At 3/15/2007 21:41, you wrote: >Bob, > >I have two DR-605T radios, and both have one pot, VR204, which adjusts the >combined voice plus tone levels going to the modulator. It is not possible >to adjust the CTCSS tone level independently. However, I padded down the >tone levels, upstream of this pot, on both radios to about 600 Hz deviation >from more than 1500 Hz before the mod.
OK, you're right: no CTCSS level adjustment. FWIW, the service manual calls for CTCSS deviation range of 0.5 to 1.3 kHz, so your 1.5 kHz would be out of spec. My DR-605 definitely didn't have that problem. >The main message here is not about whether a specific brand or model of >radio made for the Amateur Radio market will meet commercial specifications; >few will be so well-made. The issue is, I think, why don't the majority of >radios made for the Amateur Radio market meet the specifications of their >manufacturers? I should not have to perform surgery on a new radio, right >out of the box, to make it perform within the published specs. True, but I've learned to live with those imperfections that I can deal with. Problems such as you describe can be dealt with; excessive IMD, defective CTCSS decoders, etc. OTOH are not fixable by the end user. BTW, these things need not triple or even double the price of a new radio, as some have suggested. An extra pot for CTCSS deviation, decent CTCSS decoders, higher IP3 front-end amps & mixer & more front-end filtering would probably add $50-$100 to the cost of the radio at most. But when you get in the mode of shaving every last penny off the cost of a design, sooner or later you end up with nice-looking junk. What else can I do other than once again complain to all the manufacturers at Dayton. Maybe this will be the year they throw me out? Bob NO6B
