[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 11/23/2007 09:17, you wrote: > > >> On Nov 22, 2007, at 12:31 PM, Paul Plack wrote: >> >>> For long-term monitoring, a repeater with inconspicuous CWID, >>> minimalist courtesy tones and delays to kill squelch tails gets my >>> vote every time. >>> >> We built a machine that CTCSS TX from the repeater follows user input >> (user CTCSS in) -- the original reason was to do in-band linking for >> an EchoIRLP node. >> >> As an interesting side-effect, we've had a number of pleased reports >>from hams who've used commercial systems (and many who have commercial >> radios that have proper "Reverse Burst" or "STE") who really like the >> SOUND of a dead quiet repeater where they don't even hear the repeater >> ID if it goes off in-between transmissions. > > ...OTOH we reconfigured a system that was CTCSS encode at all times to > encode only when the squelch was open so as to accommodate an IRLP node, & > some of the users complained that they couldn't hear the courtesy tone > anymore. They still wanted to use decode so as not to hear IMD yet still > hear the courtesy tone, so we had to set up the repeater so that encode is > always on when the node is not in use. To each his or her own, I guess. > > Bob NO6B
An interesting thing we noticed is that most ham rigs are SO slow to close, we could put the courtesy-tone right up against the time it would take for our link radio (with STE) to close, and most ham rigs can still hear it. It's sad that the ham manufacturers can't spend another $5 to add STE/Reverse Burst after all these years, but it kinda comes in handy in this particular case that they don't. :-) Nate WY0X
