Decoder Programming

[Railway42]

As a new boy to this forum I have noticed some people are having a problem with decoder programming. My immediate thought is of all the miss match of equipment being used. To me life is simple, at the time I started I wanted the best and at that time it was LGB with Lenz decoders 55020. Then eventually Massoth took over and manufactured all LGB electronics so my progression was with the LGB 55045 Programming module and soft ware, now with the Massoth soft ware as well. To me this makes sense. Look for a manufacturerer that produces all the necessary parts. i.e. (If Bachmann - use all their stuff, if Lenz - use all there stuff). For me Massoth is the best electronic company with Loco Decoder's, Sound Unit's, Switch Decoder's, Feedback Module's, Uncoupling units and the new IRD units that will be in the shops this year hopefully. To my way of thinking there is no standardisation in DCC. I know there is a ruling body but manufacturers do not have to adhere to this and some do not! I hope my views will not start any wars but it is MY VIEW.

Railway 42

 

[Cliff George]

Sorry can't agree with you there, my day job partly involves making European telecommunications standards. You would not expect to go to the phone shop and only be able to buy the same brand of mobile phone that matched the network infrastructure would you?

Standards drive down costs, promote innovation and increase take up because of the decreased dependence on one provider.

In my view DCC has become popular precisely because the track interface has been standardised, other bits of it could do with some standardising too, for example a throttle bus so that you could use any manufacturers throttles on any manufacturers infrastructure.

Other proprietary command control systems such as Zero-One, Airfix Multiple Control System, Dynatrol, CTC-16, Salota, Trainmaster, Selectrix, have generally not been sucessful.

Consider the situation with slot cars where every manufacturer provides there own proprietary digital system. There are no third party providers of kit that I know of.

I use a Lenz DCC system with decoders from LGB, Massoth, ESU and Lenz all work well together. I can take my locos and run then on DCC systems of other manufacturers, and others can come to me and run their locos.

It is a good job that there is a track standard (de facto) of 45mm isn't it.

Just my view also.

 

[lone ranger]

Sorry can't agree with you there, my day job partly involves making European telecommunications standards. You would not expect to go to the phone shop and only be able to buy the same brand of mobile phone that matched the network infrastructure would you?

Standards drive down costs, promote innovation and increase take up because of the decreased dependence on one provider.

In my view DCC has become popular precisely because the track interface has been standardised, other bits of it could do with some standardising too, for example a throttle bus so that you could use any manufacturers throttles on any manufacturers infrastructure.

Other proprietary command control systems such as Zero-One, Airfix Multiple Control System, Dynatrol, CTC-16, Salota, Trainmaster, Selectrix, have generally not been sucessful.

Consider the situation with slot cars where every manufacturer provides there own proprietary digital system. There are no third party providers of kit that I know of.

I use a Lenz DCC system with decoders from LGB, Massoth, ESU and Lenz all work well together. I can take my locos and run then on DCC systems of other manufacturers, and others can come to me and run their locos.

It is a good job that there is a track standard (de facto) of 45mm isn't it.

Just my view also.

Quite so Cliff have 5 Stars

 

[PaulRhB]

Sticking with one make of dcc would be very limiting and expensive though. As LGB used massoth electronics as standard you'd end up having to rip out brand new and expensive gear voiding warranties to achieve it unless you limited yourself to just one make of trains too.
The advantage of forums like this is you can usually find out what is causing a problem and circumvent it. Most of the issues are either dirt, random bad contacts or poor understanding, and that's usually down to the techy nature of the instructions which assume a level of knowledge similar to the engineer writing it
Yes there are compatibility issues, especially with sound decoders, because even though there is a standard it allows a bit of interpretation and manufacturers will tweak things slightly and also limit you to their programmer for software updates etc.
Accepting the minor tribulations of compatibility allows you to buy whatever locos you like, get the best motor or sound performance from them and as cheap as you can afford. As with any product certain ones do certain things best but I can't think of one who does everything perfectly. Massoth electronics are well designed for robustness but their sounds are very limited compared to ESU and Zimo. Esu have a lot of memory allowing a full range of sounds to better represent the real thing and simulate differing loads, but they are more complicated to program and less reliable.
If you can live with one make that's great but the variety of models available and the huge range of reasons why we play trains means few of us want to limit ourselves to that and don't want to add to the cost by throwing away electronics to standardise. Rule 8 works inside the locos too

 

[beavercreek]

