Some changes with my ongoing build, the old steel boxes are gone for a neater and continued theme with the steel chrome tubing.
This required drilling directly into the seats internal steel frame.
I tend to talk a lot about body zones regards better channeling the flow of tactile...
So putting what I say into practice and this seat will be unique from a tactile perspective when it's finished.
Just a mockup and using some older clamps that will be replaced...
The seat still utilises L/C/R pathways to deliver the energy not only like the typical approach of in the base of the seat but also the back and underside. At least now with this new frame it will be easier to connect to the main section and then let me get the rest of the tactile installed.
BKG2 is just a temp installation and this may be swapped for a TST but really with all the other tactile that will be installed on the seat base and the 6 excters also going to the back I do not see any need for it other than temp installation to test it out for comparisons.
Perhaps easier just to ask questions as this thread goes way back and looks at many different things regards tactile.
Its a bit of a rabbit hole and could be confusing trying to take all that it covers in.
There should be in the next week or so, some people sharing their builds I helped with. I am keen to have them express their own views and experiences/journey into it all.
I have a question. I posted my build thread last night and before it got too buried I was hoping I could get on the list of people that are working with you @Mr Latte on profiles for NX3000 and LFE?
Your on the right tracks....
The "T Amp Quadro 500DSP" is a nice unit and at a good price and will have enough wattage.
I had a look at its software which seem quite good and clean, also supports plenty of different EQ filters
Just a shame it won't support 2ohm but I wouldn't say the LFE Vs CT is a drastic issue even if they may have some operational differences.
The exciters help bridge the gap for the 60Hz and up. Id say you can be certain the NX3000D will perform well and reliably even if two may be needed but I dont know of anyone using that amp to power dual large BK. So its a decision you have to weigh up.
Do however keep an eye on the forums, I've been enjoying the journey with helping a fellow member here for the past couple of weeks who has been installing 8x exciters and going with 1x BK CT on a seat with also 1x BKG on pedals. He has been great in giving feedback on effects and I've asked him to do a thread on here when suits to give his own opinions on it all.
At the moment my slightly refined plan is to have a go with a the t.amp quadro 500 dsp to power 1xBK LFE under the seat, 1xBK Advance under the pedals, and use the remaining 2 channels to power stereo pairs of Dayton Thrusters on the seat.
I'm presuming others have wired multiple exciters to each amp channel, and not used a separate channel for each exciter? The quadro amp is rated at 500w at 4ohm, or 250w at 8ohm. The thrusters are 40w at 4ohm.
I'm clueless but have done a bit of research: So 2 thrusters per channel wired in series gives 8 ohm resistance which is OK. Ideally I'd like to wire 3 thrusters per channel, but in series this makes 12ohm and in parallel 1.3ohm, neither of which is OK I believe? But if I wired 2 in series and added a 3rd in parallel this would bring the resistance down to between 4 and 8ohm which would be acceptable- or have I misunderstood? Would mixing series and parallel giving different outputs on the thrusters? I know I could add an additional amp to solve this but would rather avoid this at the moment.
If anyone could enlighten me that would be fantastic.
All the exciters are used as individual channels, this way we can place individual effects or layers from effects to operate on them. The issue you have is on that proposed amp I didn't see one feature the DSP from NXD has and that is a digital "wattage limiter" that can be set to a channel. For instance powering 40W tactile with an amp that has much greater wattage could be tricky when you dont have that. It would be very easy to blow the exciters.
It's normally better to go for a more suitable amp for the exciters, sorry but thats how it is and even to buy something like a NX1000D its too costly to power cheap exciters.
The new 4 channel amp I linked looks quite good or the EQP304 is ideal but has a noisy fan that can be changed.
I showed this back earlier on in this discussion thread.
I'm considering something similar (using one channel to power multiple tactile units).
I have just gone motion, and I had to get rid of lot of isolation, which helped to deliver better tactile, because it was interfering with motion. I would like to try to link 2xTST239 together, to deliver stronger effect, and also I think I wouldn't have to drive those 2 units as hard, as I do with 1 unit alone, which can get noisy in the upper end of frequencies (and it feels like the unit is struggling ), if I want to feel them (peak is around 73 Hz).
All the exciters are used as individual channels, this way we can place individual effects or layers from effects to operate on them. The issue you have is on that proposed amp I didn't see one feature the DSP from NXD has and that is a digital "wattage limiter" that can be set to a channel. For instance powering 40W tactile with an amp that has much greater wattage could be tricky when you dont have that. It would be very easy to blow the exciters.
