Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
Mike, Why is your mail client including two images with every e-mail? A small rectangular box as image001.jpg and a single white dot as image002.jpg? I'll forward you a copy off-list so you can see the attachments that got added somewhere. Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
I wish I knew! Using Outlook 2007 here. Anybody got any ideas? Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nate Duehr Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:14 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality Mike, Why is your mail client including two images with every e-mail? A small rectangular box as image001.jpg and a single white dot as image002.jpg? I'll forward you a copy off-list so you can see the attachments that got added somewhere. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: I wish I knew! Using Outlook 2007 here. Anybody got any ideas? Mike WM4B Change your email to send in plain text mode. Or do the right thing and use Thunderbird ;c} Mike, Why is your mail client including two images with every e-mail? A small rectangular box as image001.jpg and a single white dot as image002.jpg? I'll forward you a copy off-list so you can see the attachments that got added somewhere. Nate WY0X
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
No Ill just do the right thing and ignore that second comment. WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wd8chl Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2008 8:36 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: I wish I knew! Using Outlook 2007 here. Anybody got any ideas? Mike WM4B Change your email to send in plain text mode. Or do the right thing and use Thunderbird ;c} Mike, Why is your mail client including two images with every e-mail? A small rectangular box as image001.jpg and a single white dot as image002.jpg? I'll forward you a copy off-list so you can see the attachments that got added somewhere. Nate WY0X
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mike, Now wait just a minute. Cochran is not in the middle of nowhere because I live in the middle of nowhere. I like the two repeaters with carrier squelch. I have always thought of CTCSS as an inconvenience, but maybe in more populated areas it is becoming much more needed. Just my $.02 worth. Thanks Mike for your hard work, Collin heh-it became 'much more needed' 30 years ago here ;c)
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
How could it be more sensitive with CTCSS? I'm not sure I understand. de N5ZTW - Original Message Follows - From: Jim Miller WB5OXQ in Waco [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:41:09 -0500 I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use carrier squelch? All radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard. Also I am in Texas and the Texas VHF-FM society our coordinator agency frowns on carrier squelch on vhf and does not allow it on uhf. I find ctcss much more sensitive than carrier squelch. Just wondering? WB5OXQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
At 8/19/2008 07:41, you wrote: I'm thinking that if you really want to have one, and you can get away with it, OK. But sooner or later, an out-of-town signal will tie it up and cause grief to others on the frequency. *ALWAYS* have the means to put it in CTCSS access remotely. Not to mention the inevitable noise burps that show up... I would like to see tones standardized for a given area, like we have here in NE Ohio. 2M uses 110.9, 220 uses 141.3, 440 and 900 use 131.8, and 6M uses either 107.2 or 136.5. There are exceptions to that, not sure why, but if you come to Cleveland, those are the tones to use. You will find something to talk on. We're trying to get CTCSS-standardized here in SoCal on 2 meters. On 220, 156.7 is the open tone, on 440 100.0 is used in LA 107.2 in San Diego. On 2 meters, due to the repeater density a few more tones need to be used. Some regions like Santa Barbara (131.8) San Diego (107.2) are already well defined, while metro LA is in need of a little guidance. Years ago 103.5 Hz was pretty much the open tone here, but for some reason a lot of systems switching from carrier to CTCSS didn't realize this picked other tones. Then there's Orange County, which uses 136.5 Hz on just about all open systems except for one large club that decided they simply don't want to change. Bob NO6B
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
How could it be more sensitive with CTCSS? I'm not sure I understand. de N5ZTW A CTCSS decoder looks for a precise tone frequency in a narrow band, so it's fairly sensitive.?A squelch circuit?looks?for noise (no signal present) and loss of?noise (signal present)?in a much broader band?above the voice passband, so it's not as sensitive. 73, Bob, WA9FBO
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
At 09:36 AM 08/19/08, you wrote: How could it be more sensitive with CTCSS? I'm not sure I understand. de N5ZTW A CTCSS decoder looks for a precise tone frequency in a narrow band, so it's fairly sensitive. A squelch circuit looks for noise (no signal present) and loss of noise (signal present) in a much broader band above the voice passband, so it's not as sensitive. 