Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
As frequency decreases, so does the importance of keeping the dipoles exactly above one another. This is why you can get away with mounting the bays of a LB array around a smaller tower (like Rohn 25) and still have very good omni-directional performance. Positioning the bays around a central supporting mast of a UHF array creates considerable pattern distortion and gain is lost. DB Products and others used a method of exciting two dipoles at the same elevation - the double dipole. This makes the radiation center of the array the mast pipe, and at higher frequencies there is a big advantage to this. Frank Rossi, N3FLR and I did testing at my Seven Springs site in the early 90's with a Cushcraft UHF exposed dipole array. (Yes the ones with the RG-58 harness, poor connectors, and all that) I had a UHF repeater hooked to it and it was side mounted on the tower with stand-off brackets to minimize the blocking effects of the tower. I started out with the dipoles arranged one directly above another. In Greensburg and Pittsburgh (about 30 and 45 miles from the site) the repeater was usually full scale on Frank's S meter and he was received very well even on 5 watts. My house in Friedens (about 20 miles away) was in the null and I received the repeater on average about S-7. Testing was done for several days to get a benchmark. I then tried the antenna in omni, positioning the bays around the mast as Cushcraft suggested. The result was an increase toward Friedens of two S units (from S-7 to S-9) and a drop towards Frank from usually full scale to S-5 to S-9 - a considerable loss. It was soon learned that on UHF with single dipole arrays that you need to keep them one above another unless you can stand the considerable reduction in gain when going omni. The antenna worked so much better in every other direction than the exact null, that I went back to the directional pattern and dealt with it. The Cushcraft antenna was relegated to remote base use, and still works some 15 years later. It was sealed as well as could be done. The repeater was connected to a top mounted Stationmaster look-alike home brew 23 half-waves in phase with 3 degrees of downtilt. This antenna buries the S-Meter in all directions. http://www.repeater-builder.com/antenna/wa6svt.html I know of one high profile VHF repeater in Pittsburgh that uses a dipole array with the dipoles faced into the tower. It has amazing omni-directional range. Kevin Custer MCH wrote: I'm sure someone on *this* list will be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you can mount virtually any of the dipole type antennas on the tower leg as long as you're not looking for a 360 pattern. An offset or figure-8 pattern, though, no problem. In fact, I've done this for commercial users, and in some cases such as Low Band dipoles, that's the only way to can mount them. You might even be able to get away with it mounting one on each leg for a 360 pattern (with a little more gain in one direction for a 4-bay antenna), but your gain would be messed up since the signal would then be out of phase for each element in any given direction. Joe M. Doug Rehman wrote: I remember seeing a vertical dipole from one on the amateur antenna manufacturers that was designed to bolt onto your mast or tower leg. I think it might have come in a kit of 2 or 4. I thought it was Cushcraft, but I couldn't find it. Does anyone have any idea what antenna I thought I saw? Thanks, Doug K4AC Yahoo! Groups Links Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.387 / Virus Database: 270.13.38/2274 - Release Date: 07/31/09 05:58:00 Yahoo! Groups Links No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.48/2291 - Release Date: 08/08/09 18:17:00
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Narrow banding question
Agreed, Eric... but being affiliated with public safety, I also see that some agencies (mostly municipalities with limited budgets) are waiting as long as possible before being forced to bite the bullet. Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon All true. However, I daresay that most of the non-convertible equipment has already been taken out of service, long ago. At least in my area, most users of high-tier equipment like Spectra, TK-990, and CDM radios are replacing them because they are getting long in the tooth- and these radios are already narrow-band compliant. Dual-bandwidth equipment first came on the market more than a decade ago. My gut feeling is that operators of large radio fleets will use the narrow-banding deadline as a convenient time to replace the entire fleet at once, not because of the narrow-banding requirement per se, but because they must re-program every radio, base station, and repeater they own and do it with minimum disruption. When you have 2,000 radios, it can take a week or more to reprogram the fleet. If you use the deadline as an opportunity to put new radios into service, you buy your 2,000 new radios a month in advance and program and bench-test all of them on the narrow-band channels. Just before the day you pick to make the changeover, you deliver new radios and chargers to all users, with instructions to start using the new radios on Monday morning. The radio techs will ensure that the base stations and/or repeaters are either reprogrammed or replaced just prior to that day. If well-planned, this will work. Obviously, users with many mobile radios will need to allow extra time for replacing them. