,
Phil Kelly,
Sydney,
Land of Oz.

Ken,

What I did with my GN A+A E7's #512 is:
1. Program the lead unit 2dAd at 51
2. Program the consist unit 2dAd at 12
3. Program both units long address to 512 (if units have different road #
use for both units the lead unit's address)
4. Now I set CV29 in both units to enable long address and since E sets ran
tail to
tail I added 1 to the value in CV29 of the consisted unit so that it's
NDOT is
reverse (you may not need to do this as a B unit usually would be
coupled head
to tail?)
5. Then in the unlikely event that I need to separate the 2 units in OPS
mode
programming I change CV29 for address 512 to the desired value enabling
2dAd
and then call up each loco individually. (having first noted the
respective values in
CV29 for 4dAd and NDOT in a save place<G>)
6. To reverse the procedure couple the units together then OPS mode program
each 2dAd's CV29 respectively with the above noted values.

This I do with the Digitrax Super Chief but I'm sure is accomplished in the
same manner on any CS.

Hope this helps?

Thanks and regards,

John Burkhardt
South Africa
where the sun always shines,
and steam still reigns!

I have a A/B set of F7, BLI engines & I notice when I MU them & try
to mute the sound, when on the engine track, only the lead engine
mutes....Any way around this???..............Ken, Tampa

Steve said:

I understand the concept of testing speakers in an anechoic chamber.

However, I would interject that we don't listen to our locomotives in an
anechoic chamber, and therefore evaluation of the "system" (driver,
enclosure, damping, venting, crossover) should be done in the environment
in which the system is used. Reflections off the surface that the loco is
setting on are significant and will make a difference. On my layout, I
have a through truss bridge with an open deck. When a sound equipped loco
goes over the bridge, the volume and frequency content of the sound changes
significantly, enough so that you can hear it from 10ft away. Adding
damping material to the enclosure will change the "q" of the system, and
may change the frequency spectrum of the system's output.
<

Sorry, Steve, my finger hit the trigger button accidently and sent you an
email with no reply. This is 2nd try.

Nada. Although we dont listen to audio systems in anechoic chambers, it is
the only way to measure a system without including boundary effects. The
reason we want to do that is, especially with locomotives, the boundary
effects are changing as the loco circuits around a layout, and when making
audio system adjustments (like Q & system resonance frequency by stuffing
or weighting the cones), we would want a standardized environment. Another
(opposite) way to do it is in a "reverberant room" which is the opposite of
an anechoic chamber. It is a room with miriad reflecting surfaces. Audio
system design is still very controversial: some designers feel that the
speaker system response itself should be flat by measurement in the
listening environment; others feel that the overall audio reproduction
chain, from microphone to listeners' ears should be flat. But everyone's
ears are shaped a little differently, so how is "flat" measured? Only by
live vs. recorded comparison of the same signal. If the speaker system
alone is adjusted to be flat in the listening environment using a RTA, it
will sound horrible when playing music (or steam sounds, probably).
Usually, too hot a high end and boomy bass. On the LF end, room effects
predominate, usually boosting bass about 4-6 db @ 20 Hz, starting 1 db @
from ~200 Hz downward. And mikes make it worse. On the HF end, the ear is
more sensitive, because it lacks Fletcher-Munson effects, boosting the
apparent HF response at room listening distances. So the designers usually
taper both ends of speaker system response if the speakers are to be used
in an environment which exhibits room effects (for LF) and if the distance
from ears to speakers is no more than 20 feet (for HF). Anechoic chambers
are not for subjective evaluation of the sound system, but rather to
objectively and reliably quantisize a desired change in the characteristic
of the sound system. Of course, the degree of accuracy required of a QSI
sound system is much less than that of an audio sound system for playing
music, but for a mfgr., it would still be worthwhile, IMHO, to test in an
anechoic environment for making changes.

John F. in California

Message text written by INTERNET:QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com

The idea of measuring outdoors or in an anechoic chamber is to remove

the boundary effects from floors, walls, layout, etc. in order to really
determine what the intrinsic frequency response is. Boundary effects
usually alter bass response below 200 Hz.<<

John:

I understand the concept of testing speakers in an anechoic chamber.
However, I would interject that we don't listen to our locomotives in an
anechoic chamber, and therefore evaluation of the "system" (driver,
enclosure, damping, venting, crossover) should be done in the environment
in which the system is used. Reflections off the surface that the loco is
setting on are significant and will make a difference. On my layout, I
have a through truss bridge with an open deck. When a sound equipped loco
goes over the bridge, the volume and frequency content of the sound changes
significantly, enough so that you can hear it from 10ft away. Adding
damping material to the enclosure will change the "q" of the system, and
may change the frequency spectrum of the system's output.