As a relative newbie to DCC and having a collection of locos, (some already with dcc control/sound boards by LGB, Massoth, ESU and QSI that were being used on DC), I have found that the DCC boards, from different manufacturers, have their own pluses and minuses.
I like QSI and ESU for the wide range of sounds (I run US outline) and the ability to program many more facets of operation (especially QSI) than Massoth or LGB but I also like Massoth for its relative simplicity and apparent robustness. LGB boards seem a bit limited to me but remember I am a newbie.
I have only tried one Lenz board and it seems very good but, as it was not a sound board, it is only the operational programming that I have explored so far. I have seen Cliff's wonderful computerised layout which is predominately lenz equiped and it works as smooth as silk.
Other manufacturers like NCE and Digitrax etc which tend to have more of a following in The States have a good reputation.
BUT...do they work together?....well as has already been stated, some of the manufacturers have gone beyond the NMRA guidlines on CVs and have specific CVs (like indexed ones) that are not supported by other manufacturers and this tends to mean that you have to use their own or third party programmers to be able to adjust all of the parameters.
Although LGB and Massoth controllers an be used with each others central stations (MTS III and Dimax) this is definitely not always the case with other manufacturers (there are converters available for a couple of the US makes).

In truth nearly all DCC boards will work on any make of central station to some degree, it is only really the more advanced features that may not be accessible (ie Massoth have a total of 16 function buttons whereas some DCC boards, like QSI, can have in excess of this). The fact that some functions are not consistently programmed to the same controller buttons acoss the various manufacturers is really only a minor annoyance.
Choice is a great innovator and the fact that there are such a good range of manufacturers means that the DCC protocol will always be pushed to be better (hopefully to be more user friendly and not reliant on learning the old fashioned programming (much like DOS)...thank god for graphical interface programmers!).

 

[daveyb]

i would like to fit massoth xls decoders to many of my locos but the sounds just are not there for what i want,,

so prob have to go down the separate decoder/sound chip route

dont know why massoth sounds areso limited especially with us locos

 

[beavercreek]

i would like to fit massoth xls decoders to many of my locos but the sounds just are not there for what i want,,

so prob have to go down the separate decoder/sound chip route

dont know why massoth sounds areso limited especially with us locos

My thoughts entirely David.
Massoth seem to supply sounds for LGB loco in the main and as LGb have done so few US outline that probably is the reason for Massoth's small library of US sounds.
ESU do a more complete library and QSI obviously even more.
I like the expanded number of sound parameters that can be programmed with ESU and QSI (and they are both decoder and sound in one like the Massoth XLS).
Having said this I also like the Massoth decoders but when push comes to shove the ESU or QSI will clinch it on sound files and flexibility of locomotion parameter adjustments.
Cliff can give more info on the Lenz boards

 

[Cliff George]

Cliff can give more info on the Lenz boards

Thats easy assuming you are talking about sound. because Lenz have no sound decoders at all.

To add sound to a Lenz decoder choose one with a SUSI interface and get a Dietz SUSI sound module.

You can find the Dietz sound library on this web site: http://www.d-i-e-t-z.de/

 

[beavercreek]

Dietz make an extensive range of lok sounds - but if you want American sounds, you need to look elsewhere, as, like Massoth, they concentrate on European outline in the main.

I was not sure if Lenz did sound decoders.

Really, if you are doing US outline and you want to have loco sounds that are not in the Massoth or Dietz limited US libraries then ESU or QSI are the best bet as they have a good range of downloadable sound files. The American manufacturers, Digitrax and NCE, make only non-sound decoders that a lot of US modellers match up with Phoenix sound boards (lovely but oh so pricey!).

Soundtrax are bringing out a G scale TsunamiTSU-BA4000 (826610) sound/decoder board that has a narrow gauge steamer sound file (for the new Bachmann C19 loco ) to start with but will probably have the rest of their extensive US sound library available at a later date. It will also be cheaper than the ESU or QSI boards.
I have one that came built into the new Bachmann Climax and it works a treat.

 

[ntpntpntp]

I think most of the other guys have expressed the same thoughts as myself, ie. yes you can keep to a single brand if you feel more comfortable to do so (and with a few exceptions this is necessary for the command station and throttle control system) but you are severely limiting yourself with regard to choice of functionality and value for money to stick with one brand when it comes to decoders. There is absolutely no requirement to keep to one brand of decoder, the whole point of NMRA DCC standards is that the control protocol between command station and decoder via the track is standardised and anything sold as NMRA DCC should work. For our large scale toys the choice becomes a little more limited due to the higher voltage and power requirements.

Naturally there have been advances and enhancements over the years (more speed steps, more functions, feedback etc.) which can leave some command stations behind, plus as has been said some manufacturers take advantage of the ability to extend the protocol with their specific features (especially with regard to sound programming) - some of these eventually become standards.

I have no problem with my NCE command station controlling decoders from NCE, LGB, Massoth, Zimo, Digitraxx, CT Electronik, Lenz, ESU, QSI, TCS, Fleischmann, Trix, to name just a few off the top of my head. I use a SPROG and JMRI software for programming any of these decoders.