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of N9WYS Albert, This depends on the service. Public Safety and Business Radio services are affected. Amateur Radio and GMRS are not - at this time. (IIRC) I would certainly expect to see a glut of non-narrowband compatible equipment enter the surplus market soon... Mark - N9WYS -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Albert Yes, I realize it effects only UHF and VHF users. Maybe I was unclear with my question. Is is ALL VHF and UHF users? I was under the impression it was only the upper UHF trunked systems and the like. But maybe I was confused. Will many users have to dump their older radios and have to upgrade? I was wondering what surplus equipment might be coming onto the market due to the changes. If you have seen posts from me before, I am interested in Motorola Genesis related radio gear. I was curious if there might be a flood of it on the market in the near future. Thanks
[Repeater-Builder] Antennas and feedline FS
We have the following surplus equipment available: 1 each Telewave ANT-150D single dipole antenna 138-172 NOS with all hardware $175.00 each 2 each Telewave ANT-150D 4 bay dipole antenna 138-172 NOS with all hardware $600.00 each 1 each Telewave ANT-150F2 fiberglass antenna 148-172 Demo/spare has a few scratches/clamp marks $250.00 each 1 each Celwave BA1010-1 fiberglass antenna 146-164 Demo/spare in as new condition $250.00 each 1 each Digital Antenna 826-VW VHF marine (designed for boat) NOS in original tube $50.00 each 1 each Digital Antenna 883-CW 800/cell (designed for boat)NOS in original tube $50.00 each 150 feet Andrew LDF4-50A 1/2 Heliax NOS $150.00 each 200 feet Andrew FSJ4-50B 1/2 Superflex NOS $200.00 each All above are plus UPS shipping from 89801 Paypal or USPS MO's only Thanks, BJ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
At 8/9/2009 05:47, you wrote: As frequency decreases, so does the importance of keeping the dipoles exactly above one another. This is why you can get away with mounting the bays of a LB array around a smaller tower (like Rohn 25) and still have very good omni-directional performance. Positioning the bays around a central supporting mast of a UHF array creates considerable pattern distortion and gain is lost. I once modeled this arrangement in NEC-Win: the resulting pattern looked like a warped pancake. On-horizon gain was all over the place. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: Narrow banding question
At 8/8/2009 21:33, you wrote: As have many other parts of the country - to 12.5 kHz on 440. But, when you say narrowbanding, are you talking the actual users switching from NBFM (16.0 kHz BW) to SNFM (11.0 kHz BW) or are you just talking about the bandplan going from 25.0 kHz channels to 20.0 kHz channels and everyone is still using NBFM as they have for the past nearly 40 years? The latter. Not narrowbanding at all, just an attempt to more effectively utilize the spectrum using existing bandwidths. Bob NO6B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
It was indeed the Telewave ANT-150D that I had seen; I just found the ad in the August QST. Unfortunately, the Telewave is out of the budget for this project though. Is anyone familiar with the Antenex YDA1364? (4 dipole array) http://www.ameradio.com/product/9449/description.html Has anyone done business with ameradio.com? Their price is $217; Hutton's is $309. I only need 2 dipoles, but it looks like the harness could be easily split for two sets of 2 dipoles. (They offer a 2 dipole array for the higher frequency range, but not for the range covering 2 meters.) Since I need omni coverage on a rotating mast, maybe putting two elements back to back would work (like the UHF DB antennas use for each bay)? Doug K4AC From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Edmund F Leavitt Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 10:49 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles Do you recall if it was a dipole or folded dipole? Edmund Leavitt Ph: 253 582-5034 Ham / MARS / Federal K7EFL / AFA0AH / KPS654 Lakewood, WA USNG: 10TET36292223
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair R2B12 duplexer
Martin, The best place to get that information is from the company that built it. Contact Sinclair Technologies at 800-263-3275. 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cruizzer77 Sent: Saturday, August 08, 2009 12:54 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Sinclair R2B12 duplexer Does anyone have technical info (i.e. tech drawings) or inside pics of these duplexers? I wonder how they do the shortening as there can't be a 1/4 wave resonator for 2m inside this 19 box... Regards Martin
[Repeater-Builder] Replacement Caps. for Motorola Micor Pwr supplies
Does anyone have a source for these capacitors, Which are used in Motorola Micor power supplies? TPN1106A? C1006-C1009? 2000 mfd, 100V @10% C1012, C1013? 17,500 mfd 20V @10% TPN1110A???C1? 6 mfd @ 660v C2-9 17,500 mfd 20v @ 10% TPN1151A? C1-2? 8000 mfd 35v @ 10% 73's,??? Jim?Kh6jkg.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
Lots of comments on the unidirectional pattern which I suggested might not work well. Any comments on having the elements on one side of the tower right on the leg? Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: At 8/9/2009 05:47, you wrote: As frequency decreases, so does the importance of keeping the dipoles exactly above one another. This is why you can get away with mounting the bays of a LB array around a smaller tower (like Rohn 25) and still have very good omni-directional performance. Positioning the bays around a central supporting mast of a UHF array creates considerable pattern distortion and gain is lost. I once modeled this arrangement in NEC-Win: the resulting pattern looked like a warped pancake. On-horizon gain was all over the place. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
