> > 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.
By the nature of the beast.. most all standard repeater operation should clean up a wide input signal through the repeat process. It may not be optimal but it's realistic. Pretty much everyone is doing it. > 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. Wide doesn't always equal an interference problem. In most cases a hot radio is perceived to sound good. Sure there's a way to solve the wide deviation problem. Information and education is a real good start. > > 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. In reality... the radio is misaligned in your opinion. Many others might also have the same opinion... myself included but it's the mfgrs opinion on how the radio best operates out of the box and it's very legal. > 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... most over deviated radios don't sound that bad. In fact most of them sound pretty good. But they are still over deviated buy the standards used for traditional and current fm repeater operation in the 2 meter band. > 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. We have not experienced or heard about this being a major problem. In the few times really hot radios have come on the system we describe the deviation problem and try to help the user resolve it. We don't tell them the radio needs to be fixed. Only that the radios out of the box alignment is not optimal for standard voice repeater operation and what options they may have to resolve those issues. > That's why some people feel it necessary to > compensate for them rather than be honest with them. Same reason we have an industry of small blue pills. > > 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. Silly guy... we know that... that's why we ask them to try it. Much of the time it works just peachy. > 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. ZZZZzzzzzzzz.....! sorry. I feel asleep again. > 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. > > 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. I care not to debate you Joe... just to make sure your blood pressure is in check and that you stop listening to so much Michael Savage on the broadcast radio. > > > 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); > > 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'm still waiting to read which audio delay you report, which "will not change the audio at all"? > I've heard a lot of repeaters with audio delays that have > excellent audio. ZZZZzzzzzz.... > Which units do you know of that intentionally change the audio > in some way? Nice try at a question turn around... how about you answer my original question first. Tag, you're it now. > 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. Sure... I'll tell you the msr-2000 repeater has a dual squelch circuit in normal repeater operation. Proper adjustment of both squelch levels pretty much removes any crash noise. No audio delay lines and everyone sounds like a breath of spring... cheers, s.