It's normally better to go for a more suitable amp for the exciters, sorry but thats how it is and even to buy something like a NX1000D its too costly to power cheap exciters.
The new 4 channel amp I linked looks quite good or the EQP304 is ideal but has a noisy fan that can be changed.
I showed this back earlier on in this discussion thread.
Ah OK thanks very much for clearing that up, so plan B would be an NX3000D for the LFE and Advance, and an EPQ304 for 2 pairs of thrusters. Those 2 amps are actually similar in price to the quadro500. The other 4 channel amp you mention, is that the Douk Audio M4? - quick look but it doesn't seem to be directly available in the UK.
My wait to get into this tactile lark continues. I was hoping to snag a couple of Prosound 429s on eBay but didn't manage to win them
The pair ended up going for a total of £230 which I thought was a great deal for the winners, even considering they wouldn't be the most recommended units to base a build on.
@Michal Burisin
Id say 2ohm load if that's how you want to wire and configure those units.
So 2ohms 100w
I dont think its the best option you have as you can combine the TST with the BK rather than 2 TST together especially as you seem to want more mid-bass emphasis rather than higher bass. You can easily push the CT units to have a crossover that will give great low bass but also support the TST mid-bass.
With Simhub unlike Simvibe, we are not restricted to the number of channels we have. So you could think beyond a CM/EM installation approach or effects usage mindset. You can easily alter and determine configurations in how the tactile are used regards profiles.
Let me give you an example:
If you had TST and BK combined to work together (via own amplification)
You can do this in two ways by duplicating a soundcard channel output to the amps for BK/TST and then run each amp with its own CO/EQ.
This gives great results and was what I called the Dual Role approach that was excellent to expand Simvibe potential.
Hold on,,, as there is an alternative now possible if using Simhub.
Just have individual effect layers for the BK /TST units and duplicate any effects you want for each to have.
This actually gives us even more control than "Dual Role" (using a duplicated channel output).
As with this approach, the individual effect layers can use the Hz and other settings for the effect you want to suit each unit. Yet you can then still control each units operation via the amps CO/EQ
My advice would be to have the TST units work with the L/R BK and installed in a manner to accommodate that. Then the 3rd BK use it for other effects you desire.
Now here's the interesting part, unlike Simvibe and CM that determined how all the effects were output.
You could easily create profiles that use the same or alternative effects and route them differently.
1. Use the BK/TST units in (Stereo) with positional L/R effects
2. Use the BK/TST units in multi-channel (Mono) to effectively double the output of the effects to twin sets of units
This can be done with no physical changes needed and that would imho be better than what you're considering but heh its your rig what and how you do things.
@Michal Burisin
Id say 2ohm load if that's how you want to wire and configure those units.
So 2ohms 100w
I dont think its the best option you have as you can combine the TST with the BK rather than 2 TST together especially as you seem to want more mid-bass emphasis rather than higher bass. You can easily push the CT units to have a crossover that will give great low bass but also support the TST mid-bass.
With Simhub unlike Simvibe, we are not restricted to the number of channels we have. So you could think beyond a CM/EM installation approach or effects usage mindset. You can easily alter and determine configurations in how the tactile are used regards profiles.
Let me give you an example:
If you had TST and BK combined to work together (via own amplification)
You can do this in two ways by duplicating a soundcard channel output to the amps for BK/TST and then run each amp with its own CO/EQ.
This gives great results and was what I called the Dual Role approach that was excellent to expand Simvibe potential.
Hold on,,, as there is an alternative now possible if using Simhub.
Just have individual effect layers for the BK /TST units and duplicate any effects you want for each to have.
This actually gives us even more control than "Dual Role" (using a duplicated channel output).
As with this approach, the individual effect layers can use the Hz and other settings for the effect you want to suit each unit. Yet you can then still control each units operation via the amps CO/EQ
My advice would be to have the TST units work with the L/R BK and installed in a manner to accommodate that. Then the 3rd BK use it for other effects you desire.
Now here's the interesting part, unlike Simvibe and CM that determined how all the effects were output.
You could easily create profiles that use the same or alternative effects and route them differently.
1. Use the BK/TST units in (Stereo) with positional L/R effects
2. Use the BK/TST units in multi-channel (Mono) to effectively double the output of the effects to twin sets of units
This can be done with no physical changes needed and that would imho be better than what you're considering but heh its your rig what and how you do things.
