profile is for Assetto Corsa only
New Tactile Hardware 2023 / 2024
- Thread starter Mr Latte
- Start date
Since users have so many different goals about how they wanna use a specific shaker it‘s hard to point out specific settings. Each shaker has many different limits determined by many factors, inbetween such limits each shaker can be pushed within an optimal working window (chosen by the user who will deliberately decide on how much non linear signal reproduction suits or compromises his goals). Everything is relative. therfore i can just hint to some specific characteristics (e.g. for the HPR) that stand correct in general (for the common criteria being of interest as I described, namely the HPR being only an interesting product at a pedal) as e.g. its (measured) performance within the frequency range I pointed out, where pancake Exiters (due to their inherent design principles) will always perform relatively different (typically „weaker“) than piston style transducers. I mean, the thread here is addressed anyway to advanced tactilists who - I guess - know what they are looking for - apart from turn-key solutions (suggested and designed by the industry) that cover 95% of most people needs. The other 5% will always be a bit of joyful experimentation on uncharted territory
Mr Latte
Premium
Points I want to consider taking into consideration.....
1. "The HPR is clearly designed to perform best in the 23- 37 Hz range, where the pancake exiters run out of strength.
2. BUT the HPR only works properly (in this relatively low frequency range) when mounted to a pedal. The HPR behaves sigificantly different (worse) when mounted to anytting else (usually higher damped moved masses).
3. Above 37 Hz the DAEX32 and its many sibblings are in general and anyway stronger and preciser than the HPR (even with their lower watt limits). However, there is no better or worse,
4. the HPR is designed for beeing used at pedals with a good price/benefit ratio, delivering low frequencies that otherwise can only be achieved with Earthquakes or Buttkickers with a higher price tag and suboptimal form factor. In so far, a nice and well thought through product for a very specific purpose"
My Updated Response:
1. Not confirmed regards the exciter options in this comparison. The Reckhorn will also be featured in tests to give more perspective on how each of the options compare to one of the best budget transducers.
2. My test platform is working fine, letting me feel the generated frequencies with no problems directly into my feet.
3. To say one is no better/worse, depends on the user requirements or preferences. Do they want better punch/strength or better detail. My recommendation is to consider combing the HPR with an exciter. To achieve more potential from various effects being output at once. Or to split effects beyond a single units limitations operation/abilities.
4. I have stated several times the BDS can work well with low frequencies and offers stronger output to other exciters. It will be confirmed in more detail later how well the BDS compares to the HPR with the recommendations regards amp and power supply specs.
Will wait for the effects you used with the HPR as you clearly have experience in using it, having shared your views on its performance to other units you have compared it to. Nobody here wants excuses, and it's a reasonable request.
This will let me compare it with what you used, how you recommend it to be used and with the new products in this comparison.
Thanks again for your contributions...
1. "The HPR is clearly designed to perform best in the 23- 37 Hz range, where the pancake exiters run out of strength.
2. BUT the HPR only works properly (in this relatively low frequency range) when mounted to a pedal. The HPR behaves sigificantly different (worse) when mounted to anytting else (usually higher damped moved masses).
3. Above 37 Hz the DAEX32 and its many sibblings are in general and anyway stronger and preciser than the HPR (even with their lower watt limits). However, there is no better or worse,
4. the HPR is designed for beeing used at pedals with a good price/benefit ratio, delivering low frequencies that otherwise can only be achieved with Earthquakes or Buttkickers with a higher price tag and suboptimal form factor. In so far, a nice and well thought through product for a very specific purpose"
My Updated Response:
1. Not confirmed regards the exciter options in this comparison. The Reckhorn will also be featured in tests to give more perspective on how each of the options compare to one of the best budget transducers.
2. My test platform is working fine, letting me feel the generated frequencies with no problems directly into my feet.
3. To say one is no better/worse, depends on the user requirements or preferences. Do they want better punch/strength or better detail. My recommendation is to consider combing the HPR with an exciter. To achieve more potential from various effects being output at once. Or to split effects beyond a single units limitations operation/abilities.
4. I have stated several times the BDS can work well with low frequencies and offers stronger output to other exciters. It will be confirmed in more detail later how well the BDS compares to the HPR with the recommendations regards amp and power supply specs.
Will wait for the effects you used with the HPR as you clearly have experience in using it, having shared your views on its performance to other units you have compared it to. Nobody here wants excuses, and it's a reasonable request.
This will let me compare it with what you used, how you recommend it to be used and with the new products in this comparison.
Thanks again for your contributions...
Last edited:
Mr Latte
Premium
Going Into Things More Deeply
Here I am taking stock of recent points made and sharing my own thoughts....
The goal of this thread is to determine which of these units in this comparison can offer the best performance. Within that we may discover certain abilities or pros/cons each option has or as I have alluded to the idea, why can we not combine an exciter with the HPR. I am also taking into account the performance and operation of other popular products to help relate how the models in this comparison compare to those.
Something to clarify.....
" I mean, the thread here is addressed anyway to advanced tactilists who - I guess - know what they are looking for "
Sorry but did I or someone say that?
This thread is for anyone that has an interest in these "budget tactile" options and determining their performance or pros/cons. The primary purpose of the thread is to be able to make recommendations and offer people a solution for a good performing entry into tactile immersion.
I shared briefly an example I would consider for my own selected pedals as that too is something nobody else I know of has done. It is still relevant as it highlights my intent to present the recommendation in combining the HPR with an exciter, ahhh and based on my own reasons and my own approach with effects creation.
As mentioned as one of the goals. I then intend to work on my own effects that are made/developed specifically on what becomes the chosen hardware combination. It's my own approach, different to others and here in its own space for those that want to consider it.
We have the mockers, the stalkers and intruders, including various experts in tactile that are following, yes? Yet when are some of them going to step up and offer effects examples to test for ABS or other effects they say they like to use or enjoy?
I find it amusing, all this technical knowledge, all these experienced sim racers, but seemingly nobody can share the effects they use with their HPR and ACC. So I ask again, WHO wants to help, not just me but the community here?
Previous HPR Discussions
Having looked back to the first discussions on these forums @jgpacker74 mentioned using the HPR with an amplifier. Here is the post in question I want to refer too.
The amplifier model was the Fosi A03 which he linked and this indeed is a 32V 5A based model. See his comment about 200W even though the unit cannot even supply that with the PSU it comes with.
What I can't tell from that is if "he" only used one channel of the amp or combined both to power the HPR. Yet he did give an indication that 100w or approximately half the amps power is likely all that is needed for the HPR why? *(More on this later below)
Situation Overview:
1. Technical experts commenting, have explained the need for a 32V 5A based amplifier regards the HPR 27 ohm resistance.
2. The impression being given is that everyone so far, that has used the HPR with an amp, not to those specifications will not be able to fully deliver the units best performance. An example was made in reference to lack of power, but to my knowledge this has not been the case with everyone? Different pedals an installations also playing a part of that perhaps?
3. I have already tested the unit with the official controller and even using it at Simhub max output with various (fixed) frequencies to get a basis of the units abilities.
4. I asked how using a more powerful amp/power supply would improve the units abilities or performance. I got no detailed response in the benefits it would bring.
5. With interest in doing justice to the product. I want to be able to re-test the HPR with the benefits Shake-it Bass Shakers offers and with the recommendations of technical experts. I have asked for step by step instruction to ensure things are then done to their recommendations.
6. Claims have been made that even with this, the HPR will only deliver 10% - 15% of what the MQB-1 can deliver. Yet I find this a very misleading example that tells us very little! Is it to say that the MQB will be upto 10x better, do we just base the units performance on power and listed specifications, or do we compare them both based on REAL comparisons with effects to see how/which ways they operate differently?
7. I raised the point that not everyone will need the power of the MQB-1 and it is also not suitable for a wide range of mainstream pedals that people own. Including those with budget hardware but who still want to experience tactile immersion or have an interest in this current trend.
8. I asked the technical experts, for a model of amp to be recommended, but got no help on that. Actually, nobody since has offered alternatives. We see no comments from owners of the HPR already, what amps they are using and how well they are performing for them?
9. I did some research of my own. So choose a model of amp that appeared to perform better than some others. Also shared a technical review of it but this received no comments or input.
10. To highlight an important factor. Below I will share a technical review of the originally mentioned/recommended amplifier (Fosi A03) from the same reviewer using the same process.
What we find is that, even though this and the model I purchased use 32V 5A psu (as required/recommended). It appears by this testers results from each video. One amp has much better performance than the other in power output.
Please take the time to compare the results of this and even with a much improved PSU, to the results of the model I purchased.
