Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
I worked around that by having my repeater ENCODE BOTH pl tones when the autopatch was active. But it would be nice if amateur radios consistently could support separate encode and decode of pl tones. That is rare on amateur radios, but now common on commercial radios. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 07:52:37 PM PST From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL At 3/5/2009 14:24, you wrote: On my two meter repeater we used to require one PL tone for repeater access and a different PL tone for DTMF commands (including autopatch access). The repeater generated the normal PL tone for repeater access. Too bad most amateur grade radios made today don't support different encode decode tones. This is the reason I continue to use my G5T in spite of the bad battery contacts other intermittents that make TXing problematic with that radio. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
At 3/6/2009 00:20, you wrote: I worked around that by having my repeater ENCODE BOTH pl tones when the autopatch was active. Not really an option in my case: extra bandwidth required, some radios don't decode well when there's a 2nd tone in the CTCSS band. But it would be nice if amateur radios consistently could support separate encode and decode of pl tones. That is rare on amateur radios, but now common on commercial radios. ...which is why I have TK-805s in my vehicles. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
If you are careful about which tones you use and careful about level setting, you won't need any extra bandwidth. I've made it work on my repeater and all receivers were able to decode with tone with the presence of the other. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 07:05:24 AM PST From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL At 3/6/2009 00:20, you wrote: I worked around that by having my repeater ENCODE BOTH pl tones when the autopatch was active. Not really an option in my case: extra bandwidth required, some radios don't decode well when there's a 2nd tone in the CTCSS band.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
At 3/6/2009 12:40, you wrote: If you are careful about which tones you use and careful about level setting, you won't need any extra bandwidth. You'll always need more bandwidth than what's needed for a single tone. If you can turn down the deviation of each tone to, say 300 Hz for a total deviation of 600 Hz, then one tone by itself will work @ 300 Hz deviation. However, decoding under weak signal conditions will be poor. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
You're partially correct. It certainly is true to two different PL tones each deviating at 300Hz are going to generate a combined deviation of about 700-750 hz (because there will be some third order/mixing entered into it also). In my situation, I used 2 Comm-Spec TS-32 boards. One board was generating 100 Hz and the other board was generating 179.9 Hz. I took the output of each board and ran them thru an R/C network which should have rolled off anything above about 220 Hz. I experimented with varying the level of signal generation of my service monitor to see how weak a signal I could make most receivers reliably decode PL tones (using a variety of receivers for testing. I found that, in general terms, a weak signal (like .25 uV) had trouble decoding much below 300 Hz deviation. So I set my deviation for 350 Hz on each encoder (being sure to kill power to the other encoder as disconnecting the encoder output would change the impedence of the circuit). That gave me a combined deviation of about 750-800 Hz when BOTH PL tones were active. I never had any receiver PL decoders that had a problem with this setup and nearly all the radios used were amateur radio grade radios (Yae-Com-Wood) from the 1990's. The transmitter was a GE Mastr Pro. That same repeater is still operating today but I am no longer using the second PL tone feature. (probably one of the few Mastr Pro repeaters still operating today!) In my opinion, 750-800 Hz deviation for a PL tone is the high end of acceptable. Motorola used to recommend 750-900 Hz deviation for PL tones. My other repeater transmitters usually run about 500 Hz deviation for PL. -- Original Message -- Received: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:09:11 PM PST From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL At 3/6/2009 12:40, you wrote: If you are careful about which tones you use and careful about level setting, you won't need any extra bandwidth. You'll always need more bandwidth than what's needed for a single tone. If you can turn down the deviation of each tone to, say 300 Hz for a total deviation of 600 Hz, then one tone by itself will work @ 300 Hz deviation. However, decoding under weak signal conditions will be poor. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
Most of mine do DPL. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: MCH m...@nb.net To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:26 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