Thanks I will try the watt limiter settings, need some more cabling / connectors to wire it all together properly.
Why I want to do this, is because I don't want to get another amp, and I just want to boost the TST output. It's used just for single effect - engine high RPMs, so no need to have separate effects / different feeling, I would just like this effect have stronger sensation.
I have right now 2xTST239 hooked up to iNuke DSP 1000 - one in pedals, one in seat, I would like to try this approach, to increase TST239 number to three units - 2 in pedals and 1 in seat without the necessity of getting another amp to have separate control over it.
I will be probably getting another amp for exciters and 5 amps total is limit for me, I think, at least for the moment
I got little bit lost in your post. I thought that dual role approach (copying channels via splitter) is now obsolete and not necessary with SimHub at all. I just have the TST239s now on two separate channels on soundcard and I have complete control over them - I can create specific effects just for them, or let them run same effects I run on Buttkickers and let the crossover / equalizer settings handle how it is felt.
EDIT: maybe I'm already doing the second approach you suggested?
I didn't want to bog down the thread with repeated questions but finding "current" information on tactile is hard to find so I'll ask here!
My first step towards moving to tactile was trying to harness as budget and try to figure out what I wanted. I know in the short run I would like to start with something for tbe seat and something for the pedals. That's the basic jist anyway. To go a bit further I am interested in building my own Amp mostly to save cost. Been perusing parts express and kinda have an idea of what to put together but haven't figured out it this is the smart way to go. I looked at the inuke 1000 but from what I gathered it's only 2 channel and that puts its a bit above my price point.
I don't mind building on the rig without having it all right away, I just would rather not buy twice! Any thoughts would be appreciated and if you need anymore information from me let me know!
Thanks I will try the watt limiter settings, need some more cabling / connectors to wire it all together properly.
Why I want to do this, is because I don't want to get another amp, and I just want to boost the TST output. It's used just for single effect - engine high RPMs, so no need to have separate effects / different feeling, I would just like this effect have stronger sensation.
I have right now 2xTST239 hooked up to iNuke DSP 1000 - one in pedals, one in seat, I would like to try this approach, to increase TST239 number to three units - 2 in pedals and 1 in seat without the necessity of getting another amp to have separate control over it.
I will be probably getting another amp for exciters and 5 amps total is limit for me, I think, at least for the moment
I got little bit lost in your post. I thought that dual role approach (copying channels via splitter) is now obsolete and not necessary with SimHub at all. I just have the TST239s now on two separate channels on soundcard and I have complete control over them - I can create specific effects just for them, or let them run same effects I run on Buttkickers and let the crossover / equalizer settings handle how it is felt.
EDIT: maybe I'm already doing the second approach you suggested?
Yes, Simhub changed what the limitations before were.
Using the second TST how you want, yes it will bring additional energy but I would not have the energy channeled into the build/pedal region, all using the same approach or method. You seem determined to go this path and stating that these units will only have the operation duty/role for a single effect. Well, again I would want to use two units more effectively with options or other effect layers as well than just prior to any testing determine the sole role for two fairly expensive units is going to be.
Different approaches I suppose.
I wish someone would send/buy me an 8020 cockpit to experiment with and make something using tactile thats more creative than the norm. I have some creative ideas just not the cash.
In fairness, its frustrating as several times I mentioned on these forums 8020 users should work together on testing different ideas and methods but as usual, nothing happens. Clearly what Simlabs and other companies currently offer for including tactile is quite conventional, weak/boring options but they only sell to accommodate the 4 corners CM mindset.
Well, I hope you or others dont take this the wrong way but some things I want to cover....
As an example and to your planned installation, I often have guys providing me detailed 3D models on how everything will all fit. That's fine and a useful tool but it does nothing to determine how the tactile will feel or if the user has really considered what effects they want to use or gain from their immersion as best possible.
Not saying Michal has soley did this here but I think some people spend more time on the 3D renders, with maybe more than one consideration or option to run with. Some may only physically try a single actual installation and when its installed they are done and make do with it. I know this happens as seen plenty do it, that rather than them seeking to find what or if alternative options may operate better. In some cases, they may not be that concerned and in others its like design over function.
Good tactile performance is more than just the hardware used, it does not come from 3D drawings, neither but it comes with experimenting and trying different options and certain aspects like isolation are important. As are how we use different tactile models of units to work together and install these more effectively.
