I had a UHF machine which simply passed user PL with flat enough response to achieve the same effect. Then, I got complaints from my control ops that during autopatches, they could hear only the telephone side of the conversation. Just can't win! 73, Paul, AE4KR
_____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 9:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Usage of Linked Repeater Systems vs. Stand Alone Repeaters 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. The interesting part about that kind of setup is the techies/geeks who want the courtesy tones and gadgets can have them, they just run their receivers without CTCSS. Those things play, but aren't heard by anyone using CTCSS decoders. Something to think about for those looking for something "new" to play with. -- Nate Duehr, WY0X [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:nate%40natetech.com> com