11. Now you know why I asked for a specific amp to be recommended, but at least sought after one that may perform to a good or decent level.
If I am wrong here fine, but It appears, we have people offering technical requirements based on formula/calculations and I assume, applying listed specs for those calculations?
"Even with an e.g. 19V PSU the HPR is stronger in the 23-37 Hz range than any pancake style Exiter. So, in the range that seems primarily interesting to me for ABS effects*. With a =>32V PSU you can max out the HPR potential. "
To me and keeping in mind I am stupid, this is not accurate or a means to determine performance because the quality of the PSU or the amp itself can greatly vary. It is certainly not real world usage or basing things from tried/tested hardware with the actual products.
It came to me as no surprise, manufacturer claims on wattages are not accurate, nor can performance of an amp just be determined by the claims stated to use one with 32V PSU, yet that is the advice given...
My thoughts are the numbers alone guys are not the full story....
Have you considered guys, having sparked my curiosity based on your expertise and knowledge. I would buy a second HPR to compare 1-1 using both the amplifer approach to using it via the haptic controller?
Indeed we will try to discover how well both methods may vary with the units abilities or performance.
Here I am taking stock of recent points made and sharing my own thoughts....
The goal of this thread is to determine which of these units in this comparison can offer the best performance. Within that we may discover certain abilities or pros/cons each option has or as I have alluded to the idea, why can we not combine an exciter with the HPR. I am also taking into account the performance and operation of other popular products to help relate how the models in this comparison compare to those.
Something to clarify.....
" I mean, the thread here is addressed anyway to advanced tactilists who - I guess - know what they are looking for "
Sorry but did I or someone say that?
This thread is for anyone that has an interest in these "budget tactile" options and determining their performance or pros/cons. The primary purpose of the thread is to be able to make recommendations and offer people a solution for a good performing entry into tactile immersion.
I shared briefly an example I would consider for my own selected pedals as that too is something nobody else I know of has done. It is still relevant as it highlights my intent to present the recommendation in combining the HPR with an exciter, ahhh and based on my own reasons and my own approach with effects creation.
As mentioned as one of the goals. I then intend to work on my own effects that are made/developed specifically on what becomes the chosen hardware combination. It's my own approach, different to others and here in its own space for those that want to consider it.
We have the mockers, the stalkers and intruders, including various experts in tactile that are following, yes? Yet when are some of them going to step up and offer effects examples to test for ABS or other effects they say they like to use or enjoy?
I find it amusing, all this technical knowledge, all these experienced sim racers, but seemingly nobody can share the effects they use with their HPR and ACC. So I ask again, WHO wants to help, not just me but the community here?
Previous HPR Discussions
Having looked back to the first discussions on these forums @jgpacker74 mentioned using the HPR with an amplifier. Here is the post in question I want to refer too.
The amplifier model was the Fosi A03 which he linked and this indeed is a 32V 5A based model. See his comment about 200W even though the unit cannot even supply that with the PSU it comes with.
What I can't tell from that is if "he" only used one channel of the amp or combined both to power the HPR. Yet he did give an indication that 100w or approximately half the amps power is likely all that is needed for the HPR why? *(More on this later below)
Situation Overview:
1. Technical experts commenting, have explained the need for a 32V 5A based amplifier regards the HPR 27 ohm resistance.
2. The impression being given is that everyone so far, that has used the HPR with an amp, not to those specifications will not be able to fully deliver the units best performance. An example was made in reference to lack of power, but to my knowledge this has not been the case with everyone? Different pedals an installations also playing a part of that perhaps?
3. I have already tested the unit with the official controller and even using it at Simhub max output with various (fixed) frequencies to get a basis of the units abilities.
4. I asked how using a more powerful amp/power supply would improve the units abilities or performance. I got no detailed response in the benefits it would bring.
5. With interest in doing justice to the product. I want to be able to re-test the HPR with the benefits Shake-it Bass Shakers offers and with the recommendations of technical experts. I have asked for step by step instruction to ensure things are then done to their recommendations.
6. Claims have been made that even with this, the HPR will only deliver 10% - 15% of what the MQB-1 can deliver. Yet I find this a very misleading example that tells us very little! Is it to say that the MQB will be upto 10x better, do we just base the units performance on power and listed specifications, or do we compare them both based on REAL comparisons with effects to see how/which ways they operate differently?
7. I raised the point that not everyone will need the power of the MQB-1 and it is also not suitable for a wide range of mainstream pedals that people own. Including those with budget hardware but who still want to experience tactile immersion or have an interest in this current trend.
8. I asked the technical experts, for a model of amp to be recommended, but got no help on that. Actually, nobody since has offered alternatives. We see no comments from owners of the HPR already, what amps they are using and how well they are performing for them?
9. I did some research of my own. So choose a model of amp that appeared to perform better than some others. Also shared a technical review of it but this received no comments or input.
10. To highlight an important factor. Below I will share a technical review of the originally mentioned/recommended amplifier (Fosi A03) from the same reviewer using the same process.
What we find is that, even though this and the model I purchased use 32V 5A psu (as required/recommended). It appears by this testers results from each video. One amp has much better performance than the other in power output.
11. Now you know why I asked for a specific amp to be recommended, but at least sought after one that may perform to a good or decent level.
If I am wrong here fine, but It appears, we have people offering technical requirements based on formula/calculations and I assume, applying listed specs for those calculations?
"Even with an e.g. 19V PSU the HPR is stronger in the 23-37 Hz range than any pancake style Exiter. So, in the range that seems primarily interesting to me for ABS effects*. With a =>32V PSU you can max out the HPR potential. "
To me and keeping in mind I am stupid, this is not accurate or a means to determine performance because the quality of the PSU or the amp itself can greatly vary. It is certainly not real world usage or basing things from tried/tested hardware with the actual products.
It came to me as no surprise, manufacturer claims on wattages are not accurate, nor can performance of an amp just be determined by the claims stated to use one with 32V PSU, yet that is the advice given...
My thoughts are the numbers alone guys are not the full story....
Have you considered guys, having sparked my curiosity based on your expertise and knowledge. I would buy a second HPR to compare 1-1 using both the amplifer approach to using it via the haptic controller?
Indeed we will try to discover how well both methods may vary with the units abilities or performance.
Last edited:
Fosi Audio M03 uses TPA3255, another stereo class D bridge output module.
M03 is thus neither monoblock nor suitable for combining outputs.
Mr Latte
Premium
Excellent confirmation.
So based on that, and from the reported output of the review I shared. Can you tell people here the maximum watts it is likely to produce with the accompanied PSU.
Can you also do the same with the amp I selected by using the specs listed of each model and the chips they are using.
This is relevant, as to a buyer, reading this thread what they were recommended was an amp with 32v PSU. Yet we see major differences in performance with products listed as that.
How can we be certain that other amps that may use lower voltage PSU, which may perform better in relation to their listed specs vary in performance? Or they may also underperform badly.
The point being made is, we cannot be certain how well a specific amplifier will perform until we actually test or compare them with what we are doing. Listed specs or the units actual performance cannot just be deemed by numbers alone.
The reviews/benchtests do at least give us more to go on and that is why I went to the bother of sharing these.
Last edited:
Mr Latte
Premium
Also ordered one of these with 48V as it is a highly recommended amp.
Could be useful for me when testing other tactile and so easy to connect or move around. From videos I watched it also is a great amp for bass.
Might be interesting to people here even with an interest in audio.
It looks like a really nice product too.
Some of these videos also highlight that amps using the same chip does not mean, they then all will be equal or sound the same. Sure its a factor but it is not the only factor.
Could be useful for me when testing other tactile and so easy to connect or move around. From videos I watched it also is a great amp for bass.
Might be interesting to people here even with an interest in audio.
It looks like a really nice product too.
Some of these videos also highlight that amps using the same chip does not mean, they then all will be equal or sound the same. Sure its a factor but it is not the only factor.
Last edited:
herve45
Premium
Hello
I will try on AC with Porsche GT3R official
Mr Latte
Premium
UPDATE:
Both amps have arrived, as well as the 2nd HPR unit.
3D printed brackets for pedals have been shipped.
Ordered two circular steel plates just big enough for the MQB1
Thinking it may let me drill these to then attach to the printed HPR bracket for the pedals.
Amp it Up
I am not confident the HPR will be a great deal better in how it feels, to warrant using it for various effects types, but I do not want to be accused of doing things by half measures. I just prefer to do practical testing than basing things on numbers or calculated estimations guys.
