skipp025 wrote: > > > 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..?
The point is that you cannot compare an industry where 'intelligible is good enough' is the standard for most to an industry that thrives on 'the best you can get'. > > 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. True, there are some in the commercial world who care about having a good sounding system. But the vast majority do not. > > 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. As I said in another post, deviation and audio reproduction are mutually exclusive with the exception of a radio which exceeds the receiver passband and introduces distortion. If you run 4 kHz deviation vs 5 kHz, your audio spectrum is proportionally identical. If you had tinny audio at 4 kHz, you will have tinny audio at 5 kHz. > > 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. True. > > 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. Again, you missed the point. If someone cannot find 12V, ground, and audio, they certainly aren't going to be able to find 12V, ground, audio, PLUS PTT in and out. > > 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. Not really. The inability to operate goes directly to improper maintenance and overdeviation or distortion. My FT736, if not adjusted properly with user controls, will easily overdrive the TX and sound like crap. > > 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. And repeaters which 'fix' the problem for them doesn't help, either. Then there is the adjacent channel interference they create. There is nothing you can say that will convince me that any repeater can solve that problem. > > 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? I don't care about them being torqued off. They just should be aiming it in the right direction - at the manufacturer who misaligned their radio. A good ham should want their radio to be in proper working order. If they get mad, let them have one that sounds bad. But, don't try to compensate for those who don't care what they sounds like. They won't appreciate it anyway. Again this is the problem in today's ham radio - people are so worried about hurting the feelings of others they won't even tell them when they need their radio fixed. That's why some people feel it necessary to compensate for them rather than be honest with them. > > 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. And that is much closer solving the problem, not the symptom. It has the effect of lowering the user deviation through proper usage techniques. Now, if they would only really limit the deviation rather than doing it through operating procedures, that would be ideal. But, again, too many hams are appliance operators only. Of course, nearly everyone with experience knows that in time of emergency, nearly all compensation techniques will go out the door and the person will be right back up on the mic. > > 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. Criticizing others personally is a sign of poor character. Criticize my comments, debate them, or accept them. Don't try to avoid them like this. > > 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. There are lots of them that don't intentionally change the audio. Many of the newer digital units do a much better job of it. I've heard a lot of repeaters with audio delays that have excellent audio. Which units do you know of that intentionally change the audio in some way? Again, you have to be able to segregate intentional changes (such as pre-emph or de-emph or audio equalizers) from unintentional changes (such as component limitations or any minor change introduced with audio delays). Can you take steps to reduce the unintentional changes? Sure. But, such changes are usually nothing compared to intentional changes. What do you do to eliminate the squelch crash? I have yet to hear anything other than audio delays that will do it with the single exception of the Micor which will have a very short crash (almost to the point of a click) on strong signals. But, it is still there, and weak signals still have the traditional crash. Joe M.