I would perform the comparison tests on ballasted track with scenery around
the track for a few feet. I've got three Lionel Challengers and three
turbines. I may play with this some also.

<

John wrote:

The idea of measuring outdoors or in an anechoic chamber is to remove the boundary effects from floors, walls, layout, etc. in order to really determine what the intrinsic frequency response is. Boundary effects usually alter bass response below 200 Hz.<<

John:

I understand the concept of testing speakers in an anechoic chamber. However, I would interject that we don't listen to our locomotives in an anechoic chamber, and therefore evaluation of the "system" (driver, enclosure, damping, venting, crossover) should be done in the environment in which the system is used. Reflections off the surface that the loco is setting on are significant and will make a difference. On my layout, I have a through truss bridge with an open deck. When a sound equipped loco goes over the bridge, the volume and frequency content of the sound changes significantly, enough so that you can hear it from 10ft away. Adding damping material to the enclosure will change the "q" of the system, and may change the frequency spectrum of the system's output.

I would perform the comparison tests on ballasted track with scenery around the track for a few feet. I've got three Lionel Challengers and three turbines. I may play with this some also.

Steve Orth

John,

Both my BLI SF 4-8-4 and Heavy Mikado suffered from distortion due to tender
side wall flexing. My remedy was a piece of the foam rubber from an Athearn
blue box cut to length to wedge between the side walls.

Thanks and regards,

John Burkhardt
South Africa
where the sun always shines,
and steam still reigns!

Message text written by INTERNET:QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com

A thought: if the difference is so minute that it takes double-blind

tests to protect objectivity, chances are, the difference is
negligible. Any significant improvement should be somewhat apparent
(one hopes.) Thanks for doing this. Roger about the weighting -
especially if you know what the weightings are. We (at QSI) are
constantly working on ways to get the best sound out of a given
cavity.<

Pat,

does QSI do frequency response measurements of a locomotive in an anechoic
chamber or outdoors (a poor-man's equivalent)? If measurements (using a
"real time analyzer") are done outdoors, the loco should be hung on a pole
at least 25 feet off the ground. The idea of measuring outdoors or in an
anechoic chamber is to remove the boundary effects from floors, walls,
layout, etc. in order to really determine what the intrinsic frequency
response is. Boundary effects usually alter bass response below 200 Hz. Of
course, if the QSI speaker systems in locos don't produce any substantial
output below 200 Hz, then measurement indoors is OK.

In order to scientifically optimize the sound system, QSI should buy/rent a
real time analyzer and good condenser directional microphone. The output of
the RTA can be put into a computer to visualize the frequency response.
Then, when a change is made to the QSI system, a curve is rerun. Acoustic
design is always part science and part art; so repeat measurements are a
technique of importance in getting good sound. Just adding a little weight
to a speaker cone, for example, using a drop of glue, *could* make a
profound difference in the audible sound. And also, the production
variation between identical speakers is typically enough to produce good
sound on one loco and terrible sound on another of the same type. So each
speaker unit must be tested to be within an acceptable tolerance. If it
does not fall within the tolerance, it is thrown out and never used for
assembly.

John F. in California

A thought: if the difference is so minute that it takes double-blind
tests to protect objectivity, chances are, the difference is
negligible. Any significant improvement should be somewhat apparent
(one hopes.) Thanks for doing this. Roger about the weighting -
especially if you know what the weightings are. We (at QSI) are
constantly working on ways to get the best sound out of a given
cavity.
-Pat


--- In QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Fiscella"
<profirst@c...> wrote:

Message text written by INTERNET:QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com
Pat said:

Your expeirment sounds totally worthwhile.

The results will be a bit uncalibrated and perhaps a bit

subjective -

but, it is way better than what we have now - nothing. I am

looking

forward to a description of your experiences. Thanks!<

Pat, I too am worried about subjectivity entering into the

listening. I

thought about various ways to counteract this, like letting

someone else do

the stuffing and then verify the differences blindfolded (the so-

called

double-blind test like they do with medications). The other thing

is that

the sound must be set at the same level for each loco prior to

stuffing.

That I can do: I have a digital sound level meter. Maybe I will

enlist the

help of a few Club members. We have 9 Club members with BLI or

Lionel

locomotives, a total of probably 20 or so (I have 6). I'm sure

they would

be interested in helping. If this experiment improves the already-

good

steam sound even one iota, they probably will also stuff their

tenders

(provided, that is, after BLI or QSI says it is safe to do so).

