wd8chl wrote:
> Matthew Kaufman wrote:
>
>
>> HOWEVER, there is also no real recognition in this of how to deal with
>> things like wideband multiplex digital modes that take one (or more)
>> wideband channels but transport voice as or *more* efficiently than
>> multiple adjacent narrowband c
Matthew Kaufman wrote:
> HOWEVER, there is also no real recognition in this of how to deal with
> things like wideband multiplex digital modes that take one (or more)
> wideband channels but transport voice as or *more* efficiently than
> multiple adjacent narrowband channels. In the commercial
compandoring method turned on.
Everybody has their own way to do it...
> - Original Message - From: Cort Buffington To:
> Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009
> 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Narrow(er) band FM
>
> Eric,
>
>
> My goa
Tony,
The GP/GM series radios were built for either 25K operation or 12.5K
operation. They did not support both bandwidth spacings.
Milt
N3LTQ
- Original Message -
From: "Tony KT9AC"
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Narrow(er) ba
h bandwidth when you buy it.
73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony KT9AC
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2009 4:49 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Narro
I have a GM300 narrowband mobile (M34GMC00D3A), how do I know when its
programmed to do 12.5Khz? There is nothing in RSS to select, where the
MTS2000 CPS allows unique modes for narrowband.
Thanks,
Tony
Cort Buffington wrote:
>
> I said I'd report back
>
> XYL and I were out with the EX50
And I doubt any ham rigs have these added features.
Chuck
WB2EDV
- Original Message -
From: Cort Buffington
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Narrow(er) band FM
Eric,
My goal was to not
ould see a
significant improvement in clarity and a lower noise level.
73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
-Original Message-
From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:repeater-buil...@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cort Buffington
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 5:14 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups
rt Buffington
Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2009 5:14 PM
To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Narrow(er) band FM
I said I'd report back
XYL and I were out with the EX500s today. I copied the channel we normally
use for simplex and changed nothing bu
I said I'd report back
XYL and I were out with the EX500s today. I copied the channel we
normally use for simplex and changed nothing but made it a narrower
channel.
Results. Noise squelch seems sloppier (normally I use DPL or PL, so
that really isn't to big of a deal), audio fidelity
I think it's worth repeating (no pun intended!):
0. In a narrower band FM system, with only the carrier present, you may well
get a bit more ultimate quieting sensitivity (but not necessarily better SINAD)
as the receiver's IF bandpass (selectivity) is narrower, letting less noise
thru. Howev
John Sehring wrote:
>
> Is what is stated above in the 4th section true? I personally have not heard
> of _any_ amateurs going to 2.5 kHz FM deviation. And even if they did,
> what's the problem with setting them on current frequency pairs (except
> knowing that those repeaters' modulation acc
>From the ARRL:
> WHEREAS, there is current substantial amateur radio movement,
> activity, and innovation in the digital narrowband area; and
>
> WHEREAS, the FCC has mandated that by 2013 commercial radio move to
> narrowband channels and Amateur Radio manufacturers normally fol
13 matches
Mail list logo