73, Bob, WA9FBO Another trick - if you run full time tone mode you can run open squelch (i.e. and blow raw carrier into the tone decoder) and maximize the system sensitivity. This is because a weak carrier that otherwise wouldn't open the squelch will decode. If your users are using radios with reverse burst on the encoder you will not have ANY squelch noise burst. When the user unkeys the reverse burst slams the tone decoder shut, muting the receiver, and there is no squelch tail at all (note that the proper definition of a squelch tail is the noise burst at the end of the carrier, NOT the carrier delay timer that keeps the transmitter up for several seconds). The first MSY repeater (Motrac vintage) I saw had a dead squelch pot and only after a couple of evenings of tracing connections and poring over the pull-out schematics did I figure out why it didn't work. It was built that way. I then sat down with WA6KLA at a Dennys coffee shop and walked him through what I found, and he graciously explained that running open squelch was normal on a community repeater with a multiple tone panel (6 receive reeds and 6 transmit reeds with jumpers to select what incoming tone selected what outgoing tone). Several of the factory stock Micor repeaters that I have seen have come this way - the squelch pot was not hooked up, and the soldered-in jumpers on the interconnect board were set up for PL-only. This was factory stock and a PITA to change to what hams would consider normal operation. Moto actually made a few low-end mobile models that didn't have a carrier squelch circuit at all, and depended on the PL decoder and the reverse burst on the encoder. Many years ago I saw a machine that made use of the maximize-the-sensitivity-by-blowing-squelch feature. Carrier squelch mode was just what you'd expect, but selecting PL mode caused an additional SPDT reed relay to close. The contacts were wired into the squelch pot to cause the squelch to open (it effectively switched the wiper of the squelch pot to the full open position). All of the users were running Progs, Mastr-Pros, TPLs, Motracs and Motrans (I did say it was many years ago) and tone mode was actually more sensitive (and used more) than carrier mode. And there was no squelch tail. If you didn't know it was toned you'd think it was a well-designed carrier squelch system (at least until the first YaeComWood showed up with it's no-reverse-burst and the PL reed in the system receiver had to freewheel to a stop to mute the audio). Mike WA6ILQ
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
The problem is, if everybody uses the same tone, there is no 'immunity' created. Remember too that CTCSS doesn't SOLVE anything. it just masks the symptoms. Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wd8chl Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:42 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality I'm thinking that if you really want to have one, and you can get away with it, OK. But sooner or later, an out-of-town signal will tie it up and cause grief to others on the frequency. *ALWAYS* have the means to put it in CTCSS access remotely. Not to mention the inevitable noise burps that show up... I would like to see tones standardized for a given area, like we have here in NE Ohio. 2M uses 110.9, 220 uses 141.3, 440 and 900 use 131.8, and 6M uses either 107.2 or 136.5. There are exceptions to that, not sure why, but if you come to Cleveland, those are the tones to use. You will find something to talk on. Also, if you want your repeater to be open, always encode the same tone you decode. Most of the newer radios can scan for tones, and as long as there is some activity, the radio will find the tone. From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jim Miller WB5OXQ in Waco Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use carrier squelch? All radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard. Also I am in Texas and the Texas VHF-FM society our coordinator agency frowns on carrier squelch on vhf and does not allow it on uhf. I find ctcss much more sensitive than carrier squelch. Just wondering? WB5OXQ image001.jpgimage002.jpg
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
He is suggesting that a particular geographic area utilize the same tone, not that everyone utilize the same tone. I believe that most frequency coordinators do just this. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:05 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality The problem is, if everybody uses the same tone, there is no 'immunity' created. Remember too that CTCSS doesn't SOLVE anything. it just masks the symptoms. Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wd8chl Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:42 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality I'm thinking that if you really want to have one, and you can get away with it, OK. But sooner or later, an out-of-town signal will tie it up and cause grief to others on the frequency. *ALWAYS* have the means to put it in CTCSS access remotely. Not to mention the inevitable noise burps that show up... I would like to see tones standardized for a given area, like we have here in NE Ohio. 2M uses 110.9, 220 uses 141.3, 440 and 900 use 131.8, and 6M uses either 107.2 or 136.5. There are exceptions to that, not sure why, but if you come to Cleveland, those are the tones to use. You will find something to talk on. Also, if you want your repeater to be open, always encode the same tone you decode. Most of the newer radios can scan for tones, and as long as there is some activity, the radio will find the tone. From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Miller WB5OXQ in Waco Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use carrier squelch? All radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard. Also I am in Texas and the Texas VHF-FM society our coordinator agency frowns on carrier squelch on vhf and does not allow it on uhf. I find ctcss much more sensitive than carrier squelch. Just wondering? WB5OXQ
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