8020 makes that much more possible yet it still amazes me how conventional people are when it comes to installing tactile to such rigs like these 8020 builds and with now what seems like 90% or more going with a Simlabs type 8020 cockpit being the trend. I'm not seeking to be arrogant here but can someone show me an 8020 or SFX build that has tried to do something uniquely different. Even a build thread that explores or seeks after such and then sharing the testing and experimentation of tactile with alternatives or creative approaches?
It certainly would be interesting but so few would even consider such.
I've done some experimenting, but probably not in the realm you would care about.
I am willing to document my SimHub settings for what seems to be working for me right now on my Sim-Lab P1 chassis.
However my foot plate and entire pedal arrangement is obviously completely custom, as is my seat transducer mount.
I've spent most of my time working with iRacing and some in Dirt Rally.
I have gone to a two effect engine rpm. The first is lower frequency with a lot of white noise and the second is across a higher frequency range with less white noise. This seems to give me a good burble at idle which smooths out and then increases in intensity up to red line.
In iRacing there are a bunch of effects that don't seem to add much. Rumble is the one I like the most. It captures the rumble strips and bumps well. Surprisingly the Road Impact and Road Vibration are much less useful in iRacing. Impact seems to give you expansion joints and not much else. The expansion joints just make me feel like I've slid sideways too much and my tires are out of round.
I'm using the Gear Shift effect for a bump since I almost only use paddle shifters in iRacing, otherwise it would be sequential shift for RallyCross which I haven't touched in a while.
I'm using 2 x Wheel Spin effects split into a separate front and rear wheels mostly because the transducers are mounted differently and need to be tweaked separately. I like a higher frequency for sliding wheels.
I'm having to relearn how to set up Dirt Rally because I'm currently not getting what I want out of it. I'll spend more time with it today. I use the H-Pattern shifter and clutch almost exclusively in Dirt Rally, so the Shift Bump doesn't matter. However the engine rpm felt at my H pattern shifter does add quite a bit.
Yes, Simhub changed what the limitations before were.
Using the second TST how you want, yes it will bring additional energy but I would not have the energy channeled into the build/pedal region, all using the same approach or method. You seem determined to go this path and stating that these units will only have the operation duty/role for a single effect. Well, again I would want to use two units more effectively with options or other effect layers as well than just prior to any testing determine the sole role for two fairly expensive units is going to be.
Different approaches I suppose.
I wish someone would send/buy me an 8020 cockpit to experiment with and make something using tactile thats more creative than the norm. I have some creative ideas just not the cash.
In fairness, its frustrating as several times I mentioned on these forums 8020 users should work together on testing different ideas and methods but as usual, nothing happens. Clearly what Simlabs and other companies currently offer for including tactile is quite conventional, weak/boring options but they only sell to accommodate the 4 corners CM mindset.
Well, I hope you or others dont take this the wrong way but some things I want to cover....
As an example and to your planned installation, I often have guys providing me detailed 3D models on how everything will all fit. That's fine and a useful tool but it does nothing to determine how the tactile will feel or if the user has really considered what effects they want to use or gain from their immersion as best possible.
Not saying Michal has soley did this here but I think some people spend more time on the 3D renders, with maybe more than one consideration or option to run with. Some may only physically try a single actual installation and when its installed they are done and make do with it. I know this happens as seen plenty do it, that rather than them seeking to find what or if alternative options may operate better. In some cases, they may not be that concerned and in others its like design over function.
Good tactile performance is more than just the hardware used, it does not come from 3D drawings, neither but it comes with experimenting and trying different options and certain aspects like isolation are important. As are how we use different tactile models of units to work together and install these more effectively.
8020 makes that much more possible yet it still amazes me how conventional people are when it comes to installing tactile to such rigs like these 8020 builds and with now what seems like 90% or more going with a Simlabs type 8020 cockpit being the trend. I'm not seeking to be arrogant here but can someone show me an 8020 or SFX build that has tried to do something uniquely different. Even a build thread that explores or seeks after such and then sharing the testing and experimentation of tactile with alternatives or creative approaches?
It certainly would be interesting but so few would even consider such.
I'm determined to try to link two tactile units to on channel on the amp, as I haven't done it before, then I will start experimenting . From web info, it should work, but I still need to see for myself.