It may also be possible to take 2 readings with the SLM using two
weightings (choosing from A, B and C) both before and after

stuffing. That

might objectively indicate a difference. A "weighting" means that

the

frequency response of the microphone on the SLM is electronically

altered

so that it reads the sound spectrum differently. The difference of

2

readings taken with 2 weightings is an indicator of the shape of

the sound

spectrum being measured. If the difference changes between empty

and

stuffed tenders (along with an audible difference) that can be

related back

to the difference in frequency response of the system being

measured across

2 bands.

Ciao!
John F. in California

Message text written by INTERNET:QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com

I would certainly be happy to hear that some poly-fill could

eliminate the "hollowness" of the Hudson's sound. (which brings up
other thoughts of "damping" materials that could be applied to the
inside of the shell... helping to damp the sound, and still allowing
airflow around the QSI electronics....
<

Damping materials would also help the Hudson: one of mine has the tender
walls buzzing. But damping material to help absorb the backwave of a
loudspeaker should entirely fill the space behind it for maximum effect.
That is what I aim to test.

John F. in California

I would certainly be happy to hear that some poly-fill could
eliminate the "hollowness" of the Hudson's sound. (which brings up
other thoughts of "damping" materials that could be applied to the
inside of the shell... helping to damp the sound, and still allowing
airflow around the QSI electronics....

Den


--- In QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com, "Pat Quinn" <quinn1947@y...>
wrote:

John,
Your expeirment sounds totally worthwhile.
The results will be a bit uncalibrated and perhaps a bit

subjective -

but, it is way better than what we have now - nothing. I am

looking

forward to a description of your experiences. Thanks!
-Pat

-------------------------------------------------------------

--- In QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Fiscella"
<profirst@c...> wrote:

Message text written by INTERNET:QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com
Pat said:

I think there is the unknown of how much improvement does the

backfill really provide. I'd love to hear a couple of mp3 files

from

someone who tried this in an A/B test on the same engine. We can
post such files directly to the Group (under "Files")
<

Pat, I have two synchronized BLI J-1e Hudsons (different numbers

and

different weathering). I could backfill one, run them together,

and see if

it makes any difference in the sound, and report back. Making MP3

files

would require setting up microphones to record, with its plethora

of

pandora's box acoustical issues.

John F. in California

Message text written by INTERNET:QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com
Pat said:

Your expeirment sounds totally worthwhile.

The results will be a bit uncalibrated and perhaps a bit subjective -
but, it is way better than what we have now - nothing. I am looking
forward to a description of your experiences. Thanks!<

Pat, I too am worried about subjectivity entering into the listening. I
thought about various ways to counteract this, like letting someone else do
the stuffing and then verify the differences blindfolded (the so-called
double-blind test like they do with medications). The other thing is that
the sound must be set at the same level for each loco prior to stuffing.
That I can do: I have a digital sound level meter. Maybe I will enlist the
help of a few Club members. We have 9 Club members with BLI or Lionel
locomotives, a total of probably 20 or so (I have 6). I'm sure they would
be interested in helping. If this experiment improves the already-good
steam sound even one iota, they probably will also stuff their tenders
(provided, that is, after BLI or QSI says it is safe to do so).

It may also be possible to take 2 readings with the SLM using two
weightings (choosing from A, B and C) both before and after stuffing. That
might objectively indicate a difference. A "weighting" means that the
frequency response of the microphone on the SLM is electronically altered
so that it reads the sound spectrum differently. The difference of 2
readings taken with 2 weightings is an indicator of the shape of the sound
spectrum being measured. If the difference changes between empty and
stuffed tenders (along with an audible difference) that can be related back
to the difference in frequency response of the system being measured across
2 bands.

Ciao!
John F. in California

John,
Your expeirment sounds totally worthwhile.
The results will be a bit uncalibrated and perhaps a bit subjective -
but, it is way better than what we have now - nothing. I am looking
forward to a description of your experiences. Thanks!
-Pat

-------------------------------------------------------------

--- In QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Fiscella"
<profirst@c...> wrote:

Message text written by INTERNET:QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com
Pat said:

I think there is the unknown of how much improvement does the

backfill really provide. I'd love to hear a couple of mp3 files

from

someone who tried this in an A/B test on the same engine. We can
post such files directly to the Group (under "Files")
<

Pat, I have two synchronized BLI J-1e Hudsons (different numbers

and

different weathering). I could backfill one, run them together,

and see if

it makes any difference in the sound, and report back. Making MP3

files

would require setting up microphones to record, with its plethora

of

pandora's box acoustical issues.

John F. in California

on 12/6/04 5:35 AM, QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com at
QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com wrote:

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2004 15:31:59 -0600
From: "Bob Zoeller" <bobspf@wi.rr.com>
Subject: BLI K4 idiosynchrasies

Was it on this list that one or two people complained about "surging" in the
operation of this loco? My second one has that characteristic, though I am
loathe to complain until I have dissassembled, lubricated,and broken in.
If someone has any other tips, I'd like to hear them.