Exactly. If all the repeaters in the same area use the same tone, then any mixing products, etc. also carry that tone. Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 5:17 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality He is suggesting that a particular geographic area utilize the same tone, not that everyone utilize the same tone. I believe that most frequency coordinators do just this. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 4:05 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality The problem is, if everybody uses the same tone, there is no 'immunity' created. Remember too that CTCSS doesn't SOLVE anything. it just masks the symptoms. Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wd8chl Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:42 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality I'm thinking that if you really want to have one, and you can get away with it, OK. But sooner or later, an out-of-town signal will tie it up and cause grief to others on the frequency. *ALWAYS* have the means to put it in CTCSS access remotely. Not to mention the inevitable noise burps that show up... I would like to see tones standardized for a given area, like we have here in NE Ohio. 2M uses 110.9, 220 uses 141.3, 440 and 900 use 131.8, and 6M uses either 107.2 or 136.5. There are exceptions to that, not sure why, but if you come to Cleveland, those are the tones to use. You will find something to talk on. Also, if you want your repeater to be open, always encode the same tone you decode. Most of the newer radios can scan for tones, and as long as there is some activity, the radio will find the tone. From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Jim Miller WB5OXQ in Waco Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use carrier squelch? All radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard. Also I am in Texas and the Texas VHF-FM society our coordinator agency frowns on carrier squelch on vhf and does not allow it on uhf. I find ctcss much more sensitive than carrier squelch. Just wondering? WB5OXQ image001.jpgimage002.jpg
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
I take the position that any mix or spurs need to be resolved since it will continue to cause problems regardless of CTCSS. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 6:32 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality Exactly. If all the repeaters in the same area use the same tone, then any mixing products, etc. also carry that tone. Mike WM4B
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
Absolutely. However I don't necessarily think the point is moot, depending on the severity and frequency of the problem. Your comment kind of begs the question though. if you're not using it to mask a problem, what's it there for ?. I understand how it can help out with cochannel interference during a band opening, but (in our area anyway) we rarely have any issues with cochannel interference between COORDINATED repeaters. Our nearest cochannel neighbor is about 200 air-miles away. that's why we can get by without it. At any rate, maybe it made sense at once point (when we were all using aftermarket encoders with DIP switch programming) for all the repeaters in one area to be on the same tone, but with modern radios, does it really matter that much? I don't want to belabor the point. I think that if you can get by without it, you should. I have the capability to bring it up on both my machines with a DTMF command if I need to, but in the past 4 years I've never done it. If you need it, run it. 73, Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wd8chl Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 7:26 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality Mike Besemer (WM4B) wrote: Exactly. If all the repeaters in the same area use the same tone, then any mixing products, etc. also carry that tone. Mike WM4B Mixing products are a problem that would need to be fixed anyway. PL doesn't get rid of it, it just masks it. So the point is moot. image001.jpgimage002.jpg
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
Good question! I was wondering exactly the same thing. Dave BaughnDirector of EngineeringThe University of AlabamaCenter for Public Television and RadioWVUA/WUOA-TV WUAL/ WQPR/ WAPR FMBox 870150195 Reese Phifer Hall, 901 University Blvd.Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487205.348.8622 cell 205.310.8798[EMAIL PROTECTED] KX4I "chappyr" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/18/2008 9:56 AM A club is considering Kenwood TKR repeaters for 2M and 440. The 2M repeater will be "carrier squelch"--no tone. Would appreciate comments how well theKenwood squelch works, compared to the famousMicor squelch, RLC-MOT, MASTR2, etc.Thanks -- kd4ssimage/gifimage/xxx
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
We are both a radio dealer and have a number of repeaters on the air. Have a Kenwood TKR-751 on 2 meters and it works very good it also has a 210 controller on it. Also a GMRS repeater Kenwood TKR-850 with a 210, no problems and a number of the TRK-740 and 840 repeater in use. Also have Micor UHF and a Johnson UHF. The Kenwood's 840 work as good if not better than the Micor's and the Johnson thanks - Original Message - From: chappyr To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:56 AM Subject: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality A club is considering Kenwood TKR repeaters for 2M and 440. The 2M repeater will be carrier squelch--no tone. Would appreciate comments how well the Kenwood squelch works, compared to the famous Micor squelch, RLC-MOT, MASTR2, etc. Thanks -- kd4ss
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
chappyr wrote: A club is considering Kenwood TKR repeaters for 2M and 440. The 2M repeater will be carrier squelch--no tone. Would appreciate comments how well the Kenwood squelch works, compared to the famous Micor squelch, RLC-MOT, MASTR2, etc. Thanks -- kd4ss You're talking about the newer TKR-750/850, right? It seems they are pretty stable in the ones I've listened to over the air. Doesn't have the real quick drop-out of the Micor, but it's reasonable. I HIGHLY recommend, however, that the capability of putting the repeater in tone-access remotely be included. You WILL have the need to keep out-of-town signals on the same frequency from bringing up your repeater at some time or another.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