Then, if it's working I'll try to boost the effect which I'd like to feel stronger by using these two connected units and see if it achieves what I wanted (it makes most sense to me - having exact same amplitude in the effect to boost its feeling).
To be more specific, I use the TST to deliver high RPM feel, it's quite simple effect, just increasing frequencies from around 40 - 50 Hz to 73 Hz, where the TST is strongest. It is just one component of the engine effect (low frequencies are handled by BK Concert), but it is immensely satisfying - either pushing RPMs and shifting up, but more importantly shifting down with pressed brake pedal. You can feel every downshift and RPMs spiking up again and the climbing down as you brake more towards next downshift coming into the braking foot. This feels absolutely amazing - I feel connected to the car and what it's doing. I would just like to have more power from this effect.
I'm testing / prototyping from simple to more complex (if it's easy to do - and this is).
Then, I can try to wire together TST, that is on the seat with front one, that is on the pedals, to try to deliver this base effect on amp channel A and then use channel B to do different effect in third TST on the pedal deck that would boost the feeling of the first effect more. I would lose some control over front / back volume settings and specific EQ settings, but it might not be such problem.
I have done quite a lot of testing of multiple layers on one unit and it doesn't feel good to me most of the time. If the layers are active on specific frequencies and are not blending together too much, it's usually ok, but having quite different effects doesn't work for me.
Just simple goal for me is not to have to buy another amp and keep TST on pedals and seat. It feels like complete waste to me having amp with DSP able to push 1000 W, just to operate single 100 W TST.
If I can get boost in the effect I seek with simple methods I described above (without getting new amp) and it will give me like 50 % boost in effect feeling and the other solution with getting another amp will give me 55 % boost (with all the cables, installation, increased profile creation complexity, more load on breakers etc.), I will choose the simple solution. If it would give me 100 % boost in effect feeling, I might consider getting another amp, but that remains to be seen. To test all this will be quite simple.
I have quite a lot of going on on the rig - G-Seat with 6 AC servos, SFX100 and tactile with 6x BK Concerts + 2x TST239. There is so much going on, that each system has to have clear area of effects which it handles, so the cues it creates are clear and not mushing together. Additional TST239 doing it's own another effect might get completely lost in the feeling - due to the motion I had to get rid of lot of isolation, which made the tactile feel stronger, so now, I'm fighting to get more strength from tactile on this more solid rig. Motion is absolutely fantastic, so definitely worth sacrificing some tactile to get new "dimension" of immersion.
I will do some testing and see what feels best, I just need to take it one step at a time, instead of trying to create most complex setup without knowing what the simple method brings to the table, I need to have some comparison to be able to choose final solution.
Regarding 8020 project, I have done my fair share of designing
Without this prototyping, I wouldn't be able to complete the project. Fitting 3x BK Concerts + TST239 and 6 AC servos for G-Seat with belt tensioner and having the H-Shifter + handbrake to single seat was no easy task and I haven't seen that before. Especially while considering I maintained horizontal slider adjustment of the seat + also vertical adjustment in the rig.
Image of the seat from below.
When I wasn't running motion, I had very nice isolation, which delivered superb tactile. But with motion, any isolation inside moving frame on the seat is no go for me - the seat is wobbling and what's worse, it's lagging behind the motion.
Now I need to finish the pedals and then, I can start developing new profiles for everything
I think I will be able to keep the isolation in the pedals, so I shouldn't loose too much tactile feeling there.
I think my original build has done quite a lot in regards to isolation solutions etc. I'm just not so good with keeping track of everything organized at one place . I posted most findings about isolation somewhere in this thread I think, however I think motion changes a lot regarding tactile installation. I will try to do better job with this tactile + SFX build and sharing some insights, but I don't plan to experiment wildly again because there is not so much, I can do differently / better than I have it now without excessive time and money investment. Also I have came to this design after quite long period of testing and experimentation and is reasonably good enough for me.
I'm trying to do things I build with good quality, but I do not seek to get 100 % of the potential, 80 % is enough for me, because most of the time, getting last 20 % can cost twice as much (or more) as to getting to 80 %, so I think it's best to get to some good level and then look somewhere else for bigger immersion improvements with less cost and effort spent, so I have little bit different approach.
Well like I said, you're not asking how to go about this in possibly a better way both with effects and installation and the hardware your using,.
You are forging ahead, doing it the way you want to and possibly purchased an additional unit you could of not necessarily needed.
