> mch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, most of the two-way industry doesn't really care about > repeater audio the way hams do.
And your point is..? > If you can understand what the other person is saying, it's > good enough. Just depends on who owns and operates the equipment. Crappy audio is easily understood but not good enough for a lot of ham and commercial radio owner/ops who actually care what things sound like. > There is even one commercial repeater near me that has > open squelch on the tail. Yea - that sounds good. Micky Mouse is also alive and well in the Commercial Radio Business. > You completely missed the point. It's not up to the repeater to > fix user problems. We don't depend on the repeater to fix typical user radio issues. But we configure our machines to do a good job cleaning up what we often experience, which is often well over deviated radios. > Yes, it would be nice if all hams could properly maintain > their equipment. Wouldn't need to if hams would expect or demand new Amateur Radio Equipment be sent out with more realistic deviation and audio levels set. > It would be nice if they could install a 3-wire CTCSS encoder > that has +, ground, and audio out. Not for me... where possible I'd want my encoder to include additional functions for reverse burst. > It would even be nice if all hams knew how to actually operate > their equipment. ---> But enough with fantasy-land <--- Yep... you're getting a little sideways again. > In the real world, if someone's radio sounds crappy, it needs > fixed by someone or the radio will get a (well deserved) reputation > as a POS and people need to know to not buy that model. But an over deviated new radio doesn't sound crappy in the typical operators hands. It often sounds pretty darn good/loud. So the mfgrs keep sending them out "hot" and few people complain about it. > Yes, we had clinics, too. But, many hams feel that if they are > understandable, that is 'good enough'. Of course, people who > compensate for their shortcomings in the repeater only serve to > accommodate the problem rather than solve it. We have to be realistic Joe. But you have some solution for the problem of over deviated radios that doesn't torque off the user? > Then you are not in favor of a flat audio repeater (whatever > term you want to call it), and intentionally make properly set > up radios sound worse. This of course adds to the reason to not > set up a user radio properly. "Let someone else solve my problem" > seems to be the rationale in your area, I guess. I would prefer > the real source of the problem to be fixed rather than eliminating > the symptom. Granted, it's not the 'easy way out', but it's the > right thing to do. That's not what I wrote... man Joe... you're still angry about the last time we talked about this subject. Get past it man... time to move along and be more positive. These are not the droids you're looking for. But to give you an answer... I understand how my repeater receiver, transmitter and interstage audio circuits perform. Unless someone uses my type of repeater equipment or something very similar... their settings and performance will of course be different. So we setup our repeaters to work as we feel is the best possible and most practical operation. > Then maybe the passband of the receiver should be tightened up more. > When those people are choppy on all the repeaters, they might > consider getting their radio properly serviced. In the real world... most users never really experience popping in and out of he receiver for a number of reasons. When visitors to our machines pop in and out of the receiver... we tell them to turn the mic sideways and talk across it. We also explain why and a few of them actually get their radio serviced or remember to talk across the mic when they pop in and out of repeater receivers. > What will you do when the problem gets worse and even more out of > tolerance radios come out? And they will come out since perhaps 10% > overdeviation seems to be working fine, so why worry about keeping > it within 15%? Then 20%? Etc. Pretty soon, you will have everyone > on "radio welfare". Transmitting AM rather than FM? No problem - we > will just fix it in the repeater. I know that's getting ridiculous, > but when you allow some slop, you have to expect more slop to > follow. The real solution is to not compensate for the existing > slop. Tell the users to "get a job" (learn their craft and fix > their radios, or take it somewhere to get them fixed). Once again... try the decafe Joe. > CTCSS is stripped and regenerated on nearly all repeaters - > even those using unprocessed audio. Otherwise, you would have > falsing of decoders on all the co-channel user radios if you > were to simply pass everything down to DC (or even 60 Hz). > Been there - tried it early on in my 'repeater career' way > before CTCSS was common in the ham bands. Repeater sounded > excellent. Audio response was down to almost DC. Sounded just > like the input audio. CTCSS decoders went nuts with the audio > components below 250 Hz. Wow... you are on a roll. Just a question of where you're going with all of this. Many west coast linked repeaters pass all the ctcss range through with the exception of the desired ctcss signal, which is simply notched out. If someone has a serious regular decoder falsing problem I would first suspect the decoder. > That's another problem with some of the user radios - no > high pass filters to keep from bringing up other repeaters due > to the low frequency components on their TX. Hasn't been a big problem that I've heard about. I have heard of decoder falsing but it hasn't been a major problem that anyone has reported to the group here. > Squelch crash? What does that have to do with audio processing? > That is a function of an audio delay circuit (a proper one which > will not change the audio at all, but simply mutes it); Apples > and lemons. > Joe M. Wow Joe... you're running on heavy fuel again. Anyway... we don't need audio delays to prevent squelch crash noise. Please let us know what audio delay line you've found that doesn't change the audio "at all". I've not seen that circuit yet. Try more apples... you've had too many lemons this week. cheers, s.
