ubject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
> At 3/6/2009 12:40, you wrote:
> >If you are careful about which tones you use and careful about level
setting,
> >you won't need any extra bandwidth.
>
> You'll always need more bandwidth than what's needed for a single t
At 3/6/2009 12:40, you wrote:
>If you are careful about which tones you use and careful about level setting,
>you won't need any extra bandwidth.
You'll always need more bandwidth than what's needed for a single tone. If
you can turn down the deviation of each tone to, say 300 Hz for a total
de
7:05:24 AM PST
From: n...@no6b.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
> At 3/6/2009 00:20, you wrote:
> >I worked around that by having my repeater ENCODE BOTH pl tones when the
> >autopatch was active.
>
> Not really an opt
At 3/6/2009 00:20, you wrote:
>I worked around that by having my repeater ENCODE BOTH pl tones when the
>autopatch was active.
Not really an option in my case: extra bandwidth required, & some radios
don't decode well when there's a 2nd tone in the CTCSS band.
>But it would be nice if amateur ra
--
Received: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:52:37 PM PST
From: n...@no6b.com
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
> At 3/5/2009 14:24, you wrote:
> >On my two meter repeater we used to require one PL tone for repeater
access
> >and a different P
What type of radios do you think the old hams are using? ;->
Joe M.
Nate Duehr wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2009, at 11:26 PM, MCH wrote:
>
>> You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
>> like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for
>> codes
>> for repe
At 3/5/2009 14:24, you wrote:
>On my two meter repeater we used to require one PL tone for repeater access
>and a different PL tone for DTMF commands (including autopatch access).
>
>The repeater generated the normal PL tone for repeater access.
Too bad most amateur grade radios made today don't s
On Mar 4, 2009, at 11:26 PM, MCH wrote:
> You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
> like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for
> codes
> for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram.
The last ham rig I bought that didn't have this capabi
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
> HAHAHAHA Gov't coupons for TS-32s LOL...
>
> I run cross tones... Inverted DPL input, 110.9 PL output for normal
> operation, same Inverted DPL input, standard DPL output for special
> events/call
:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:24 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
>
> I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have
> older radios with out encode...
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM, MCH w
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
> its about time the new 'ham' radios support encode and decode CTCSS (pl)
>
> I hate to have to buy and extra board to support encode
>
> I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have
> older radios
awn! ;^)
73,
Paul, AE4KR
- Original Message -
From: Rick Szajkowski
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have older
radios wit
its about time the new 'ham' radios support encode and decode CTCSS (pl)
I hate to have to buy and extra board to support encode
I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have
older radios with out encode
the fun debate about CTCSS and CDCSS
Thanks to the group for a g
I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS
ENCODE, let alone decode or CDCSS. Again, I said 'most radios', not all
radios. Yes, many recent models do include CDCSS.
Joe M.
n...@no6b.com wrote:
> At 3/4/2009 22:26, you wrote:
>> You forgot one factor... most ham rigs do
hours.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
> In fact I feel like a throwback sometimes, sticking with my
> older equipment - I sometimes get comments about my "ancient" Alinco
>
At 3/4/2009 22:26, you wrote:
>You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
>like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes
>for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram.
Perhaps this is region dependent. Most radios made for the past several
Most of mine do DPL.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: "MCH"
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
> You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
> like it or not those ARE the rigs
You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and
like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes
for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram.
I would agree CDCSS is more secure for that very reason. I recommended a
customer switch to CDCSS from
At 3/4/2009 09:49, you wrote:
>I have to agree with Eric on this one. I have set up the DPL on the output
>of the repeater different than the input so it s harder to find the DPL
>code. Motorola is great about this for programming as it s a lot harder to
>hack the repeater if you have two diffe
er-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:49 PM
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
I have to agree with Eric on this one. I have set up the DPL on the output of
the repeater different than the input so it's harder to find the DPL code.
Motorola is great
3, 2009 7:57 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
Jason,
The upside to using DPL (CDCSS) for repeater access is that few, if any,
wannabe users will be able to get in- IF you encode a different code (DPL or
PL) than you decode. If your repeater pas
Jason,
The upside to using DPL (CDCSS) for repeater access is that few, if any,
wannabe users will be able to get in- IF you encode a different code (DPL or
PL) than you decode. If your repeater passes through the incoming code to
the output, you have already given the hackers the clues that they
s.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
The lack of a harsh squelch tailis usually one of the benefits (as opposed
to PL Reverse Burst)...
But locally, at least in the Amateur realm, it's been implemented ONLY to
prevent access by the general Amateur community...
On Tue, Mar 3,
The lack of a harsh squelch tailis usually one of the benefits (as opposed
to PL Reverse Burst)...
But locally, at least in the Amateur realm, it's been implemented ONLY to
prevent access by the general Amateur community...
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Chuck Kelsey wrote:
> Depends on wha
Depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
If your intent is to try to somewhat restrict users, DPL would help
accomplish this. Many potential users wouldn't try encoding DPL if they were
attempting to "find" your tone. Some might, but most would probably just
give up and move on.
At least
25 matches
Mail list logo