At 3/4/2009 22:26, you wrote: You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram. Perhaps this is region dependent. Most radios made for the past several years can encode DPL, most hams I know around here use fairly recent equipment. In fact I feel like a throwback sometimes, sticking with my older equipment - I sometimes get comments about my ancient Alinco G5T. Yet I have radios in the car here in the shack that will do DPL. I think the main reason DPL is only used on one or two systems here (out of nearly a thousand) is because it's considered not worth the trouble given that most can encode it, would inconvenience those who still use older equipment that can't make it. There's also an issue with several radio models not implementing DPL properly: when encoding they also force decode of the same DPL code, making the feature useless on any repeater than doesn't regenerate the same DPL code. Of those one or two systems here that use DPL, none regenerate. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
I still have, and occasionally use, my Icom IC-4AT and Tempo S1 hand held radios - both have thumbwheel frequency selection for those who don't know what they are. Sometimes I wish they still made simple radios like that, but a little smaller. Great on batteries - goes for days, not hours. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: n...@no6b.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:58 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL In fact I feel like a throwback sometimes, sticking with my older equipment - I sometimes get comments about my ancient Alinco G5T. Yet I have radios in the car here in the shack that will do DPL.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS ENCODE, let alone decode or CDCSS. Again, I said 'most radios', not all radios. Yes, many recent models do include CDCSS. Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: At 3/4/2009 22:26, you wrote: You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram. Perhaps this is region dependent. Most radios made for the past several years can encode DPL, most hams I know around here use fairly recent equipment. In fact I feel like a throwback sometimes, sticking with my older equipment - I sometimes get comments about my ancient Alinco G5T. Yet I have radios in the car here in the shack that will do DPL. I think the main reason DPL is only used on one or two systems here (out of nearly a thousand) is because it's considered not worth the trouble given that most can encode it, would inconvenience those who still use older equipment that can't make it. There's also an issue with several radio models not implementing DPL properly: when encoding they also force decode of the same DPL code, making the feature useless on any repeater than doesn't regenerate the same DPL code. Of those one or two systems here that use DPL, none regenerate. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
its about time the new 'ham' radios support encode and decode CTCSS (pl) I hate to have to buy and extra board to support encode I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have older radios with out encode the fun debate about CTCSS and CDCSS Thanks to the group for a good read ! On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS ENCODE, let alone decode or CDCSS. Again, I said 'most radios', not all radios. Yes, many recent models do include CDCSS. Joe M. n...@no6b.com no6b%40no6b.com wrote: At 3/4/2009 22:26, you wrote: You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram. Perhaps this is region dependent. Most radios made for the past several years can encode DPL, most hams I know around here use fairly recent equipment. In fact I feel like a throwback sometimes, sticking with my older equipment - I sometimes get comments about my ancient Alinco G5T. Yet I have radios in the car here in the shack that will do DPL. I think the main reason DPL is only used on one or two systems here (out of nearly a thousand) is because it's considered not worth the trouble given that most can encode it, would inconvenience those who still use older equipment that can't make it. There's also an issue with several radio models not implementing DPL properly: when encoding they also force decode of the same DPL code, making the feature useless on any repeater than doesn't regenerate the same DPL code. Of those one or two systems here that use DPL, none regenerate. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
How did those older users get the idea that their Regency HR2's would be the last purchase they'd have to make as hams? Are they still grumbling about the FCC outlawing spark-gap? I'd love to run my repeater using FM, but all the guys with the Heathkit lunchboxes would stop paying dues, yada yada. I'm beginning to think electrolytic caps drying out is a gift-in-disguise for repeater operators. Perhaps we've created some unintended expectations through poor public policy choices. Maybe we need $40 government coupons good toward TS-32s. Now, get off my lawn! ;^) 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - From: Rick Szajkowski To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have older radios with out encode... On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS ENCODE, let alone decode or CDCSS... Recent Activity a.. 12New Members b.. 1New Files Visit Your Group Sell Online Start selling with our award-winning e-commerce tools. Group Charity Hands On Network Volunteering has never been so easy Yahoo! Groups Special K Challenge Join others who are losing pounds. .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