I am talking about the newer Kenwood repeater's TKR's about the last 2 years or so. Also Kenwood has a new repeater the NXR-800 UHF and the NXR-700 VHF. Will be testing the NXR-800 soon. John - Original Message - From: wd8chl To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality chappyr wrote: A club is considering Kenwood TKR repeaters for 2M and 440. The 2M repeater will be carrier squelch--no tone. Would appreciate comments how well the Kenwood squelch works, compared to the famous Micor squelch, RLC-MOT, MASTR2, etc. Thanks -- kd4ss You're talking about the newer TKR-750/850, right? It seems they are pretty stable in the ones I've listened to over the air. Doesn't have the real quick drop-out of the Micor, but it's reasonable. I HIGHLY recommend, however, that the capability of putting the repeater in tone-access remotely be included. You WILL have the need to keep out-of-town signals on the same frequency from bringing up your repeater at some time or another.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use carrier squelch? All radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard. Also I am in Texas and the Texas VHF-FM society our coordinator agency frowns on carrier squelch on vhf and does not allow it on uhf. I find ctcss much more sensitive than carrier squelch. Just wondering? WB5OXQ
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
These guys obviously have never built or ran a linked repeater system. Back home we had several hams that would not upgrade there equipment or run pl. They felt that since it had pl on the receiver that it was considered a closed machine. When I purchased the 147.260 repeater in Eugene, Oregon. I built a new repeater that ctcss encode and decode and that threw all the older guys for a loop. They thought it was a closed machine and started complaining. My reply to them was stop bitchin and get involved. They were not paying any dues or support of any kind. They eventually went out and got new hand held radios. When I linked it to my North South trunk and started hearing people in Seattle and Medford Oregon they thought the repeater had moved to another hill that covered all of that area. Point here is that things change and pl is a good thing since the bands are so crowded and most states are out of clean VHF pairs. Just my 2 cents worth, Mike K7PFJ _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Miller WB5OXQ in Waco Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 6:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use carrier squelch? All radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard. Also I am in Texas and the Texas VHF-FM society our coordinator agency frowns on carrier squelch on vhf and does not allow it on uhf. I find ctcss much more sensitive than carrier squelch. Just wondering? WB5OXQ http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=104168/grpspId=1705063108/msgId= 84514/stime=1219073192/nc1=4025338/nc2=5028926/nc3=5379227
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
We run two machines on carrier squelch. The first is located right off I-75 and we get a lot of travelers on it. Most of them comment about how nice it is to have a machine they can access without having to program a tone. The second is located in the middle of nowhere and we're keeping it open in hopes to attract as many inactive hams as possible. It's only been on the air for about a month as thus far we seem to be stirring up some interest from hams who have been inactive for a while and probably don't have modern equipment. YMMV. 73, Mike WM4B 146.85 (Warner Robins, GA) 145.11 (Cochran, GA) Central Georgia Amateur Radio Club http://members.cox.net/cgarc _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Miller WB5OXQ in Waco Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use carrier squelch? All radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard. Also I am in Texas and the Texas VHF-FM society our coordinator agency frowns on carrier squelch on vhf and does not allow it on uhf. I find ctcss much more sensitive than carrier squelch. Just wondering? WB5OXQ http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=104168/grpspId=1705063108/msgId= 84514/stime=1219073192/nc1=4025338/nc2=5028926/nc3=5379227
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
Mike, Now wait just a minute. Cochran is not in the middle of nowhere because I live in the middle of nowhere. I like the two repeaters with carrier squelch. I have always thought of CTCSS as an inconvenience, but maybe in more populated areas it is becoming much more needed. Just my $.02 worth. Thanks Mike for your hard work, Collin -Original Message- From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 9:39 pm Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality We run two machines on carrier squelch. The first is located right off I-75 and we get a lot of travelers on it. Most of them comment about how nice it is to have a machine they can access without having to program a tone. The second is located in the middle of nowhere and we’re keeping it open in hopes to attract as many inactive hams as possible. It’s only been on the air for about a month as thus far we seem to be stirring up some interest from hams who have been inactive for a while and probably don’t have modern equipment. YMMV. 73, Mike WM4B 146.85 (Warner Robins, GA) 145.11 (Cochran, GA) Central Georgia Amateur Radio Club http://members.cox.net/cgarc - --- From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Miller WB5OXQ in Waco Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use carrier squelch? All radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard. Also I am in Texas and the Texas VHF-FM society our coordinator agency frowns on carrier squelch on vhf and does not allow it on uhf. I find ctcss much more sensitive than carrier squelch. Just wondering? WB5OXQ
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
Anyone who can run their repeater in carrier squelch without problems doesn't know how lucky they are. Neither my 440 machines or my 6-meter machine can run without it for various reasons. And since they are linked to other repeaters, it becomes even more important. Back in the late 70's/early 80's I gave up on 2 meters because of all the noise constantly there. No one would consider CTCSS. It left a bad taste and I now operate on 2 meters two days a year for RACES pumpkin patrol - that's it. Yes, they all run CTCSS today, but the damage was done and I stay on other bands as a result. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:39 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality We run two machines on carrier squelch.
