Feedback about 2.104 modes versus 2.09 modes

The most versatile and user friendly E-Stim control unit available today. If you want More Power, More Control, and more fun, then the 2B is the one you want.
ben71fr
Active
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 4:19 pm
Location: France

Feedback about 2.104 modes versus 2.09 modes

Post by ben71fr »

Hello !

I have just upgraded my 2B unit from 2.09 to 2.104 FW. I was eager to test the new FW and I reviewed all modes. I must say I was quite disappointed by the results because I could not get the same feelings I had before. So please let me share some feedback in order to see if I am doing something wrong or if I can help make our box even better than it is now ;) Please note English is not my mother tongue.

Please consider this is not a review of one FW or the other, this is a comparison between 2 FW, and more specifically how it felt before and feels now for the same person using the same configuration. I hope this will be helpful as it took quite some time to write it ;)

Both experiments (2.09 and 2.104) were done in 48h so that I can remember well how the old FW was performing, and with the exact same configuration (Stuffer on channel A, 2 loops on channel B), both with the mains adapter.

1) The output level seems to be much lower now on variable modes, same as before on continuous modes, with a huge gap between modes. For instance with 2.09 I was feeling channel A at 15% and I could not get past 19% on channel B. Now on mode like Pulse or Bounce I do not feel anything below 30% on channel A and get the first real stimulation around 50%, on channel B the feeling starts at 30% now. With a mode like Continuous, I have the same sensations as before with the same levels
2) A split and B split seems to have been interchanged (in 2.09, on A split he channel A is pulsing as intended, in 2.104 on A split the channel B is pulsing)
3) The pulses feel much more “spiky” with 2.104 (all modes were spike is adjustable): with 2.09 the standard spike level of 50 was perfect, now I must go very low between 10 and 20 to get the same feeling. I was never able to achieve the old, nice and pleasant “masturbation-like” feeling and I consider a hand-free orgasm is now totally unreachable, which is my main concern with 2.104 :roll:
4) Throb and Thrust seem to be broken: they are now working like Continuous, whichever setting I try
5) Variable modes (Wave, Waterfall, Squeeze, Milk) are now less precise and distinct. With 2.09 they were clearly different and worked as intended. Now they seem to be more or less the same, with only slight variations hard to feel (or I have to get to extreme settings (low or high) to feel the difference)

As a conclusion, my concern is, with 2.09 I could really feel each mode and distinguish them with closed eyes. Now I must check on the unit that the intended mode is really running as I feel little to no difference between most of them, only Pulse and Bounce have kept their distinct feeling.

I would appreciate to see what other user are thinking and share feedbacks.

Ben


birdburdy
Active Developer
Posts: 162
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 6:58 pm

Re: Feedback about 2.104 modes versus 2.09 modes

Post by birdburdy »

Is it possible to downgrade firmware versions? I can associate with the sharpness of all modes that y ou describe here, but I've only used 2.103.
Unofficial Python API for the E-Stim 2B: https://github.com/fredhatt/estim2bapi
Generating sounds in Python: https://github.com/fredhatt/estimsoundsynth
ben71fr
Active
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 4:19 pm
Location: France

Re: Feedback about 2.104 modes versus 2.09 modes

Post by ben71fr »

I would be glad to downgrade to 2.09 but I do not think it is possible, especially with the new bootloader system.
But it could be a nice feature ;)
pimento
Active
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:33 pm

Re: Feedback about 2.104 modes versus 2.09 modes

Post by pimento »

I upgraded from 2.09. In my case, throb and thrust work perfectly, with no difference from the previous firmware (except that the bug is fixed). Also, continuous, step and training feel the same to me. I don't really use the other modes, so I haven't checked them out properly. One thing that I have noticed, is that random does nothing, simply dead. Doesn't bother me, as I don't use it, but it does appear to be a flaw in the firmware, or at least how it's installed on my 2B.
ben71fr
Active
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 4:19 pm
Location: France