Most of the new ham radios support at least encode CTCSS. Anyone still using an old radio that does not have CTCSS encode needs to upgrade or get it installed. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:24:12 PM PST From: Rick Szajkowski va3r...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL its about time the new 'ham' radios support encode and decode CTCSS (pl) I hate to have to buy and extra board to support encode I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have older radios with out encode the fun debate about CTCSS and CDCSS Thanks to the group for a good read ! On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS ENCODE, let alone decode or CDCSS. Again, I said 'most radios', not all radios. Yes, many recent models do include CDCSS. Joe M. n...@no6b.com no6b%40no6b.com wrote: At 3/4/2009 22:26, you wrote: You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram. Perhaps this is region dependent. Most radios made for the past several years can encode DPL, most hams I know around here use fairly recent equipment. In fact I feel like a throwback sometimes, sticking with my older equipment - I sometimes get comments about my ancient Alinco G5T. Yet I have radios in the car here in the shack that will do DPL. I think the main reason DPL is only used on one or two systems here (out of nearly a thousand) is because it's considered not worth the trouble given that most can encode it, would inconvenience those who still use older equipment that can't make it. There's also an issue with several radio models not implementing DPL properly: when encoding they also force decode of the same DPL code, making the feature useless on any repeater than doesn't regenerate the same DPL code. Of those one or two systems here that use DPL, none regenerate. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
HAHAHAHA Gov't coupons for TS-32s LOL... I run cross tones... Inverted DPL input, 110.9 PL output for normal operation, same Inverted DPL input, standard DPL output for special events/call outs... Let's users keep their radios muted from the regular rag chew traffic during the day by setting the radio to the DPL decode. Also strip CWID entirely of signaling. On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Paul Plack pl...@xmission.com wrote: How did those older users get the idea that their Regency HR2's would be the last purchase they'd have to make as hams? Are they still grumbling about the FCC outlawing spark-gap? I'd love to run my repeater using FM, but all the guys with the Heathkit lunchboxes would stop paying dues, yada yada. I'm beginning to think electrolytic caps drying out is a gift-in-disguise for repeater operators. Perhaps we've created some unintended expectations through poor public policy choices. Maybe we need $40 government coupons good toward TS-32s. Now, get off my lawn! ;^) 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - *From:* Rick Szajkowski va3r...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:24 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have older radios with out encode... On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS ENCODE, let alone decode or CDCSS... .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
On my two meter repeater we used to require one PL tone for repeater access and a different PL tone for DTMF commands (including autopatch access). The repeater generated the normal PL tone for repeater access. -- Original Message -- Received: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 01:55:07 PM PST From: AJ aj.grant...@gmail.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL HAHAHAHA Gov't coupons for TS-32s LOL... I run cross tones... Inverted DPL input, 110.9 PL output for normal operation, same Inverted DPL input, standard DPL output for special events/call outs... Let's users keep their radios muted from the regular rag chew traffic during the day by setting the radio to the DPL decode. Also strip CWID entirely of signaling. On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Paul Plack pl...@xmission.com wrote: How did those older users get the idea that their Regency HR2's would be the last purchase they'd have to make as hams? Are they still grumbling about the FCC outlawing spark-gap? I'd love to run my repeater using FM, but all the guys with the Heathkit lunchboxes would stop paying dues, yada yada. I'm beginning to think electrolytic caps drying out is a gift-in-disguise for repeater operators. Perhaps we've created some unintended expectations through poor public policy choices. Maybe we need $40 government coupons good toward TS-32s. Now, get off my lawn! ;^) 73, Paul, AE4KR - Original Message - *From:* Rick Szajkowski va3r...@gmail.com *To:* Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com *Sent:* Thursday, March 05, 2009 2:24 PM *Subject:* Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL I would like to run our repeater in PL mode but a lot of our users have older radios with out encode... On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:18 PM, MCH m...@nb.net wrote: I know many hams who are still using radios that don't support CTCSS ENCODE, let alone decode or CDCSS... .