Think it is only fair to question or raise the issue regards the example I highlighted with amps. Two amps both 32V, one listed at 150W and the other 160W per channel but when bench-tested, it appears one offers @100W and the other @80W (both at 4ohms). So just like soundcards we see differences, that are maybe big enough to make, "enough difference".
It may be that we meet the operational limits of the HPR even with the @80w model, but look.... I now have 4 mini amp options to try with this all. Each with increased wattage or beefed up power supplies for the 27ohm resistance. It will let me see from real world tests and easier now with 2x units ran 1-1, how much benefit the 32V based PSU amp is to the 19V or even the 12V model that was in Daniels video.
If it turns out that it really is not worth spending the money on a decent amp for the HPR to try to get it to do stuff (other exciters here) will do better anyways then I will give an honest account. Likewise I will look at examples given to compare the HPR at its limits via an amp, to how the BDS feels regards which is strongest in that @25-40Hz range.
The amps will also be put to use to let me use with other tactile.
Will be trying both the Reckhorn and MQB1 via the M1 Pro but also ZA3.
Horner
Have tried the Reckhorn with NS 20G 19V PSU, with small selection of effects.
Again, the BDS just shines with how it feels with low bass in comparison. So I want to push the Reckhorn more with these new amps, just to be confident we max out its potential.
So far I still believe the BDS is a game changer and the unit to beat here...
Curious myself to extend testing to even compare the MQB1 powered by the ZA3 and see how different or better it is over the BDS *(or pair of BDS) with low-high frequencies.
I still very much see excellent potential in a combination of BDS and HPR. That this is delivering something in tactile, and at a low budget that will re-define peoples perceptions of how good tactile can be at such low cost.
Both amps have arrived, as well as the 2nd HPR unit.
3D printed brackets for pedals have been shipped.
Ordered two circular steel plates just big enough for the MQB1
Thinking it may let me drill these to then attach to the printed HPR bracket for the pedals.
Amp it Up
I am not confident the HPR will be a great deal better in how it feels, to warrant using it for various effects types, but I do not want to be accused of doing things by half measures. I just prefer to do practical testing than basing things on numbers or calculated estimations guys.
Think it is only fair to question or raise the issue regards the example I highlighted with amps. Two amps both 32V, one listed at 150W and the other 160W per channel but when bench-tested, it appears one offers @100W and the other @80W (both at 4ohms). So just like soundcards we see differences, that are maybe big enough to make, "enough difference".
It may be that we meet the operational limits of the HPR even with the @80w model, but look.... I now have 4 mini amp options to try with this all. Each with increased wattage or beefed up power supplies for the 27ohm resistance. It will let me see from real world tests and easier now with 2x units ran 1-1, how much benefit the 32V based PSU amp is to the 19V or even the 12V model that was in Daniels video.
If it turns out that it really is not worth spending the money on a decent amp for the HPR to try to get it to do stuff (other exciters here) will do better anyways then I will give an honest account. Likewise I will look at examples given to compare the HPR at its limits via an amp, to how the BDS feels regards which is strongest in that @25-40Hz range.
The amps will also be put to use to let me use with other tactile.
Will be trying both the Reckhorn and MQB1 via the M1 Pro but also ZA3.
Horner
Have tried the Reckhorn with NS 20G 19V PSU, with small selection of effects.
Again, the BDS just shines with how it feels with low bass in comparison. So I want to push the Reckhorn more with these new amps, just to be confident we max out its potential.
So far I still believe the BDS is a game changer and the unit to beat here...
Curious myself to extend testing to even compare the MQB1 powered by the ZA3 and see how different or better it is over the BDS *(or pair of BDS) with low-high frequencies.
I still very much see excellent potential in a combination of BDS and HPR. That this is delivering something in tactile, and at a low budget that will re-define peoples perceptions of how good tactile can be at such low cost.
Last edited:
Mr Latte
Premium
ABS / Effect Test
Spent some time over the last two days comparing how the MQB1 feels with ABS compared to the BDS. What I found in this test, just confirms (for myself) earlier comments I made....
Lets take the BDS first. I had it (achieving a specific feel of sensation) to represent an effects key character I liked. So I try to replicate that felt sensation on another type or make of unit. In this case the MQB1.
With the BDS exciter and using a standard ABS effect @5Hz with a nicely applied volume creates a smooth/bubble floaty feel. Bear in mind this is a 40W exciter okay and using just the 50W Nobsound amp with it's own basic soundcard....
So lets try the MQB1 being powered by the excellent ZA3 amplifier, (in mono mode) but combined with a basic soundcard model recommended on GV. I cannot get that same sensation, not even close to how the BDS feels with that frequency. I try other frequencies and get to something kind of similar about an octave higher and with suitable volume but not the same feeling...
Different Approaches
This raises part of my own approach with effects and why I do not want to make effects that are made for some form of "global compatibility". That method which attempts to group certain makes/models based on frequencies, and then other groups with different makes/models and frequencies.
In this small example it highlights even with single frequency based effect, its not possible to create an effect to have a desired sensation on a particular model. To then expect other users, with different makes/models of transducers to be able to feel the proper characteristics as intended. I just do not see it working properly and think this is an area that gets overlooked all the time with people seeking to share effects or profiles and with very different hardware.
BDS Game Changer?
I referred to it like this earlier and here is one reason why....
The general mindset seems to be, more powerful piston based units like the MQB1 or BK Mini or the larger brothers of these are needed for low frequencies. It has even been stated here by others, that to actually even feel the lower frequencies it is not possible with exciters.
Yet here I am, telling you guys, this BDS exciter, costing @£40 delivers a unique feel with the lowest Hz that the Mini Quake does not seem to offer. Nor does the Reckhorn offer either.
Indeed each has its "own operational character" for key frequencies and with that we find what are the pros/cons for different units and ways to maybe combine them.
So that's exactly what I did in this rather quick ABS test.
I had both units work together to get a sensation in feel I cannot get with either one on it's own. I applied two musical operating layers for the BDS and combined that with a different frequency (with another desired feel) for the MQB1. Then added to that a rather nice, multi-layered "Road Texture".
Works a treat and was a pleasant confirmation for me in how well these two units will partner on pedals and can work together.
Spent some time over the last two days comparing how the MQB1 feels with ABS compared to the BDS. What I found in this test, just confirms (for myself) earlier comments I made....
Lets take the BDS first. I had it (achieving a specific feel of sensation) to represent an effects key character I liked. So I try to replicate that felt sensation on another type or make of unit. In this case the MQB1.
With the BDS exciter and using a standard ABS effect @5Hz with a nicely applied volume creates a smooth/bubble floaty feel. Bear in mind this is a 40W exciter okay and using just the 50W Nobsound amp with it's own basic soundcard....
So lets try the MQB1 being powered by the excellent ZA3 amplifier, (in mono mode) but combined with a basic soundcard model recommended on GV. I cannot get that same sensation, not even close to how the BDS feels with that frequency. I try other frequencies and get to something kind of similar about an octave higher and with suitable volume but not the same feeling...
Different Approaches
This raises part of my own approach with effects and why I do not want to make effects that are made for some form of "global compatibility". That method which attempts to group certain makes/models based on frequencies, and then other groups with different makes/models and frequencies.
In this small example it highlights even with single frequency based effect, its not possible to create an effect to have a desired sensation on a particular model. To then expect other users, with different makes/models of transducers to be able to feel the proper characteristics as intended. I just do not see it working properly and think this is an area that gets overlooked all the time with people seeking to share effects or profiles and with very different hardware.
BDS Game Changer?
I referred to it like this earlier and here is one reason why....
The general mindset seems to be, more powerful piston based units like the MQB1 or BK Mini or the larger brothers of these are needed for low frequencies. It has even been stated here by others, that to actually even feel the lower frequencies it is not possible with exciters.
Yet here I am, telling you guys, this BDS exciter, costing @£40 delivers a unique feel with the lowest Hz that the Mini Quake does not seem to offer. Nor does the Reckhorn offer either.
Indeed each has its "own operational character" for key frequencies and with that we find what are the pros/cons for different units and ways to maybe combine them.
So that's exactly what I did in this rather quick ABS test.
I had both units work together to get a sensation in feel I cannot get with either one on it's own. I applied two musical operating layers for the BDS and combined that with a different frequency (with another desired feel) for the MQB1. Then added to that a rather nice, multi-layered "Road Texture".
Works a treat and was a pleasant confirmation for me in how well these two units will partner on pedals and can work together.
Last edited:
metalnwood
Premium
I think another factor, particular to the brake pedal and abs is what pressure you are using to activate the effect. I have seen the range used on the anywhere from 15 to 100kg, sometimes more but not so often.
Last edited:
Mr Latte
Premium
Will look at doing comparisons with HPR and different amps this week.