What I would say is, that's certainly a big platform for the bass to freely flow over for a pedal region.
Then you might again, wonder why your front BK units are less strong than the seat?
How you mount the pedals and connect the TST could greatly improve the energy without even needing the second unit.
Smarter Effects?
You also within the effects could easily have the TST use the frequencies you want and the central BK use an octave lower for each unit to work combined. That way you would have the BK adding energy that is in sync but also naturally generating its own harmonics to tie in with the TST.
In that you already would have a secondary unit bringing the additional energy,
While this is not using two units duplicated on a channel, it is still using units (by specific effect settings/layers) that operate to complement each other. I don't know if its the correct term but I call this "Harmonically Matched" effect layers.
Man, you also have 2x L/R BK Concert and as the RPM is a mono effect you could actually if you wanted to focus more energy for RPM using those for key effect layers operation. As a simple example, imagine you have an effect layer at 8K peak RPM become active now over the 3x BK Concerts all harmonically matched to the TST unit for that sensation you want at peak RPM. Would that not be sufficient?
You will get the best detail and energy if you have these units working together but that also has to happen at an effects level as well as how/where they are installed. The concept I am promoting works in this basis and I know for effects creation, it takes things further forward than the typical approach.
A Theory With Motion & Tactile
I would submit that because you have motion now and that trying to get good stereo in tactile to operate well in pedals and seat with issues of crosstalk being a factor for most people. You actually have the ability to improve the stereo greatly with exciters on the paddles of the G seat in direct contact with your body, yet you ignore/brush off this idea as have in fairness most G-Seat owners on these forums. They won't experiment or look past CM/EM effects usage or installations. I see very little attempts at joint efforts for creativity (not in builds adding multi motion, like yours or others) but with tactile and tactile being implemented to work with those.
Combined Senses
Your senses with the motion can be easier tricked with your body feeling the G-Seat and now SFX motion with its tilting to each side. That combined with VR with an enclosed view of only the 3D world. I have to say I would have reconsidered or at least discussed how the tactile onto your new rig could be implemented before moving forward. But as we saw on these forums SFX followers were either not interested in how to combine motion or tactile and the outcast SFX/Tactile thread that was created nobody hardly bothered with or used to discuss share or challenge ideas.
Honestly, part of this is curiosity but based on self-tests as well. I would of focused on your new rig, using primarily a mono configuration concentrating the immersion on increased energy with the impressive collection of tactile you own. Certainly still using the exciters on the G-Seat for stereo detection (if applied) but I would estimate the motion will help disguise mono bumps to feel like stereo bumps. This due to, the reality that your brain is detecting the dip in motion/audio/visual aspects happening in the sim. If this is indeed the case for you, Then could have dual units used for bumps/impacts on seat/pedals but also more dedicated units for speed/rpm and g-loads.
Personal Thoughts
Just an opinion that you should have then looked at this more from an effects perspective and your own preferences in effects or what might work best with the additional hardware you now are using.
I can only base my views on what I know or expect to happen but I think it could of been possible to achieve improvements for the excitement and energy potential in the immersion over what your planned effects usage or installation will offer. Stereo or CM type configuration is not always the best solution and this makes more sense if the stereo is not going to perform that well on the user's rig or installation anyways. This does not mean that "mono effects" based installations can or must only use a single unit in the seat/pedals, no not at all.
What I would say is, I have experimented looking at both potential options, these are not just passing ideas but to me, it appears regards tactile few people will try to think outside the box.
I would recommend you try a few different effects profiles that use stereo compared to combined units working in mono and separate RPM/SPEED to different channels. Having spent months messing around. I would say with confidence the best engine effects are accomplished when we use both but these are quite constant in operation and in different ways. So due to this they vary a lot in the outputs of Hz used and can have some conflicts/drawbacks if both are on the same unit. Again I know this based on months of trials and monitoring the effects, whilst trying to be creative in building more engrossing sensations for effects.
Effects Progression = Experimenting = Learning
Low-frequency bass is not all about "whack factor" it can be utilized differently depending on the dB that is applied to it and for the role/nature of the effect sensations we may seek. It is crucial to use suitable dB for the Hz to achieve the desired sensation, as otherwise, you may get a big knocking/thumping response from the tactile. Its using layers to combine with each other over more than one transducer.