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
On Mar 4, 2009, at 11:26 PM, MCH wrote: You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram. The last ham rig I bought that didn't have this capability was in 1993. Do you mean most OLD ham rigs don't have the ability? :-) Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
At 3/5/2009 14:24, you wrote: On my two meter repeater we used to require one PL tone for repeater access and a different PL tone for DTMF commands (including autopatch access). The repeater generated the normal PL tone for repeater access. Too bad most amateur grade radios made today don't support different encode decode tones. This is the reason I continue to use my G5T in spite of the bad battery contacts other intermittents that make TXing problematic with that radio. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
What type of radios do you think the old hams are using? ;- Joe M. Nate Duehr wrote: On Mar 4, 2009, at 11:26 PM, MCH wrote: You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram. The last ham rig I bought that didn't have this capability was in 1993. Do you mean most OLD ham rigs don't have the ability? :-) Nate WY0X Yahoo! Groups Links
RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
I have to agree with Eric on this one. I have set up the DPL on the output of the repeater different than the input so it's harder to find the DPL code. Motorola is great about this for programming as it's a lot harder to hack the repeater if you have two different DPL codes for in and out. Most handhelds that you can modify don't do thins and commercial radios can do it with very little programming. Peter Summerhawk -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL Jason, The upside to using DPL (CDCSS) for repeater access is that few, if any, wannabe users will be able to get in- IF you encode a different code (DPL or PL) than you decode. If your repeater passes through the incoming code to the output, you have already given the hackers the clues that they need. Simple repeaters that encode the same code that they decode are child's play to figure out. The downside to using DPL is that the turnoff code of 134.4 Hz is the same for ALL CDCSS codes, meaning that another user on the same RF frequency who has a different DPL code will mute YOUR frequency as well, when he unkeys. A lot of community repeater operators who thought DPL was a great idea for shared-channel security, learned the hard way! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of j Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:08 AM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL Sorry if this isnt the best place to post this... Is there a benefit to using a DPL vs a PL? I am putting a repeater together and thought I would try and get some input... Thanks! Jason
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
But in all honesty, it only takes 5-10 minutes to dial through all of the combinations. If someone wants in, they'll do that. It will only discourage those who don't really care that much. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Peter Dakota Summerhawk To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:49 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL I have to agree with Eric on this one. I have set up the DPL on the output of the repeater different than the input so it's harder to find the DPL code. Motorola is great about this for programming as it's a lot harder to hack the repeater if you have two different DPL codes for in and out. Most handhelds that you can modify don't do thins and commercial radios can do it with very little programming. Peter Summerhawk -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:57 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL Jason, The upside to using DPL (CDCSS) for repeater access is that few, if any, wannabe users will be able to get in- IF you encode a different code (DPL or PL) than you decode. If your repeater passes through the incoming code to the output, you have already given the hackers the clues that they need. Simple repeaters that encode the same code that they decode are child's play to figure out. The downside to using DPL is that the turnoff code of 134.4 Hz is the same for ALL CDCSS codes, meaning that another user on the same RF frequency who has a different DPL code will mute YOUR frequency as well, when he unkeys. A lot of community repeater operators who thought DPL was a great idea for shared-channel security, learned the hard way! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of j Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:08 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL Sorry if this isnt the best place to post this... Is there a benefit to using a DPL vs a PL? I am putting a repeater together and thought I would try and get some input... Thanks! Jason
RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
At 3/4/2009 09:49, you wrote: I have to agree with Eric on this one. I have set up the DPL on the output of the repeater different than the input so it s harder to find the DPL code. Motorola is great about this for programming as it s a lot harder to hack the repeater if you have two different DPL codes for in and out. Most handhelds that you can modify don t do thins and commercial radios can do it with very little programming. Peter Summerhawk -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon Jason, The upside to using DPL (CDCSS) for repeater access is that few, if any, wannabe users will be able to get in- IF you encode a different code (DPL or PL) than you decode. If your repeater passes through the incoming code to the output, you have already given the hackers the clues that they need. The above might lead some to believe that DPL is relatively secure. Remember that there are only ~104 valid DPL codes. There are 32 or 37 standard PL tones - let's say about about a third of the number of valid DPL codes. We agree that PL freq. of a repeater is fairly easy to determine, even if it doesn't pass PL. There are ~3 times as many DPL codes, so figuring out a DPL code is 3 times harder than relatively easy. For the few times I really had a nasty idiot problem on my system, I used DTMF access. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