If you want to get better omni coverage, you'll need to attach the dipoles to a mast and use stand-off brackets to hold it away from the tower. The pattern will still be affected by the tower, but not as drastically. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 7:33 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles Lots of comments on the unidirectional pattern which I suggested might not work well. Any comments on having the elements on one side of the tower right on the leg? Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: At 8/9/2009 05:47, you wrote: As frequency decreases, so does the importance of keeping the dipoles exactly above one another. This is why you can get away with mounting the bays of a LB array around a smaller tower (like Rohn 25) and still have very good omni-directional performance. Positioning the bays around a central supporting mast of a UHF array creates considerable pattern distortion and gain is lost. I once modeled this arrangement in NEC-Win: the resulting pattern looked like a warped pancake. On-horizon gain was all over the place. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
DOH! Let me rephrase that... Lots of comments on the omnidirectional pattern which I suggested might not work well. Any comments on having the elements on one side of the tower right on the leg? Joe M. MCH wrote: Lots of comments on the unidirectional pattern which I suggested might not work well. Any comments on having the elements on one side of the tower right on the leg? Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: At 8/9/2009 05:47, you wrote: As frequency decreases, so does the importance of keeping the dipoles exactly above one another. This is why you can get away with mounting the bays of a LB array around a smaller tower (like Rohn 25) and still have very good omni-directional performance. Positioning the bays around a central supporting mast of a UHF array creates considerable pattern distortion and gain is lost. I once modeled this arrangement in NEC-Win: the resulting pattern looked like a warped pancake. On-horizon gain was all over the place. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: 2M Vertical Dipoles
What was the spacing between the tower legs at the mounting location of the dipoles in your model? Allan Crites WA9ZZU -- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, n...@... wrote: At 8/9/2009 05:47, you wrote: As frequency decreases, so does the importance of keeping the dipoles exactly above one another. This is why you can get away with mounting the bays of a LB array around a smaller tower (like Rohn 25) and still have very good omni-directional performance. Positioning the bays around a central supporting mast of a UHF array creates considerable pattern distortion and gain is lost. I once modeled this arrangement in NEC-Win: the resulting pattern looked like a warped pancake. On-horizon gain was all over the place. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
That will work well to favor one area. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles DOH! Let me rephrase that... Lots of comments on the omnidirectional pattern which I suggested might not work well. Any comments on having the elements on one side of the tower right on the leg? Joe M. MCH wrote: Lots of comments on the unidirectional pattern which I suggested might not work well. Any comments on having the elements on one side of the tower right on the leg? Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: At 8/9/2009 05:47, you wrote: As frequency decreases, so does the importance of keeping the dipoles exactly above one another. This is why you can get away with mounting the bays of a LB array around a smaller tower (like Rohn 25) and still have very good omni-directional performance. Positioning the bays around a central supporting mast of a UHF array creates considerable pattern distortion and gain is lost. I once modeled this arrangement in NEC-Win: the resulting pattern looked like a warped pancake. On-horizon gain was all over the place. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
Chuck, Would that be with the dipoles all pointed in the same direction, of set up so they face different directions for Omni reception. I picked up an almost new DB224 but no mast so I am following this thread with interest. 73 JIM KA2AJH From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 7:43 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles That will work well to favor one area. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: MCH m...@nb.net mailto:mch%40nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles DOH! Let me rephrase that... Lots of comments on the omnidirectional pattern which I suggested might not work well. Any comments on having the elements on one side of the tower right on the leg? Joe M. MCH wrote: Lots of comments on the unidirectional pattern which I suggested might not work well. Any comments on having the elements on one side of the tower right on the leg? Joe M. n...@no6b.com mailto:no6b%40no6b.com wrote: At 8/9/2009 05:47, you wrote: As frequency decreases, so does the importance of keeping the dipoles exactly above one another. This is why you can get away with mounting the bays of a LB array around a smaller tower (like Rohn 25) and still have very good omni-directional performance. Positioning the bays around a central supporting mast of a UHF array creates considerable pattern distortion and gain is lost. I once modeled this arrangement in NEC-Win: the resulting pattern looked like a warped pancake. On-horizon gain was all over the place. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