Re: Feedback about 2.104 modes versus 2.09 modes

Post by ben71fr »

Random is the mode I have not checked, I will check it next time I use my box.
Concerning continuous I would say it feels the same, like you.
I am very surprised for Throb and Thrust : I had no problem with 2.09 (what was that problem exactly ?) and now they seem broken ...
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2111
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:14 pm
Location: Watford,UK
Contact:

Re: Feedback about 2.104 modes versus 2.09 modes

Post by admin »

Interesting comments.

the major change was between 2.09 and 2.103 when we first fixed the Throb and Thrust Bug, so in the year 2.103 has been out we have had a few similar comments from 2.09 users. There is a difference between the apparent power output of 2.09 and 2.103/4, but its different for different users, depending on what levels you were using before the upgrade but Its on the list to investigate further.

2.09 doesn't have the bootloader so a 'downgrade' to 2.09 is not on the cards, but future updates will have the ability to return to a lower version, as it allows me to release beta versions for people to play with without bricking the box.

several modes are built on other modes (all the modes are software driven after all), so if one mode is 'working' then all the modes built on that mode should 'work'.

Also the comment about a mode working or not working sometimes causes issues. For a while we had complains about tickle 'not working' until people realised that they I) had to increase the channel level, and b) they had to adjust the adjust knob to get the tickle action.

If a mode is not 'working' for you I would ask the following questions..

What are you expecting the mode to do... have you read the latest instructions for your firmware version?
Do the LEDS do anything?
What happens when you increase the levels (training mode works on a step up to the max level set (off the top of my head you need at least 30% for it to be felt)
What happens if you play with the Adjust/Select+Adjust settings?
Do you get any output at any level?
Do any of the other modes work?.. if they do then its not hardware/cable/electrode released, but either software or personal perception.

Hope this helps

Si
E-Stim Systems Ltd
ben71fr
Active
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 4:19 pm
Location: France

Re: Feedback about 2.104 modes versus 2.09 modes

Post by ben71fr »

Hello dear Admin
Thank you for the technical explanations, there are really interesting for the geek inside me ;) The estim user is not so satisfied because I think I have already answered many of your questions/suggestions. I believe it's best to take each point individually don't you ?
admin wrote:There is a difference between the apparent power output of 2.09 and 2.103/4, but its different for different users, depending on what levels you were using before the upgrade but it's on the list to investigate further.
I am glad you intend to investigate further. I gave you some of the levels I am using in my 1) so that you have precise data to work with.
admin wrote:Several modes are built on other modes (all the modes are software driven after all), so if one mode is 'working' then all the modes built on that mode should 'work'.
That is exactly what I explained concerning many "variable" modes (as opposed to "continuous" or "step" modes). For instance I explained in my 5) the same problem with wave+waterfall+squeeze+milk (I guess they work on the same software (?)).
Could you please go further and tell us exactly which mode relies on which mode ?
admin wrote: Also the comment about a mode working or not working sometimes causes issues.
Concerning my own feedback I wrote no such report.
admin wrote:For a while we had complains about tickle 'not working' until people realized that they a) had to increase the channel level, and b) they had to adjust the adjust knob to get the tickle action.
Again I exactly explained that : I have to go to the "extreme" settings (low or high) to get the feelings I had at average settings. Please note I tried extensively the modes reviewed and all 4 adjustments (channel A power, channel B power, Adjust, Select+Adjust, each time going from very low to the max I could stand).