You forgot one factor... most ham rigs don't have CDCSS abilities, and like it or not those ARE the rigs of choice for people looking for codes for repeaters since they are easy to reprogram. I would agree CDCSS is more secure for that very reason. I recommended a customer switch to CDCSS from CTCSS, and his 'mystery kerchunk' problems went away. It was much easier than prosecuting the offender (not to mention much more PR friendly to hams in general). There is also the benefit mentioned many times that the shut-off code on CDCSS is standard while CTCSS has at least two formats. Good idea about the cross-coding, too. I've done that many times. There also used to be CDCSS codes that Motorola could not do. It was nice using those to keep Motorola radios out of the customer's fleet. That was, until we switched from GE to Motorola... :-\ Joe M. n...@no6b.com wrote: At 3/4/2009 09:49, you wrote: I have to agree with Eric on this one. I have set up the DPL on the output of the repeater different than the input so it s harder to find the DPL code. Motorola is great about this for programming as it s a lot harder to hack the repeater if you have two different DPL codes for in and out. Most handhelds that you can modify don t do thins and commercial radios can do it with very little programming. Peter Summerhawk -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Lemmon Jason, The upside to using DPL (CDCSS) for repeater access is that few, if any, wannabe users will be able to get in- IF you encode a different code (DPL or PL) than you decode. If your repeater passes through the incoming code to the output, you have already given the hackers the clues that they need. The above might lead some to believe that DPL is relatively secure. Remember that there are only ~104 valid DPL codes. There are 32 or 37 standard PL tones - let's say about about a third of the number of valid DPL codes. We agree that PL freq. of a repeater is fairly easy to determine, even if it doesn't pass PL. There are ~3 times as many DPL codes, so figuring out a DPL code is 3 times harder than relatively easy. For the few times I really had a nasty idiot problem on my system, I used DTMF access. Bob NO6B Yahoo! Groups Links
[Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
Sorry if this isnt the best place to post this... Is there a benefit to using a DPL vs a PL? I am putting a repeater together and thought I would try and get some input... Thanks! Jason
Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
Depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If your intent is to try to somewhat restrict users, DPL would help accomplish this. Many potential users wouldn't try encoding DPL if they were attempting to find your tone. Some might, but most would probably just give up and move on. At least that's my take. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: j crowe...@yahoo.com To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL Sorry if this isnt the best place to post this... Is there a benefit to using a DPL vs a PL? I am putting a repeater together and thought I would try and get some input... Thanks! Jason
RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
The set of frequencies that we just got done installing for our local commercial machine fall into the commercial pool of business band. I ran DPL on the repeater as to not have anyone that doesn't belong on the machine and the new system as several people (I never found out who) thought it was nice to be able to harass our staff when we were running PL on the old system. Peter Summerhawk -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of AJ Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 12:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL The lack of a harsh squelch tailis usually one of the benefits (as opposed to PL Reverse Burst)... But locally, at least in the Amateur realm, it's been implemented ONLY to prevent access by the general Amateur community... On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Chuck Kelsey wb2...@roadrunner. mailto:wb2...@roadrunner.com com wrote: Depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If your intent is to try to somewhat restrict users, DPL would help accomplish this. Many potential users wouldn't try encoding DPL if they were attempting to find your tone. Some might, but most would probably just give up and move on. At least that's my take. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: j crowe...@yahoo. mailto:crowenus%40yahoo.com com To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 1:07 PM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL Sorry if this isnt the best place to post this... Is there a benefit to using a DPL vs a PL? I am putting a repeater together and thought I would try and get some input... Thanks! Jason
RE: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL
Jason, The upside to using DPL (CDCSS) for repeater access is that few, if any, wannabe users will be able to get in- IF you encode a different code (DPL or PL) than you decode. If your repeater passes through the incoming code to the output, you have already given the hackers the clues that they need. Simple repeaters that encode the same code that they decode are child's play to figure out. The downside to using DPL is that the turnoff code of 134.4 Hz is the same for ALL CDCSS codes, meaning that another user on the same RF frequency who has a different DPL code will mute YOUR frequency as well, when he unkeys. A lot of community repeater operators who thought DPL was a great idea for shared-channel security, learned the hard way! 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY -Original Message- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of j Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 10:08 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Repeater-Builder] PL vs. DPL Sorry if this isnt the best place to post this... Is there a benefit to using a DPL vs a PL? I am putting a repeater together and thought I would try and get some input... Thanks! Jason