Even if it seems like the HPR may be limited in what it's best frequencies are. Or how it feels and certainly not as detailed as the BDS. I still want to learn how it handles its punch/power with these different amps and power supplies.
Also going to compare with my own effects to see how a HPR / BDS combo is to a MQB1 / BDS combo.
For further comparisons and to help aid with my own effects creation. I have also bought the Dayton BST1 and Dayton 300EX to discover how they perform or operate differently to other tactile I own.
Even if it seems like the HPR may be limited in what it's best frequencies are. Or how it feels and certainly not as detailed as the BDS. I still want to learn how it handles its punch/power with these different amps and power supplies.
Also going to compare with my own effects to see how a HPR / BDS combo is to a MQB1 / BDS combo.
For further comparisons and to help aid with my own effects creation. I have also bought the Dayton BST1 and Dayton 300EX to discover how they perform or operate differently to other tactile I own.
Last edited:
Mr Latte
Premium
Pedal Effects Update
Have been tweaking effects, during the process of this thread....
When this thread reaches its conclusion, I will be doing a new thread based on effects I am making. These will be for the hardware combinations I see happening here for pedal installations.
BDS & MQB1
BDS & HPR
BDS & BDS
The plan is, unlike other approaches, these effects are primarily being made and tuned for each specific unit. This, is not just about power, or taking the view that a 40W exciter will never compete with a much higher wattage unit. *More on this below...
Effects sensations to be applied to the toe or "Pedal/Plates" will be made to suit each of the supported options, with MQB1 and HPR sets as well as BDS pairs. So depending on what the user has they apply the effects for that pairing.
I have purposely worked on these effects, that in most scenarios they use 3-4 layers. So they offer more detail than standard effects but are quite efficient and simple for even newcomers to tactile. This has been an important aspect for me to maintain.
Let me explain that, it is also about having the ability to create effects with unique feeling sensations. As hinted in here, that we cannot achieve on other makes/models of units. This is a key benefit I have found with these BDS units so far. Just how well they work over a wide range of frequencies and the character they achieve in feel/detail.
Extra Mile / Kilometre
The reason I am buying these different amps and also various other models of transducers is to let me fully determine for myself. With my own effects approach, just how well the BDS competes to several popular budget transducers.
It clearly seems to be the best exciter by a wide margin. This is why I quickly stopped testing the Xcite model. In fairness it is a good performer and may even be the next best now but that will have to be compared to others maybe at a later time.
So before I can fully conclude on the BDS exciter it will also be compared to...
Dayton Puc / Dayton BST 1 / Reckhorn 200i.
I want to go deeper into this, from an effects creation and performance perspective, because what do those units offer as advantages. How/where in their own "generated characteristics" do they bring something over their operating frequencies the BDS cannot?
Dual Role Baby
Models like the MQB1 / BK Mini and HPR bring their own specific benefits with more punch/slam and as piston based units this is part of their character/abilities. With this they also have their own drawbacks and it's always been a good idea to combine a piston based unit with a typical transducer/exciter.
Why, well simple....
It lets us achieve both the lower bass punch and additional improved detailing over a wider frequency range. To also enable us to split more effects types or layers over two units instead of all being crammed onto one.
Later Down The Road
As I have not yet experienced the Dayton 300EX for more powerful low bass.
Not sure what to expect from it (2x BST 1?) but think by now quite a few people own it and it seems well priced.
This too will be compared in time to its possible competition?
TST Gold / Earthquake MQB 1 / BK Mini lfe
Unlikely but perhaps worth comparing also / Earthquake Q10 / BK LFE
I would be interested to determine not just what has stronger lower bass output. Again as above, to learn what it's own output characteristics are. How it could perhaps be utilised for a specific role or frequency rang and if it has any stand out abilities to others.
Have been tweaking effects, during the process of this thread....
When this thread reaches its conclusion, I will be doing a new thread based on effects I am making. These will be for the hardware combinations I see happening here for pedal installations.
BDS & MQB1
BDS & HPR
BDS & BDS
The plan is, unlike other approaches, these effects are primarily being made and tuned for each specific unit. This, is not just about power, or taking the view that a 40W exciter will never compete with a much higher wattage unit. *More on this below...
Effects sensations to be applied to the toe or "Pedal/Plates" will be made to suit each of the supported options, with MQB1 and HPR sets as well as BDS pairs. So depending on what the user has they apply the effects for that pairing.
I have purposely worked on these effects, that in most scenarios they use 3-4 layers. So they offer more detail than standard effects but are quite efficient and simple for even newcomers to tactile. This has been an important aspect for me to maintain.
Let me explain that, it is also about having the ability to create effects with unique feeling sensations. As hinted in here, that we cannot achieve on other makes/models of units. This is a key benefit I have found with these BDS units so far. Just how well they work over a wide range of frequencies and the character they achieve in feel/detail.
Extra Mile / Kilometre
The reason I am buying these different amps and also various other models of transducers is to let me fully determine for myself. With my own effects approach, just how well the BDS competes to several popular budget transducers.
It clearly seems to be the best exciter by a wide margin. This is why I quickly stopped testing the Xcite model. In fairness it is a good performer and may even be the next best now but that will have to be compared to others maybe at a later time.
So before I can fully conclude on the BDS exciter it will also be compared to...
Dayton Puc / Dayton BST 1 / Reckhorn 200i.
I want to go deeper into this, from an effects creation and performance perspective, because what do those units offer as advantages. How/where in their own "generated characteristics" do they bring something over their operating frequencies the BDS cannot?
Dual Role Baby
Models like the MQB1 / BK Mini and HPR bring their own specific benefits with more punch/slam and as piston based units this is part of their character/abilities. With this they also have their own drawbacks and it's always been a good idea to combine a piston based unit with a typical transducer/exciter.
Why, well simple....
It lets us achieve both the lower bass punch and additional improved detailing over a wider frequency range. To also enable us to split more effects types or layers over two units instead of all being crammed onto one.
Later Down The Road
As I have not yet experienced the Dayton 300EX for more powerful low bass.
Not sure what to expect from it (2x BST 1?) but think by now quite a few people own it and it seems well priced.
This too will be compared in time to its possible competition?
TST Gold / Earthquake MQB 1 / BK Mini lfe
Unlikely but perhaps worth comparing also / Earthquake Q10 / BK LFE
I would be interested to determine not just what has stronger lower bass output. Again as above, to learn what it's own output characteristics are. How it could perhaps be utilised for a specific role or frequency rang and if it has any stand out abilities to others.
Last edited:
First of all, thank you for your in-depth work on the subject Mr Latte!
It will surely be useful to many. I dedicate my first post to you, I have been reading your work in silence for a long time.
For my part, we can say that I have a "sufficient composition adapted to the limited circumstances". Without any rig yet, I'm trying to get the most out of a table-chair setup, which is currently 2x Dayton BST-1s bolted to the bottom of a Markus chair
, wired in series, powered by a Nobsound G2 PRO (Mono 300W SUB Amp) with a long cable to move the chair.
Why the mono sub amp?
I tried with the smaller Nobsound Mini before, but it was not possible to really feel the separation of the sides, so I sacrificed the stereo, since I also use the shakers for music, so the sub amp was a must to cut the highs from the signal coming to the headphones. Now one input is the headphone amplifier/dac, the other is the output controlled by the simhub, it is a win-win.
I am currently working on the pedals (SimJack Pro with inverted DIY wooden frame), for which I previously acquired a pair of Dayton Audio BCT-3s, as well as using the smaller Nobsound amplifier I already have. As expected, they don't have much power, and they also use the crappy 'spider' mount, which caused one of the BST-1s to have to be replaced after it broke.
I don't trust these 'spider' mounts, that's why I was happy when I saw the new version that no longer uses it. I don't know how long the BST-1s will last, but I'm looking forward to your comparison of the BST-300EX and the new BDS, because both can be potential successors(Even for the seat replacing the BST1-s), if the BDS can cover the range with acceptable power at a more affordable price, the choice is clear, especially that it can be driven with a smaller, cheaper amplifier.
Now let's get to why I'm writing.
We know that shakers have a characteristic, a curve that is not flat (BDS above), so they shake strongly at certain frequencies, while in between they barely, this makes it quite difficult to use effects that cover wider frequency bands, because mostly we can only use the peaks from the useful frequency range, but since the shakers are also speakers, we can compensate with EQ, right?
Large shakers require large, expensive amplifiers, which often has the PEQ option in order to really take advantage of them. But unfortunately, big shakers are expensive, as are the amplifiers that go with them.
