Why would that be amazing? Cool technology is always around years before it reaches the huddling masses. Same with DCC. There were way cool command control systems around since around 1979. It is only recently that the general population has discovered it. There are flexible transparancy video displays available today you know so that you could have electronic pictures displaying on your coffee mug - but they are too pricey. I mean I don't want a $10K coffee mug. But in about 20 years you can probably get one for $10.
And all you had to do to install the receiver was wire a couple of leads to the rails and that was it.
Not quite. One had to isolate DC circuits against the sound signal, and install the syncronization equipment in the locomotive. If the DC and the sound voltage hit a light buld it could blow (sound familiar DCC people?).
Does anyone have an idea of how that thing worked? Perhaps a youtube video showing it in action? Is there a current, non-DCC equivalent?
Yes. It simply put another signal onto the tracks. One had to use RF chokes to keep the high frequency out of DC things and capacitors to keep the DC out of the speakers. A cool side effect was that one could mess around with the RF chokes and Capacitors to get constant intensity lighting from it too. Hence the reason PFM was one of the first to start using low current 1.5v lamps for headlights.
Speaking of DCC, I've always complained about current systems sounding too tinny and flat (and I've seen many with the same opinion), but from what I've read, the PFE system delivered a rich, booming sound. Was that true,
Nope unfortunately that is not true physics for moving air to make sound still apply to a 1" speaker regardless. There was a unit that could be added to the system that also played the sounds through ones stereo. So for the low frequency sounds that are non-directional (much like a Bose Acoustimass system) one could trick the ears and the sound would seem to be coming from the locomotive.
PFM was only steam. A similar system for diesels which has just recently been discontinued was the PBL. I believe there is still one more system that works in this manner from Grizzely Mountain Engineering.
The sound wasn't really syncronized to the engine but the DC voltage being picked up by the receiver. The higher the volage, the more chuffs and exhaust.
Hog wash. That describes most of the current DCC systems. Hence all that playing around with CVs to get them syncronized. PFM had to have a cam or other mechanism on the driver to sync with.
I don't think many were sold, since, at $350, it was more expensive than many brass models. It also suffered from the same problems as the Pennsy inductive system, with a lot of RF interference when the track inductance naturally increased, at points like feeder drops and track gaps.
Also not true. The issue was simply that it was more sensitive to dirty track than DC (sound familiar DCC people?).
People who had the system spent lot of time and money installing RF chokes all over the layout in attempt to silence this noise,
The RF chokes were to prevent the RF frequencies from getting into DC circuits. No one wanted "sound" coming from their Twin-T detection units. Neither do I remember spending $0.15 for an RF choke to be a lot of money.
a financial and technical failure.
Once again not true. It was successful enough that other companies with the same concept got into the market and stayed there until only a few years ago. If anything the competition brought the market failure. I believe the sound units lasted longer than the brass locomotive portion of the business. You are right about the price they WERE outragously expensive. Sound unit $300, NP Z6 Brass sound equipted loco $600. In 1979 that was serious money (minimum wage was $2.15).
I heard one runningand was totally impressed.
I am guessing perhaps the unit you heard was a poor installation. All the physics and difficulties of installing speakers were the same back then as they are now. No baffle - lousy sound. Plus we have access to such a wider range of better speakers today. I remember cutting the brass frame & cone of a 2.5" speaker to get it to fit into the tender. If one made the cut fuzzy it would rub on the sides of the tender. I believe that is one reason my DCC installations sound so good. I'm applying all the knowledge I gained all those years putting in PFM. Others are just now learning those lessons. In my opinion the DCC units of today are just now getting close to where they were 30 years ago.
Also bear in mind that there were also at least four different units. There was the original PFM sound, and then there was the Mark 2 (both of these had electronic bells that were really pathetic). The DC throttle was built into the unit. I think the Mark 2 had a "walk around" teathered throttle option. The system became of age with the Sound System II and the Mini-Sound. The throttle was removed from the units so they were sound only and one could connect any DC throttle they wanted to it. The bell sounds, compressors, pumps, generators were actual recordings (sound familiar) put on quadraphonic infinite loop tapes. The whistle was playable. One thing that DCC units are just now starting to get is that the exhaust chuff was also tuneable. One could play the tone, cut off, and hiss of the exhaust chuffs. Locos sound way different under load than they do just drifting through the yard to the roundhouse.
I suspect a Tsunami with a deep bass speaker sounds a whole lot better.
I would put them about the same other than the Tsunami is going to be digital (a thing that makes all audiophiles cringe).
I've still got two Sound System II and a mini-sound. I sold the Mark 2 unit about 5 years ago to a fellow in Japan that lives 2 blocks from the factory that made them. So my comparision is not based on memory. Perhaps I will have to do some sort of a head to head comparison for inquiring minds. I'm trying very hard to get a PBL off ebay but they go for such high $ amounts.