I have been discovering with effects that low bass, if used appropriately can enable us to use subharmonics with overtones. So on a low bass-centric unit like a BK using it to work with the fundamental frequency for an effect layer that's being used on a secondary unit like a TST or Thruster/Exciter. This is my attempt to think "outside the box" that felt sensations for effects do not necessarily have to be created or directed to operate on individual channels or indeed generated from only individual units and the performance limitations individual units have.
Thank you for confirming how peoples "mindset" revolves around the need for 4 corner units.
With large boards like that and which are interconnected, you will have very little control over the dispersion of the unit's energy with individual channels. I would focus just on a unit for pedals and a unit for the seat placed on isolated risers for seat/pedals. Using isolators and antivibration as well as noise reduction materials then underneath the riser sections, for the main-frame/boards. This would help give good energy in the seat/pedals but reduce the vibes going into the rest of the rig, it still will happen but controlling the energy escaping the risers would be a good thing in my mind.
Regards your rig shown, what is the point of having 4 corner units, if you will likely not feel the individual positional placement of them?
A user if, faced with this potential issue is better to buy 1 or 2 better performing tactile units than 4 cheap ones. I would also advise of a seat that would let you install multiple exciters as this will bring you good stereo effects in the seat for very little money.
Each board will likely become active and transmit vibes to other structural sections and then into other boards that are also in contact with each other. When this happens you may increase the volume as the energy is spreading over a larger area but one other factor this adding more volume/energy can attribute to being an issue with a higher output level, the wood will generate increased reverb noise. Some isolation materials may reduce this but it could still be a factor with harmonics in effects as the wood itself will react like a speaker.
The reverb can happen with 8020 as well, just listen to how bad the D-Box (Tactile Test) that appears to use a bass sweep sounds on the 8020 rig Barry has it installed too. Not saying this may just be a D-Box issue neither. Users with BK or other tactile if they too did a bass sweep test it may sound similar, anyone want to confirm this with main rig mounted tactile to 8020 and using highish volumes?
See 46 mins, listen as it sounds bad to me anyways.
He did in fairness mention it's default setting (40) was too high or intense. I suppose this is to accommodate the different sizes of rigs or indeed different materials some rigs may use but I certainly would not want my tactile operation to sound like that or just think how that noise/vibration could travel into other rooms in wooden floor house, attics or apartments.
Corner placed tactile generally needs to be set higher/strong for its vibrations to reach the user's feet or seat regions, the bass going all over the frame is wasted, you will only feel the energy via your contact body regions. This is why you find people with such installations will typically drive their tactile harder to then compensate for the loss of the energy or how it freely spreads openly over the main rig frame. My point here is that the energy is not being channeled or controlled to a confined area.
Personally for me, I would say better tactile is achieved when we more directly connect it to the seat/pedal regions, isolate these as platforms decoupling them from the main rig and then seek to control better the path the tactile can flow. This is why my own build is containing a metal tubing construct for the purpose of controlling the flow of the tactile as such testing/experimentation I did showed this to improve the immersion.
Obtaining a good response from 5-200Hz for some people should be more of a priority than the desire of installing 4,6,8 units that only work well generally with a 40-80Hz range. I still say that on a budget you won't beat 4-6 of the recommended exciters attached on a suitable seat and then later add to this a larger BK unit and expand from that if desired. Yet look how lightly that has been adopted here or people seeking to work together on effects that work well with that implementation.
People will do what they want, or just go more with the typical trends others have gone with... This includes the "I need units for 4 corners" mindset will likely not change very quickly.
Mr. Latte...wow, you're quite prolific. And clearly quite busy with a gorgeous build. That will be a nice work of art when its complete. I'll try not to take up too much of your time.
Anyway. Everything you say makes a ton of sense. Particularly with respect to 4 corner CM and energy transmission (and associated losses) from those points. Even in good scenarios, the human body isn't great at determining the directionality of LF sound.
I chose the above post to respond because I also have a wooden rig. Its basically a wooden box on casters, made to look like a seating bench when not in use---everything hides away inside. The primary differences are:
My seat is an Aluminum racecar seat. The seat is currently bolted directly to the box bottom, but that is easly changed to isolate the seat from the main structure.
Also my pedal platform is somewhat isolated from the main box structure, to support the collapsible nature of the rig----it is hinged to allow it to fold into the box or unfold into the correct position from seat to pedal. Obviously this will need more thought to appropriately isolate it for the needs of tactile.
I do use VR (rift-S). I have a Realtek ALC892 7.1 sound device.