More to the point electronically is that this loco for some reason requires a
soft reset to get the lights to work after a DCC short. That is, I tilt loco
and tender to one side for a few seconds. Following this deenergization I can
replace and lights work again. I have had to do similar soft resets to get
the loco to move forward after some (not all) shorts.
Anyone else encountered this?

I have not seen this in my other 3 BLI locos. Of course the T1 has operated
flawlessly with nary a bug since I took it out of the box. Many scale miles
of running better than the best diesels out there.

Bob Zoeller

Bob,
I do not have an HO layout at this time, but was able to get some
substantial run time on my T-1, M1a, and new K4 this past weekend at a club
show.
I had to do several "soft resets" with the K4, but more annoying was the
both the T-1 and the K4 completely lost their address, and who knows what
else, requiring 0-5-0 assistance to the programming track for a full reset
and reprogram. I do like the convenience of the magnetic reed switch for
reset. Twice, both engines were very hesitant to take their 4 digit address
successfully. Nothing seemed warm to the touch, but perhaps it is a heat
issue with the electronics?
You can imagine the frustration with double headed T-1s on a long passenger
consist coming around a rock cut, main shorts out (due to some idiot who got
his engineer's license from the same box of cereal as his drivers license),
and when the power comes back up the rear T-1 is dead.
My only other complaint is the apparently high start voltage on the K4. I
would like to adjust this so all the drinks in the lounge car aren't spilled
every time I back into a cut of cars.
I haven't had a chance to go back to school for an advanced degree in
Electrical Engineering to "understand" my way through the 143 pages of
programming the QSI module!:-)
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed my HO engines (along with my On30 C-16)
I would be interested in others' experiences and fixes.
Cheers,
Michael
State College, PA

Hi All,
Please excuse the cross posting.

Ever since I started acquiring Broadway Limited engines, I've been
surprised that there hasn't been a dedicated group for discussion
relating to them.

So, I have just created a yahoo group for Broadway Limited Imports.
Any topics relating to BLI products are welcome.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroadwayLimited/?yguid=94381244

I hope you will consider joining and participating with me.

Thanks and best,

Andy Keeney
Dewitt, MI

http://community.webshots.com/user/hunter48820

Message text written by INTERNET:QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com
Pat said:

I think there is the unknown of how much improvement does the

backfill really provide. I'd love to hear a couple of mp3 files from
someone who tried this in an A/B test on the same engine. We can
post such files directly to the Group (under "Files")
<

Pat, I have two synchronized BLI J-1e Hudsons (different numbers and
different weathering). I could backfill one, run them together, and see if
it makes any difference in the sound, and report back. Making MP3 files
would require setting up microphones to record, with its plethora of
pandora's box acoustical issues.

John F. in California

Was it on this list that one or two people complained about "surging" in the operation of this loco? My second one has that characteristic, though I am loathe to complain until I have dissassembled, lubricated,and broken in.
If someone has any other tips, I'd like to hear them.

More to the point electronically is that this loco for some reason requires a soft reset to get the lights to work after a DCC short. That is, I tilt loco and tender to one side for a few seconds. Following this deenergization I can replace and lights work again. I have had to do similar soft resets to get the loco to move forward after some (not all) shorts.
Anyone else encountered this?

I have not seen this in my other 3 BLI locos. Of course the T1 has operated flawlessly with nary a bug since I took it out of the box. Many scale miles of running better than the best diesels out there.

Bob Zoeller

For the most part, the air closest to the elctronics is "dead" air
(i.e. not moving). It is a matter of time (minutes) before the air
closest to the boards is at a mostly stable temperature. The primary
heat sinking is done with the mounting bracket. I would guess that
back fill would not damage heat sinking too much - though wrapping
something hot in a wool blanket is not going to make it cooler <g>.
Reliability is something that manufacturers must be very cautious
with. If some of you would report your findings, it might lead a
manufacturer to consider fill to increase apparent back-wave air
density.
I think there is the unknown of how much improvement does the
backfill really provide. I'd love to hear a couple of mp3 files from
someone who tried this in an A/B test on the same engine. We can
post such files directly to the Group (under "Files")

-Pat
QSI

------------------------------------------------


--- In QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com, "John M. Fiscella"
<profirst@c...> wrote:

Message text written by INTERNET:QSIndustries@yahoogroups.com
Bob said:

Having been in acoustics in one of my distant past lives, this

reminder

was tempting for a moment, but I have had some shortened lives of

decoders

without enough free air to dissipate heat.
<

That may be why it wasn't done. Pat, can you comment on that?

John F. in California