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
Collin, LOL. you ARE in the middle of nowhere! Glad Cochran is close enough to the middle of nowhere that you can work the repeater! I agree. CTCSS has it's place. just glad we can survive without it! 73, Mike WM4B _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:53 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality Mike, Now wait just a minute. Cochran is not in the middle of nowhere because I live in the middle of nowhere. I like the two repeaters with carrier squelch. I have always thought of CTCSS as an inconvenience, but maybe in more populated areas it is becoming much more needed. Just my $.02 worth. Thanks Mike for your hard work, Collin -Original Message- From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:mwbesemer%40cox.net net To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 9:39 pm Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality We run two machines on carrier squelch. The first is located right off I-75 and we get a lot of travelers on it. Most of them comment about how nice it is to have a machine they can access without having to program a tone. The second is located in the middle of nowhere and we're keeping it open in hopes to attract as many inactive hams as possible. It's only been on the air for about a month as thus far we seem to be stirring up some interest from hams who have been inactive for a while and probably don't have modern equipment. YMMV. 73, Mike WM4B 146.85 (Warner Robins, GA) 145.11 (Cochran, GA) Central Georgia Amateur Radio Club http://members. http://members.cox.net/cgarc cox.net/cgarc - --- From: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com [mailto:Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Miller WB5OXQ in Waco Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:41 PM To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use carrier squelch? All radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard. Also I am in Texas and the Texas VHF-FM society our coordinator agency frowns on carrier squelch on vhf and does not allow it on uhf. I find ctcss much more sensitive than carrier squelch. Just wondering? WB5OXQ
RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
Chuck, I agree. we're thrilled that we can get away without CTCSS. Hope we can keep it that way. 73, Mike WM4B _ From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chuck Kelsey Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:02 PM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality Anyone who can run their repeater in carrier squelch without problems doesn't know how lucky they are. Neither my 440 machines or my 6-meter machine can run without it for various reasons. And since they are linked to other repeaters, it becomes even more important. Back in the late 70's/early 80's I gave up on 2 meters because of all the noise constantly there. No one would consider CTCSS. It left a bad taste and I now operate on 2 meters two days a year for RACES pumpkin patrol - that's it. Yes, they all run CTCSS today, but the damage was done and I stay on other bands as a result. Chuck WB2EDV - Original Message - From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Repeater-Builder@ mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 9:39 PM Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality We run two machines on carrier squelch.
Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality
Guys I was not trying to stir up discontent. I got my ticket in 1974 when very few if any ham repeaters had ctcss. It was a lot of fun and when the band opened you could work dx on your local repeater. I really liked that. Now, however, in Central Texas at least, there is so much congestion that you have to run ctcss or have your repeater become almost unusable much of the time. Then the coordinators got really insistent on ctcss so I got on the wagon. At one time I had 5 repeaters on the air in this area that I had built for various hams and we put ctcss on all of them. We mostly all use 123.0 in this county so everyone here knows which tone to program into their radios. We are too close to Dallas and FtWorth not to use tone to stay out of each others hair. There are few pairs left around here to put a repeater on 2 meters. I loved the 70s but it is over for many of us. If you are in a remote area with a good antenna site carrier squelch could be fun! Thank goodness I only have 1 repeater (on ham bands) to maintain now. I spend much of my time on 75 meters AM and many don't like that mode either! Everyone have fun, that is what a hobby should be Jim in Waco, TX WB5OXQ Trustee Texas State Guard ARC 147.320-123.0 ctcss.