If I'm not mistaken, part of your goal with the BDS is that it can be purchased at a price that many people can afford, but can still provide an outstanding experience when tuned well, so it has an ideal price/value ratio, which is perfect for anyone to purchase a pair and make use of your work/effects and have a great results.
But for the perfect experience in the low cost region, a PEQ would be useful so that we can really take advantage of the wide frequency range of the BDS, which is lacking in these small chinese amplifiers, but since we mostly play on PC, there is a free alternative, Equalizer APO & Peace PEQ, combined with REW (Room EQ Wizard).
I think this topic deserves a more thorough explanation from an experienced person like you, maybe (I'm sure) you've already done this multiple times, and it would help many if you could share how to get started, tips and tricks. Especially since the BDS you tested is particularly suitable for this purpose.
While a head shape is enough for headphones, or a room and the listening position for speakers, in the case of shakers there are many variables, such as in what environment are we measuring? Hanging or attached to a surface? Do we measure sound or rezonance of surface? If fixed, on which surface should we measure, on a uniform measuring table or the rig? Can the structure/material of the rig affect the measured resonances? Do we measure, for example, the shakers placed in the corner from the seat? etc
Assuming that the characteristics of one type of shaker do not differ too much, the final image may vary greatly from individual applications, so individual calibration may be necessary to achieve perfection (flat response at the sensing/measuring point).
In theory, if we could record the characteristics of the given shaker and generate a correction (e.g. in REW) which we then apply to the output device in Peace PEQ, we could smooth out the shaker curve and thus obtain a wide frequency band with uniform strength, which is an excellent starting point for simhub effects.
It could even be a useful basis of comparison between different shakers to see how wide a flat range you can achieve with a given/expected performance, if one is roughly flat but weaker(flat types), it may still be a better choice than a stronger one with a huge peak(piston types), because by the time we balance it, it has to be taken back too much to be usable, so the advantage is lost.
Before correction:
Generate correction curve:
After correction:
This method already exists with headphones (Above example is my AKG K7XX), where hundreds of headphones have been measured with an authentic head-shaped microphone, and a correction curve is available for each of them, which can be used to bring them to a uniform level, it is shocking how similar results can be achieved with headphones with a price difference of 10x, after eliminating their 'unique' sound. My cheap portable one sounds about the same as my expensive planar, except that the planar goes much-much deeper. I think the same procedure could be used for shakers as well, so we don't have to pay attention to how the effects work specifically for the given shaker, we dont fit the effects for the shaker, we fit the shakers to the effect, and just scale it in the available range.
I would be happy if you could share your thoughts on the subject.
It will surely be useful to many. I dedicate my first post to you, I have been reading your work in silence for a long time.
For my part, we can say that I have a "sufficient composition adapted to the limited circumstances". Without any rig yet, I'm trying to get the most out of a table-chair setup, which is currently 2x Dayton BST-1s bolted to the bottom of a Markus chair
, wired in series, powered by a Nobsound G2 PRO (Mono 300W SUB Amp) with a long cable to move the chair.Why the mono sub amp?
I tried with the smaller Nobsound Mini before, but it was not possible to really feel the separation of the sides, so I sacrificed the stereo, since I also use the shakers for music, so the sub amp was a must to cut the highs from the signal coming to the headphones. Now one input is the headphone amplifier/dac, the other is the output controlled by the simhub, it is a win-win.
I am currently working on the pedals (SimJack Pro with inverted DIY wooden frame), for which I previously acquired a pair of Dayton Audio BCT-3s, as well as using the smaller Nobsound amplifier I already have. As expected, they don't have much power, and they also use the crappy 'spider' mount, which caused one of the BST-1s to have to be replaced after it broke.
I don't trust these 'spider' mounts, that's why I was happy when I saw the new version that no longer uses it. I don't know how long the BST-1s will last, but I'm looking forward to your comparison of the BST-300EX and the new BDS, because both can be potential successors(Even for the seat replacing the BST1-s), if the BDS can cover the range with acceptable power at a more affordable price, the choice is clear, especially that it can be driven with a smaller, cheaper amplifier.
Now let's get to why I'm writing.
We know that shakers have a characteristic, a curve that is not flat (BDS above), so they shake strongly at certain frequencies, while in between they barely, this makes it quite difficult to use effects that cover wider frequency bands, because mostly we can only use the peaks from the useful frequency range, but since the shakers are also speakers, we can compensate with EQ, right?
Large shakers require large, expensive amplifiers, which often has the PEQ option in order to really take advantage of them. But unfortunately, big shakers are expensive, as are the amplifiers that go with them.
If I'm not mistaken, part of your goal with the BDS is that it can be purchased at a price that many people can afford, but can still provide an outstanding experience when tuned well, so it has an ideal price/value ratio, which is perfect for anyone to purchase a pair and make use of your work/effects and have a great results.
But for the perfect experience in the low cost region, a PEQ would be useful so that we can really take advantage of the wide frequency range of the BDS, which is lacking in these small chinese amplifiers, but since we mostly play on PC, there is a free alternative, Equalizer APO & Peace PEQ, combined with REW (Room EQ Wizard).
I think this topic deserves a more thorough explanation from an experienced person like you, maybe (I'm sure) you've already done this multiple times, and it would help many if you could share how to get started, tips and tricks. Especially since the BDS you tested is particularly suitable for this purpose.
While a head shape is enough for headphones, or a room and the listening position for speakers, in the case of shakers there are many variables, such as in what environment are we measuring? Hanging or attached to a surface? Do we measure sound or rezonance of surface? If fixed, on which surface should we measure, on a uniform measuring table or the rig? Can the structure/material of the rig affect the measured resonances? Do we measure, for example, the shakers placed in the corner from the seat? etc
Assuming that the characteristics of one type of shaker do not differ too much, the final image may vary greatly from individual applications, so individual calibration may be necessary to achieve perfection (flat response at the sensing/measuring point).
In theory, if we could record the characteristics of the given shaker and generate a correction (e.g. in REW) which we then apply to the output device in Peace PEQ, we could smooth out the shaker curve and thus obtain a wide frequency band with uniform strength, which is an excellent starting point for simhub effects.
It could even be a useful basis of comparison between different shakers to see how wide a flat range you can achieve with a given/expected performance, if one is roughly flat but weaker(flat types), it may still be a better choice than a stronger one with a huge peak(piston types), because by the time we balance it, it has to be taken back too much to be usable, so the advantage is lost.
Before correction:
Generate correction curve:
After correction:
This method already exists with headphones (Above example is my AKG K7XX), where hundreds of headphones have been measured with an authentic head-shaped microphone, and a correction curve is available for each of them, which can be used to bring them to a uniform level, it is shocking how similar results can be achieved with headphones with a price difference of 10x, after eliminating their 'unique' sound. My cheap portable one sounds about the same as my expensive planar, except that the planar goes much-much deeper. I think the same procedure could be used for shakers as well, so we don't have to pay attention to how the effects work specifically for the given shaker, we dont fit the effects for the shaker, we fit the shakers to the effect, and just scale it in the available range.
I would be happy if you could share your thoughts on the subject.
Last edited:
Mr Latte
Premium
First of all, thank you for your in-depth work on the subject Mr Latte!
It will surely be useful to many. I dedicate my first post to you, I have been reading your work in silence for a long time.
For my part, we can say that I have a "sufficient composition adapted to the limited circumstances". Without any rig yet, I'm trying to get the most out of a table-chair setup, which is currently 2x Dayton BST-1s bolted to the bottom of a Markus chair
Why the mono sub amp?
I tried with the smaller Nobsound Mini before, but it was not possible to really feel the separation of the sides, so I sacrificed the stereo, since I also use the shakers for music, so the sub amp was a must to cut the highs from the signal coming to the headphones. Now one input is the headphone amplifier/dac, the other is the output controlled by the simhub, it is a win-win.
I am currently working on the pedals (SimJack Pro with inverted DIY wooden frame), for which I previously acquired a pair of Dayton Audio BCT-3s, as well as using the smaller Nobsound amplifier I already have. As expected, they don't have much power, and they also use the crappy 'spider' mount, which caused one of the BST-1s to have to be replaced after it broke.
I don't trust these 'spider' mounts, that's why I was happy when I saw the new version that no longer uses it. I don't know how long the BST-1s will last, but I'm looking forward to your comparison of the BST-300EX and the new BDS, because both can be potential successors(Even for the seat replacing the BST1-s), if the BDS can cover the range with acceptable power at a more affordable price, the choice is clear, especially that it can be driven with a smaller, cheaper amplifier.
Now let's get to why I'm writing.