I was speaking of pointing all the elements in the same direction - away from the tower, all mounted on the same leg. You should see good gain for about 180 degrees in the direction the elements are pointed. Hard to say whet you'll get off the back of the tower, but it might not be as bad as you think. Sometime you just have to try it. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Jim Cicirello To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 7:51 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles Chuck, Would that be with the dipoles all pointed in the same direction, of set up so they face different directions for Omni reception. I picked up an almost new DB224 but no mast so I am following this thread with interest. 73 JIM KA2AJH From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 7:43 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles That will work well to favor one area. Chuck WB2EDV
Re: [Repeater-Builder] 2M Vertical Dipoles
Anyone have any info on a Regency Micro-Comm U10R ? Especially the pinout of the 15-pin Molex plug? I have one here and was wondering if it was worth resurrecting. Mike WA6ILQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 2M Vertical Dipoles
At 8/9/2009 16:41, you wrote: What was the spacing between the tower legs at the mounting location of the dipoles in your model? No tower. Only the rooftop-mounted mast 4 dipoles, which is what I was using at the time. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Re: 2M Vertical Dipoles
Comtech I believe has the modeling for antenna side mounting from tower and it's affect on gain... On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 7:14 PM, n...@no6b.com wrote: At 8/9/2009 16:41, you wrote: What was the spacing between the tower legs at the mounting location of the dipoles in your model? No tower. Only the rooftop-mounted mast 4 dipoles, which is what I was using at the time. Bob NO6B
[Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression
re: An advocate for a little audio compression. Yeah, I know a decent number of you are in-stone same-in to same-out repeater audio levels types. However, I've changed my opinion. A number of operators don't seem to have voices that drive their radios with adequate audio and I always seem to be reaching for the volume control. So I've started adding a modest amount of audio compression to a few repeaters and the difference is a very pleasant and well received change. Consider 6 to 10dB of audio compression in your repeater system if you're constantly reaching for the volume control while listening to more than one person talk at different levels. I'm experimenting with higher and even dynamic audio compression values but for most situations the above values seem to work well. If you're not sure how to add a bit of audio compression to your specific system... wouldn't be hard to describe it as in most cases the hardware is already in place. Transparent or flat through repeater audio can be made louder without causing the world to come to screeching halt. cheers, skipp
Re: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression
what equipment have you used to do the compression? -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 08:07:45 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression re: An advocate for a little audio compression. Yeah, I know a decent number of you are in-stone same-in to same-out repeater audio levels types. However, I've changed my opinion. A number of operators don't seem to have voices that drive their radios with adequate audio and I always seem to be reaching for the volume control. So I've started adding a modest amount of audio compression to a few repeaters and the difference is a very pleasant and well received change. Consider 6 to 10dB of audio compression in your repeater system if you're constantly reaching for the volume control while listening to more than one person talk at different levels. I'm experimenting with higher and even dynamic audio compression values but for most situations the above values seem to work well. If you're not sure how to add a bit of audio compression to your specific system... wouldn't be hard to describe it as in most cases the hardware is already in place. Transparent or flat through repeater audio can be made louder without causing the world to come to screeching halt. cheers, skipp
Re: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression
I use a Behringer MDX2200. I think it has been discontinued for some time. It has all the hot stuff you want. Compressor, limiter, and a noise gate. It doesn't take very long to tune it in. If you don't have it right, you'll know it... Looks like they are going for about $75 on eSlay. John At 11:10 PM 8/9/2009, you wrote: what equipment have you used to do the compression? -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 08:07:45 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression re: An advocate for a little audio compression. Yeah, I know a decent number of you are in-stone same-in to same-out repeater audio levels types. However, I've changed my opinion. A number of operators don't seem to have voices that drive their radios with adequate audio and I always seem to be reaching for the volume control. So I've started adding a modest amount of audio compression to a few repeaters and the difference is a very pleasant and well received change. Consider 6 to 10dB of audio compression in your repeater system if you're constantly reaching for the volume control while listening to more than one person talk at different levels. I'm experimenting with higher and even dynamic audio compression values but for most situations the above values seem to work well. If you're not sure how to add a bit of audio compression to your specific system... wouldn't be hard to describe it as in most cases the hardware is already in place. Transparent or flat through repeater audio can be made louder without causing the world to come to screeching halt. cheers, skipp Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Let me be a little more specific and I'm sure the following will stir up the normal bees nest I seem to always find. I enjoy bringing up the average audio level using the transmit limiter. In some cases that circuit is an agc type and in some it's a straight forward limiter. I don't normally find a reason to add an external device when what hardware is often included is quite useful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression s. JOHN MACKEY jmac...@... wrote: what equipment have you used to do the compression? -- Original Message -- Received: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 08:07:45 PM PDT From: skipp025 skipp...@... To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression re: An advocate for a little audio compression. Yeah, I know a decent number of you are in-stone same-in to same-out repeater audio levels types. However, I've changed my opinion. A number of operators don't seem to have voices that drive their radios with adequate audio and I always seem to be reaching for the volume control. So I've started adding a modest amount of audio compression to a few repeaters and the difference is a very pleasant and well received change. Consider 6 to 10dB of audio compression in your repeater system if you're constantly reaching for the volume control while listening to more than one person talk at different levels. I'm experimenting with higher and even dynamic audio compression values but for most situations the above values seem to work well. If you're not sure how to add a bit of audio compression to your specific system... wouldn't be hard to describe it as in most cases the hardware is already in place. Transparent or flat through repeater audio can be made louder without causing the world to come to screeching halt. cheers, skipp
[Repeater-Builder] Re: An advocate for a little audio compression
Me too. When the ACC RC850 audio levels are adjusted properly, the on-board AGC gives around the 6-10db of AGC you describe. I believe it works pretty well and is not annoying. I used the term AGC intentionally. In the 850 the ratio is around 2:1, and moderately slow to release. If release is too fast, noise increases in level too fast and quickly becomes a more prominent part of the audio. The term compression implies a quicker release time than AGC does. There was a discussion of this topic some time ago, and somewhere I have some of the posts stored on this computer. I'll try to find them if there's interest. Laryn K8TVZ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression
Skipp, I generally agree, but it's not the fault of the user's voice. It's a lack of training in mic technique, sometimes combined with audio circuits that aren't easily user-accessible. Compression on the repeater eliminate's the user's need to get things right at the source, and one day, he's going to need to operate simplex. I've worked with broadcast compressors for many years, and agree they could play a useful role in repeater audio chains. But I always wanted to design one that was a little different, and digital control of an analog signal path seems like a good candidate. Specifically, I'd like to have something like a compressor with very fast attack and infinitely long release, immediately dropping gain as needed to accommodate voice peaks, but not releasing until COS dropped. This would essentially set the audio gain individually for each user at the start of a transmission, without any ongoing compression to create the obnoxious pumping artifact we all know and hate. The downsides would be additional background noise before the first syllable, and difficulty in distinguishing users with low audio from users with inadequate signal strength. Both would feature increased background noise as a symptom. Then again, IRLP users hand out S-meter reports from a thousand miles away, so maybe it doesn't matter...(sigh) Just running the audio gain 6-10 dB hotter into a fast limiter still allows great disparity in perceived loudness, but at least the guys with low audio can be heard. 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: skipp025 To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:07 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] An advocate for a little audio compression ...a number of operators don't seem to have voices that drive their radios with adequate audio...Consider 6 to 10dB of audio compression in your repeater system... .
[Repeater-Builder] Micor cos question
I have a micor Station , I did the mod for the cos on the audio sq board . I have 9.6v no signal , with signal 0 volts. I need o volts no signal and 5 volts or more for signal. I did the invert logic mod , with the 10 k npn 2n transiter not enough voltage less than 1 volt. Any Ideas ?