***********************************************

Now I will answer each question to help you consider further investigation but I believe most were already answered in my first post.
admin wrote:What are you expecting the mode to do...
The main purpose of my review was a comparison with 2.09 and I am expecting the modes to do as written in the user manual and like they were working on 2.09.
admin wrote:Have you read the latest instructions for your firmware version?
I never found the change logs or release notes from 2.09 to 2.104 (except "Throb and Thrust bug"). Could you please publish them ?
admin wrote:Do the LEDS do anything?
Yes they do. For instance, on A split and B split they blink but are interverted like the split is. On Pulse and Bounce they blink accordingly, and do not blink in continuous.
I believe LED are perfectly monitoring what the box is doing and correspond precisely to the feelings I described in detail.
admin wrote:What happens when you increase the levels (training mode works on a step up to the max level set) (off the top of my head you need at least 30% for it to be felt)
When I increase the levels the feeling begins. That is not an issue.
The issues are :
- much more power needed than with 2.09 to get the same feeling
- huge gaps or inconsistencies between modes (some are not felt at 30% other are unbearable at the same level), whereas they were totally consistent with 2.09
admin wrote:What happens if you play with the Adjust/Select+Adjust settings?
Same as output power, the feeling changes accordingly, but compared to 2.09 everything seems less precise, spikes are more "spiky", and so on
admin wrote:Do you get any output at any level?
All modes I reviewed give an output at some level or another.
admin wrote:Do any of the other modes work?
All modes I reviewed do something, even if it is not what is expected from them.
I am not an engineer but as everything changed with the new FW (same hardware, same electrodes, same configuration, same user), in my opinion the new "personal perceptions" described in this topic are clearly software-released.

Please let me know what you think of those informations and how I could further help :)
electroscott

Re: Feedback about 2.104 modes versus 2.09 modes

Post by electroscott »

My first FW version was 2.103 but I accidentally downgraded to 2.09, so my "upgrade" path came in the form of a replacement IC that I purchased. As such, I didn't have much experience with 2.103 as far as remembering the levels, etc., but I follow the observations made by the O.P. regarding the sensations and power levels required going from V2.09 to V2.104.

At first, I even thought that I had somehow bricked my unit because I was used to strong power levels at around 15% and was surprised that I had to be around 35% before even beginning to feel a buzz.

My personal choices for sensations were that I much preferred V2.09 sensations; for example, Squeeze mode made me blow each time in profound ways, and the feel and quality of the stimulation with V2.104--almost across the board--is leaving me unable to reach HFO anymore, except for a couple of times I sort of forced the issue by making WAVE mode feel like I was used to.

All told, I can probably get used to the new "mapping" of the controls, which means I understand how the adjustments have changed from V2.09 to V2.104, but ultimately the change from V2.09 sensations to V2.104 sensations leaves me wanting/needing so much more. In V2.09 I raved about the 2B saying it was the best out of my three units that I own, including the ET-312b.

Perhaps some additional playing around will allow me to find some sweet spots. I could just be too used to those particular combinations that I had memorized. I'm willing, certainly, to experiment a bit more. Wanted to share my observations with the O.P., though, just to identify that the sensations I observed going from V2.09 to V2.104 are vastly different, with V2.104 right now being a bit disappointing...
mrbutt89
Active Developer
Posts: 566
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Rayleigh, Essex, UK

Re: Feedback about 2.104 modes versus 2.09 modes

Post by mrbutt89 »

I was on 2.09 for some time before moving up to 2.104. Like the OP I don't feel the update has taken this unit in the right direction. The sensations I get now (chiefly using audio input generated by SmartStim 4) feel rougher than in the previous version. It's almost as though 2.09 used to coax the HFO out of me, where is 2.104 is bullying me into one. I know that the 2B is often compared with the Erostek ET312, and comments often suggest that the ET312 produces a smoother sensation. I'd love it if the next iteration of the 2B's firmware could achieve that smoothness, without losing too much definition in the audio signal processing.
ben71fr
Active
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 4:19 pm
Location: France

Re: Feedback about 2.104 modes versus 2.09 modes

Post by ben71fr »

Thank you all for your feedback.

My topic is now 4 months old. What are you thinking of it at Estim ? Have you made some tests ? Are you working on a new FW ? Can I help more, do you have more questions ?

I would be very happy to get back to the 2.09 feelings, I am still trying to achieve a HFO and I was much closer to success with 2.09 :D

It would be nice to keep us updated regularly. Thank you ;)
Locked