We know that shakers have a characteristic, a curve that is not flat, so they shake strongly at certain frequencies, while in between they barely, this makes it quite difficult to use effects that cover wider frequency bands, because mostly we can only use the peaks from the useful frequency range, but since the shakers are also speakers, we can compensate with EQ, right?
Large shakers require a large, expensive amplifiers, which often has the PEQ option in order to really take advantage of them. But unfortunately, big shakers are expensive, as are the amplifiers that go with them.
If I'm not mistaken, part of your goal with the BDS is that it can be purchased at a price that many people can afford, but can still provide an outstanding experience when tuned well, so it has an ideal price/value ratio, which is perfect for anyone to purchase a pair and make use of your work/effects and have a great results.
But for the perfect experience in the low cost region, a PEQ would be useful so that we can really take advantage of the wide frequency range of the BDS, which is lacking in small Chinese amplifiers, but since we mostly play on PC, there is a free alternative, Equalizer APO & Peace PEQ, combined with REW (Room EQ Wizard).
I think this topic deserves a more thorough explanation from an experienced person like you, maybe (I'm sure) you've already done this multiple times, and it would help many if you could share how to get started, tips and tricks. Especially since the BDS you tested is particularly suitable for this purpose.
Is a normal good microphone (e.g. Zoom H1) enough for this, or is it preferable to use a suitable calibration microphone (e.g. MiniDSP UMIK-1), or to record sound or vibration with a simple Android phone?
In theory, if we could record the characteristics of the given shaker and generate a correction (e.g. in REW) which we then apply to the output device in Peace PEQ, we could smooth out the shaker curve and thus obtain a wide frequency band with uniform strength, which is an excellent starting point for simhub effects.
It could even be a useful basis of comparison between different shakers to see how wide a flat range you can achieve with a given/expected performance, if one is roughly flat but weaker, it may still be a better choice than a stronger one with a huge peak, because by the time we balance it, it has to be taken back too much to be usable, so the advantage is lost.
This thing already exists with headphones, where hundreds of headphones have been measured with an authentic head-shaped microphone, and a correction curve is available for each of them, which can be used to bring them to a uniform level, it is shocking how similar results can be achieved with headphones with a price difference of 10x, after eliminating the their 'unique' sound. My cheap portable one sounds about the same as my expensive planar, except that the planar goes much-much deeper. I think the same procedure could be used for shakers as well, so we don't have to pay attention to how the effects work specifically for the given shaker, we dont fit the effects for the shaker, we fit the shakers to the effect, and just scale it in the available range.
I would be happy if you could share your thoughts on the subject.
Well thanks for your excellent post and kind words...
Testing on a basic chair can be quite valid for comparisons and strip things right back to basics. I remembering doing that back in 2011 with TST and large BK units as way back then their was very little shared info about transducers/shakers. It was from that, I noticed each unit brought its own benefits but as I cover here, each also had its own characteristics.
The TST was a superb allrounder, and the more expensive models of them bringing more power across the range each time. The Gold in particular for me was the best performance/price model but those are very expensive nowadays. The large BK brought the brute force and slam, effectively like combining a sub with a good speaker. An important factor about this is that both combined bring a new experience to the possibilities we have with effects.
From that point and its something I have said on these forums many times, no single transducer/shaker will be perfect in that it can best produce the detail with mid/higher bass but also deliver the lowest bass effectively. Some likely know by now, I called this "Dual Role" as I see it a way to better develop effects and go beyond the traditional approach one unit left to handle everything.
As the focus here is on pedals at the moment, and keeping things to a budget, let me say that the first goal was to find the best "all rounder" budget unit. I wanted to continue my approach with "Dual Role" to then apply to that "all rounder" unit, the option to combine it either with the HPR or MQB1 piston/shaker based unit.
Not Done Before
So from the offset, effects I am working on for the pedals are being developed to utilise both types of units. This also enables us to better cover the foot with specific sensations going into the toes and other frequencies/output going into the heel plate. Keep in mind how each unit will also be using musically matched frequencies so that they not only work better in tandem but also in scenarios of multiple effects and this is something very few people I think have implemented in effects they build.
We can also expect the generated vibrations to flow all over the pedals but what is important is both units will be "direct contact" for "each foot". This is also highly important to improve on how we feel the stereo sensations and oh boy do they feel good with all the "ROAD" effects I have created to work as combined together.
So in my case, I can say confidently each is not just some frequency at random set to RR and then another randomly selected frequency set for RV and this done also with RT or RI effects. What the user feels is each element with its own sensation / response and activity.
I have been smiling ear to ear, when testing these, as we really get a better sense of wheel placement/suspension activity. The quality / richness / detail in these effects, the fun and interaction they bring, I believe will compete with anything anyone has for pedal tactile but for people not used to having stereo in pedals it should raise an eyebrow and win them over.
What About the Seat / Why Pedals
I intend to back up the stereo effects with sensations for the seat but the cheapest route is the pedals and this is why I decided this time to start with pedal effects and installation. I do not believe in this idea that only the seat should have stereo sensations. The front wheels and suspension are a huge part of the immersion but stereo effects and achieving them in pedals has never been easy accomplished.
Microphone / REW / Charts
You can look at charts and spec sheets or base things from calculated perspectives. For me I prefer the nitty gritty in just doing 1-1 tests and comparisons in real usage scenario. What you feel is more important than what a chart or frequency analysis says. Do not get me wrong they have their uses but their are so many factors with different rigs / materials / seats / amps / soundcards etc and that before we consider effects and frequencies.
I still, do believe "better tactile" for everyone is possible when we try to reduce those elements. To discover what are the best performing units, soundcards and amps. That is exactly what will come from this thread as it has delved deeper than I originally expected. All I can say is that, those that follow the guidelines / recommendations will get as close to what I wanted the effects to deliver, as good as is possible.
An issue with charts is readings taken based on what/how that unit was installed too. Even on such charts that Dayton have for products you see the disclaimer. Attach it to a different material, place it in a different place on that object and you will likely see changes in the results. So are we doing this as a science project or following general known factors to help achieve good tactile?
Importance Of Best Allrounder
From memory the BST 1 is just average/decent, as mentioned I have a new one ordered not that I need or will be using it. Yet it is important for me to understand how the BDS improves over it because so many people already have this model. I want to be able to compare how it feels with effects I build for the BDS.
I am certain, based on past experiences... When I release the effects, a lot of people will totally ignore that they were made using specific units and made to suit how I wanted the effects to feel on those units and recommended installations.
Won't get too deep into this but the multi-layers also let people adapt the "mix" to apply a combination of those layers volumes to more suit their own taste or to vary how different installations, pedals etc as well as perhaps different sims/car types may feel.
Incorporated Adaptability
It is possible, from the BDS layers I could apply the same musical principles the effects use, but to then create a downscaled BST 1 variant or a PUC variant. Having each of those use frequencies in relation to what the BDS has, yet applied to work within the BST's / PUC's own performance range and characteristics. This is why I am buying those units to be able to offer effects built/tested on each make/model. Nobody I am aware of has went to that bother or done this with their approaches, but for me it is how I want to do it with my own efforts.
Lowend / Highend
The musical approach with the effects I use and with the multi-layering makes this possible. It can also be adapted for highend tactile models, to reconfigure the frequencies applied for those units lower bass abilities where wanted, while maintaining the frequency musicality in the effects with the other units. So someone wanting to add additional lower bass extension would be able to do that...
Actually when I think about it, for a dumbass like me.... It's actually quite impressive but is based on the experience I gathered from my own testing and approach I wanted to develop.
The focus is first to deliver the best performance with this approach and be within the budget price point. All this will be covered in a guide thread with the effects.
Winner?
The BDS appears to be a very unique product that firstly is a budget price. It is small and easily installed. Provides a much wider frequency range with better mid and higher bass frequencies over other popular units. The fascinating part, is that it also delivers different and often better low bass detail/rebound sensations than more expensive units, as already tested in the MQB1 or the Reckhorn.
I do not expect a model like the BST 1 / Aura Pro is going to outshine it or make a better partner for a piston based or low bass extension unit. A TST may share some similarities, in smoothness and transition of frequencies, these being more musical in their operation but again, the BDS in how it handles the lowest frequencies is indeed just hard to believe.
For those wanting to insist on installing units to a rigs corners and not as direct contact objects/surfaces, for pedals/seat then yes, the BDS may not work as well in that scenario with it's 40w output.
As for EQ etc I will come to that later....
Last edited:
Mr Latte
Premium
Okay so some of my thoughts on the EQ / REW possibilities.