Like another poster I saw recently, I'm also a Spec Miata racer. As such, this rig is to alleviate withdrawl symptoms. For that reason, my rig is a dimensional replica of my 1.6L SM. My goal with tactile is to replace the feedback that I have in the car that doesn't come through in iRacing audio---particularly with respect to tire grip/slip. I'm not after a full-immersive "experience"---only aspects that aid in making the right control input reactions. I'm exclusively iRacing right now. But, I've done rFactor in the past because of the availability of local tracks that I race in-real-life.
So, my questions:
1. I would like to (need to) build this out over some period of time. In a recent post you made some mention of building up to 4-6 exciters, and then adding a BK/LFE. In other posts, I think I've seen you suggest starting with a Front/Rear setup of BKA (or exciter) under the pedals, and an LFE under the seat....then growing into paired exciters on the seat. Have I understood this right?
2. Assuming both starting points are viable, what do you see as the pros/cons of each? From a cost of entry and simplicity viewpoint, I like the idea of starting with 4 exciters and a douk audio amp. Then adding an LFE + Amp down the line---when my wife has forgotten the previous purchases.
3. Do you foresee any issues with mounting the exciters to an 1/8" aluminum racing seat? If so, any thoughts on ways to mitigate whatever those might be?
Mr. Latte...wow, you're quite prolific. And clearly quite busy with a gorgeous build. That will be a nice work of art when its complete. I'll try not to take up too much of your time.
Anyway. Everything you say makes a ton of sense. Particularly with respect to 4 corner CM and energy transmission (and associated losses) from those points. Even in good scenarios, the human body isn't great at determining the directionality of LF sound.
I chose the above post to respond because I also have a wooden rig. Its basically a wooden box on casters, made to look like a seating bench when not in use---everything hides away inside. The primary differences are:
My seat is an Aluminum racecar seat. The seat is currently bolted directly to the box bottom, but that is easly changed to isolate the seat from the main structure.
Also my pedal platform is somewhat isolated from the main box structure, to support the collapsible nature of the rig----it is hinged to allow it to fold into the box or unfold into the correct position from seat to pedal. Obviously this will need more thought to appropriately isolate it for the needs of tactile.
I do use VR (rift-S). I have a Realtek ALC892 7.1 sound device.
Like another poster I saw recently, I'm also a Spec Miata racer. As such, this rig is to alleviate withdrawl symptoms. For that reason, my rig is a dimensional replica of my 1.6L SM. My goal with tactile is to replace the feedback that I have in the car that doesn't come through in iRacing audio---particularly with respect to tire grip/slip. I'm not after a full-immersive "experience"---only aspects that aid in making the right control input reactions. I'm exclusively iRacing right now. But, I've done rFactor in the past because of the availability of local tracks that I race in-real-life.
So, my questions:
1. I would like to (need to) build this out over some period of time. In a recent post you made some mention of building up to 4-6 exciters, and then adding a BK/LFE. In other posts, I think I've seen you suggest starting with a Front/Rear setup of BKA (or exciter) under the pedals, and an LFE under the seat....then growing into paired exciters on the seat. Have I understood this right?
2. Assuming both starting points are viable, what do you see as the pros/cons of each? From a cost of entry and simplicity viewpoint, I like the idea of starting with 4 exciters and a douk audio amp. Then adding an LFE + Amp down the line---when my wife has forgotten the previous purchases.
3. Do you foresee any issues with mounting the exciters to an 1/8" aluminum racing seat? If so, any thoughts on ways to mitigate whatever those might be?
Have you ever considered mounting contact plates using linear guides?
That would capture a plate on two axis but allow it to move freely in the 3rd.
Take my current foot plate as an example. I have it suspended with Sorbothane on 4 corners, but have it pinned rigidly in one place to keep the plate from shifting around too much. If it were mounted to short linear bearings on each side, it could be completely suspended on the axis that the transducer is using.
I could even see simply using a chunk of UHMW, say 1/2"x 2" and put a slot in the plate on each side that the plate would ride on.
Yep, sure. I can do that. Its still in the late prototyping stages. And frankly its little more than a (to be painted) wooden box with trim, and some careful strategic measurements. The real racecar is a little more interesting.
Of course, I haven't even finished version 0.5 of the thing, and I'm already plotting v5.0 or v10.0. Ugh...expensive hobbies, I need less of them.
), if I want to feel them (peak is around 73 Hz).