I did consider buying the UMIK by Mini DSP and have a play around with that, so know what you are referring to. Dayton had their own product too but that seems discontinued now.
I could explore that but would be able to take it even further with the equipment I have here...
The mic, could be combined with vibration apps for readings, as well as an audio interface. That could be used to display real-time monitoring of frequencies. It would even be possible to see what is being generated from Simhub but then also what the mic is picking up from the seat/installation.
Espically with an audio interface and DAW with various pro plugins. Like you propose some form of EQ or DSP abilities would be possible to adapt the output. Its all quite technical, time consuming and yes someone that knows what they are doing may obtain some benefits in performance from all that or learn some things that are interesting.
Some people will be at a technical level they could apply APO for EQ and may want to do that, but personally I have always favoured a hardware solution to another software element in windows. It can be additional hassle with drivers/updates or possible issues with delay and multi-channels or different makes/types of soundcards.
I see DSP more for user tuning, for users that want that, than for a huge performance gain. Where it perhaps makes more benefit is when we apply "Audio tactile" and adapt that as a source, or seek to combine that with Simhub tone generation.
The Problem?
Too many variables with peoples setups and hardware...
How one unit will perform with the amp/soundcard and installation on one persons seat or setup may be rather different to another persons setup with the same unit being used. Each could generate different readings via a Mic/REW approach.
The combined tactile hardware will have its operational differences and limits, so yes while we can help to shape the units performance to perhaps improve dips for certain frequencies or indeed trim any peak as well as reduce reverb in materials. It may bring improvement but for the average user how much of an improvement? Is it worth the hassle?
The downside with an EQ is that some will just crank things in volume and EQ, they may cause damage to the units they have. I have seen this in the past too.
So for me personally, at the moment, I want to deliver a level of tactile for even the beginner, that is to a really high standard but make it as simple as possible for them to get to experience it.
At the same time this approach I have went with, is adaptable and upgradeable with more accomplished hardware too. All it takes is learning how/what different makes/models of units feel with each of the effects and using frequencies for them that suit that models operational performance and character, without trying to alter/modify that character. I think when you go to level you are talking about it has to be on a 1-1 instance for each persons setup and preferences too.
I did consider buying the UMIK by Mini DSP and have a play around with that, so know what you are referring to. Dayton had their own product too but that seems discontinued now.
I could explore that but would be able to take it even further with the equipment I have here...
The mic, could be combined with vibration apps for readings, as well as an audio interface. That could be used to display real-time monitoring of frequencies. It would even be possible to see what is being generated from Simhub but then also what the mic is picking up from the seat/installation.
Espically with an audio interface and DAW with various pro plugins. Like you propose some form of EQ or DSP abilities would be possible to adapt the output. Its all quite technical, time consuming and yes someone that knows what they are doing may obtain some benefits in performance from all that or learn some things that are interesting.
Some people will be at a technical level they could apply APO for EQ and may want to do that, but personally I have always favoured a hardware solution to another software element in windows. It can be additional hassle with drivers/updates or possible issues with delay and multi-channels or different makes/types of soundcards.
I see DSP more for user tuning, for users that want that, than for a huge performance gain. Where it perhaps makes more benefit is when we apply "Audio tactile" and adapt that as a source, or seek to combine that with Simhub tone generation.
The Problem?
Too many variables with peoples setups and hardware...
How one unit will perform with the amp/soundcard and installation on one persons seat or setup may be rather different to another persons setup with the same unit being used. Each could generate different readings via a Mic/REW approach.
The combined tactile hardware will have its operational differences and limits, so yes while we can help to shape the units performance to perhaps improve dips for certain frequencies or indeed trim any peak as well as reduce reverb in materials. It may bring improvement but for the average user how much of an improvement? Is it worth the hassle?
The downside with an EQ is that some will just crank things in volume and EQ, they may cause damage to the units they have. I have seen this in the past too.
So for me personally, at the moment, I want to deliver a level of tactile for even the beginner, that is to a really high standard but make it as simple as possible for them to get to experience it.
At the same time this approach I have went with, is adaptable and upgradeable with more accomplished hardware too. All it takes is learning how/what different makes/models of units feel with each of the effects and using frequencies for them that suit that models operational performance and character, without trying to alter/modify that character. I think when you go to level you are talking about it has to be on a 1-1 instance for each persons setup and preferences too.
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification, I'm in IT and I believe more in numbers (placebo exists), maybe that's why I'm a little too dependent on measurements and calibration.
In my opinion, it's easier to start from a stable base, and then you don't have to measure every effect, than to adjust everything one by one to the waves.
But I completely understand your point of view, striving for a plug & play solution that is as foolproof as possible, which is more work, but in return the implementation will be easier for the user.
If the effects sufficiently compensate for the unique curve of the given shaker, and we assume that the environment does not distort it too much (directly from the pedal to the foot or on the seat), then it is possible that everyone will get the results you planned.
You've convinced me about the BDS so far, I'm going to get a pair. Maybe for the pedal if the current one is not enough, maybe instead of the BST, or both.
Keep up the good work!
In my opinion, it's easier to start from a stable base, and then you don't have to measure every effect, than to adjust everything one by one to the waves.
But I completely understand your point of view, striving for a plug & play solution that is as foolproof as possible, which is more work, but in return the implementation will be easier for the user.
If the effects sufficiently compensate for the unique curve of the given shaker, and we assume that the environment does not distort it too much (directly from the pedal to the foot or on the seat), then it is possible that everyone will get the results you planned.
You've convinced me about the BDS so far, I'm going to get a pair. Maybe for the pedal if the current one is not enough, maybe instead of the BST, or both.
Keep up the good work!
Mr Latte
Premium
Thanks for the clarification, I'm in IT and I believe more in numbers (placebo exists), maybe that's why I'm a little too dependent on measurements and calibration.
In my opinion, it's easier to start from a stable base, and then you don't have to measure every effect, than to adjust everything one by one to the waves.
But I completely understand your point of view, striving for a plug & play solution that is as foolproof as possible, which is more work, but in return the implementation will be easier for the user.
If the effects sufficiently compensate for the unique curve of the given shaker, and we assume that the environment does not distort it too much (directly from the pedal to the foot or on the seat), then it is possible that everyone will get the results you planned.
You've convinced me about the BDS so far, I'm going to get a pair. Maybe for the pedal if the current one is not enough, maybe instead of the BST, or both.
Keep up the good work!
I appreciate your input and interest.
I will go into a bit of a story here (not like me I know) but while it is off the general intention with this thread, here has been a bit of a blog type place for my views or shared experiences anways..
Maybe grab a coffee.....
To some extents a user can increase the strength of frequencies that different effects use by applying more volume for the effect layer. Okay its not like PEQ which offers individual frequency control and Simhub often may not be producing just pure sinewaves but instead the input value given for an effect may only be the centre value but have other lower/higher surrounding frequencies also generated with that.
Lets say a user wanted to increase an effect using 30Hz, as their unit is not so good with that range. Do you think they will run that layer at max volume but to help have a more flat response, they will lower the 40Hz range that their transducer has as one of its best feeling frequencies?
What we often see happening is the opposite, the user will try to boost further the frequency that already feels good, to get it to feel even better. An example of this is also seen in peoples effects. Look how often they will repeatedly use the best feeling frequencies and when multiple effects are operational together this further increases the amplitude of those frequencies. So what happens is, what the user actually experiences is a very narrow frequency range because what they are going to feel most is those peak frequencies the unit already generates best. They are then choosing to further boost these "bestie frequencies" over trying to from a better balance like you propose to help improve how the lesser felt frequencies come through.
So even if someone had APO or applied other forms of EQ, I think that same temptation is their to boost the frequencies the specific unit feels best with.
IIRC APO lets a user increase the gain to silly amounts like +30dB and people could very easily introduce distortion, makes things worse than better or even damage their tactile hardware.
If we compare to some hardware like Behringer DSP amps, those enable +15dB. I have a pair of t.amp Quadro 500 DSP amps (4x 500w per channel) and its DSP enables up to +24dB. Other amps like the t-racks DSP offers +13dB.
If +3dB represents approx 2x the energy for a frequency but from a persons hearing, +10dB is often referred as 2x as loud. If you try to increase frequencies even via simple pure tone tests and by felt determination on how good each feels.
A unit that is not as good at producing say 30Hz or below, with increased dB, some gains may be achieved but a user may still not be able to get a flat response. Simply because the operational performance or limitations of the physical unit just cant handle it or reach thier max regardless of how much gain is applied.
One difference I think we have here, is that unlike audio with music speakers using full range of frequencies via a source. With this tone generation via Simhub, it is restricted tones and we are not often even going to have the full bass range (1-200Hz) active.
I would say that users can find a sweet spot for volume with specific frequencies. This may vary too based on the users setup or their preferences. Yet anyone that spends time trying to tune their setup will discover the best results are not when we crank everything but do at least try to achieve more felt sensations from the frequencies their own hardware can mange to produce relatively well.
My Different Approach
I have two methods that help to get around the problem without necessarily applying EQ. The first is to do what this thread is highlighting and discover what unit operates best for general or all-round usage. Then to combine that unit with a piston based unit for the lower extended bass.
This is a key performance element as we want to be able to deliver as much of the 200Hz bass as possible but within that the first 100Hz is the most important.
The frequencies the all rounder unit maybe struggles with are then not so much an issue, as we use the other low bass unit to represent these.
What most people are missing with budget tactile, is strong enough energy with frequencies below 30Hz and also important, based on the feelings they can generate, right down to below 10hz. The issue is, getting the low bass can be expensive but I have to say, even the MQB1 with BDS feels friggin awesome in the testing I have been doing and as a pairing not crazy expensive.
I will have to see how well the Dayton 300 compares to the MQB1, but alternatives like the BK units are available too. These could be applied to a foot plate or seat.
It all comes down to how much a person wants to spend but this is why I also have wanted to make my own effects that a user with the budget hardware can experience. Yet be able to apply the additional layers for the more expensive units if/when they ever buy into those.
So I really like making the effects scalable like this and its not something I think others implemented with their approaches with effects.
Creating Effects
We see several people looking to improve effects based on making custom effects in how they apply/control the telemetry/data. Some cases in the past when I compared what people were doing, it did not bring much benefits. Things may have improved as people may have honed this more but I would be curious on a % scale what level of improvement in felt immersion custom effects can actually bring? I understand sometimes it enables possible advantages in the operation of the effects that standard effects do not offer.
Its interesting but my talents or focus are not with that. Instead I focus on the hardware and what frequencies can be applied to "represent the effects". What can we do to improve how we apply the available hardware, what hardware should we use etc.
At the end of the day, I believe, this is a larger part of what or how good what the user experiences. I would also say that I do not think the community in general has effects profiles that achieve the best from what the standard effects/controls can offer, even with multi-layering or applying more than one unit approaches.
I prefer to have the ability with the creation of the effects. Based on the desired feel, that I can apply low bass layers for a suitable unit to handle those and likewise with other frequencies the allrounder based unit. So both units can play a part in the generated output for the effect. This is one of the main limitations that any approach with making effects if they rely on a single unit to generate all the effects is then more restricted in what it can produce in feel/depth/detail.
User Tweaking The Effects Output Mix
As I apply often multiple layers for an effect. The user can determine how they want to tweek that by increasing/lowering the individual frequencies the effect uses over whatever units they have installed. So to some extent they have the ability to alter/generate the feel without any need of changing the frequencies. It is not EQ but they are shaping the generated output for that effects character and this gives a nice level of user preference to be applied.
The frequencies chosen for the effect will/should already feel good for that specific effect, as that is part of the process in how I build the effects anyways and to suit specific units. A lot of time is put into that part, especially how I try to combine how various effects when operational at similar times, are not lost in a mush of vibration. It is important to try to have it, that each effects, own vibrational detail/character comes through.
Additional Channels / Multiple Exciters Roles
Single units have limitations with the number of effects we can feel properly.... Everyone experiences this. So having additional channels helps with this (less is more issue). I found that multiple exciters to body locations make this possible.
If we separate effects to different units, and it is an approach worth experimenting with. So that one unit is not having to produce a lot of different effects.
This is why I want more than one BDS on my own pedals and with another on my foot rest section. A scenario would be that, we do not need to rely on one unit to produce Road Rumble / Road Vibration / Road Textures / Road Impacts if we split those to an additional unit, how much better does it let us feel each of the effects? What combinations do we place to one unit or the other? What it does is give the user more options but let us find potential improvements to suit each users preferences.
Frequencies For Effects
So the second element with my own approach is one I hinted at in the past a few times, but nobody else at that time I could see was doing....
We find when we try to apply multiples of effect frequencies, that some work better than others. 7hz and 11hz multiples can work rather well. Another approach is to apply a different layer as a harmonic, an octave higher than the fundamental or first harmonic frequency. This can help bolster the felt sensation. If we apply a 3rd harmonic this can soften the feel. Sometimes just a single frequency may bring the desired feel well enough. These are just examples of things I learned to help create certain sensations for different effects.
Also as discussed with @mycroftlegros it became apparent to me about 2 years ago in testing, that applying musical scales/intervals for effects also is excellent.
Equalisers
Why do these have specific frequencies for the slider controls, why is their 31 bands?
Is it not odd that 63Hz is used and not 60Hz and why are other sliders weird values too?
The answer is that a 31 Band EQ uses 1/3 octaves and octaves are important.
So what I decided to do was base things on octaves and apply low / centre / high values for 1/3 or 1/2 or full octaves for various effects. I experiment in effects creation with these and then determine with specific units which values to use.
We have a bit of a limitation in that Simhub only enables rounded values but I just then round up for the frequencies using .5 or more.
We don't have to apply this to all effect layers but as an approach it works very well. Notice also that that multiples of 7Hz and 11Hz do not feature much. So that approach can also be applied to certain effects.
It all comes down to the creator of the effects, own creative expression but at the same time, finding generated sensations that tend to work well for the purpose/nature of the effect.
Those that want more technical info, knock yourself out
Hope it gives a bit more insight...
All I can do, is share with people my own efforts based on these approaches and for those that consider following or trying the effects I will offer.
How well they compare to other approaches, well who knows but I do know that the quality of immersion this approach, with using the (tested hardware) I will recommend. That combined, with effects built specifically for that hardware, is to a rather excellent standard.
Last edited:
Mr Latte
Premium
This past week I never got a chance to mount both HPR and compare one via amp to other via controller. The 3D prints arrived for the pedals. Will get around to it but.....
I did spend some more time working on my effects and can confirm that the BDS/MQB1 is a rather impressive combo. Still some frequencies the BDS betters the MQB1 and that may surprise people, as one unit has much more wattage potential. This was very noticable on my "Road Textures" as well as the "Road Rumble" sensations I have.
It's just that the BDS offers more clarity/detailing than the piston based unit with various frequencies. As highlighted earlier, I went about using the MQB1 for more punch/energy with lower bass sensations and applied this to "Impacts" as well as "Road Vibrations" to combine with the BDS, it was working lovely.....
Still much to do but will get around to it...
I will adapt the effects formed with the MQB1 to make suitable ones for comparison with the HPR. Then see how well the BDS/HPR combo can work..
I did spend some more time working on my effects and can confirm that the BDS/MQB1 is a rather impressive combo. Still some frequencies the BDS betters the MQB1 and that may surprise people, as one unit has much more wattage potential. This was very noticable on my "Road Textures" as well as the "Road Rumble" sensations I have.
It's just that the BDS offers more clarity/detailing than the piston based unit with various frequencies. As highlighted earlier, I went about using the MQB1 for more punch/energy with lower bass sensations and applied this to "Impacts" as well as "Road Vibrations" to combine with the BDS, it was working lovely.....
Still much to do but will get around to it...
I will adapt the effects formed with the MQB1 to make suitable ones for comparison with the HPR. Then see how well the BDS/HPR combo can work..
Latest News
-
Getting Down and Dirty On Sim Racing's Short OvalsShort Oval Racing is sometimes overlooked by sim racers across many different simulators...- Connor Minniss
- Updated:
- 6 min read
-
How to Drive Le Mans Ultimate in VR (For Now...)In its Early Access stage, Le Mans Ultimate does not currently have first party VR support. But...- Angus Martin
- Updated:
- 3 min read
-
VR Will Hit EA SPORTS WRC In Beta Form 30th AprilVR support will arrive for EA SPORTS WRC next week, initially in beta form, as features...- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 3 min read
-
New RaceRoom Drift Content and Community Cup Final At Tuning World BodenseAn in-person final for a RaceRoom community sim racing competition will be held at...
- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 2 min read
-
Fanatec Renews F1 Partnership Amidst Investment PitchesOfficial Formula 1 branded sim racing continue will continue to be produced by Fanatec, as share...
- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 3 min read
-
Funselektor Teases Another Potential New ProjectNot content with the upcoming 2D management title Golden Lap, the creators of Art of Rally look...
- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 2 min read
-
F1 24’s Updated Driver Career Mode DetailedThe new aim of F1 24's driver career is to increase your recognition levels, and ultimately...
- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 3 min read