In article <c660fbe4-996e-4ff4-81a4-86817c64eb69
@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, wdoe999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> On Apr 29, 1:04 am, BDK <B...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > In article <33aa57dd-fbb5-4306-8dfe-d7ee9b3c0815
> > @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, wdoe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 28, 4:56 am, "Rob Cullen" <r...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > I suspect you've hit the nail on the head Sarah. Operator error
springs to
> > > > mind.
> >
> > > > "Sarah Czepiel" <ninety...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >
> > > >news:4qla14hbh2ak4c2o2kp0ilhrk61f0pg7j6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > > > On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT), wdoe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > > > > :>Hi - I've gone through five scanners and was wondering if
someone can
> > > > > :>recommendone before I run out of money. On all of these
scanners, I
> > > > > :>try and set thesquelchso that it skips unused frequencies.
However,
> > > > > :>when a used frequency is found, thesquelchchops out most of
the
> > > > > :>audio. If I turn thesquelchall the way down, I can hear all
of the
> > > > > :>audio. I try and use the least amount ofsquelchpossible, but
it
> > > > > :>still chops the audio so you can't understand anything.
Needles to
> > > > > :>say, I'm ticked off that devices could be designed so poorly.
> > > > > :>
> > > > > :>Thanks in advance.
> >
> > > > > Can you tell us what scanners you've used? I use the Pro 96,
Pro97, and
> > > > > PSR 500. Also have used several different Bearcat, Uniden, and
Radio
> > > > > Shack
> > > > > models and haven't found thesquelchtoo difficult to regulate.
> >
> > > > > I assume you've turned thesquelchall the way up and then backed
it
> > > > > slowly
> > > > > down until it just allows the radio to scan thru the
frequencies? That's
> > > > > how I fine tune mine. If I have an additional freq. or two that
overloads
> > > > > and stops on that setting I back off thesquelchjust slightly to
get
> > > > > those
> > > > > freqs/channels to scan. So far I don't feel I'm missing
anything and
> > > > > everything seems to come in loud and clear.
> >
> > > > > Am I missing anything? Is this what you've done so far without
success?
> >
> > > You assume correctly. As I mentioned... I try to use as little
> > >squelchas possible.
> > > I did have onescannerthat worked not too bad (a Pro 92) that died.
> > > I'm looking for another one with no success.
> > > I've since bought several on Ebay that are total crap. A pro 2051,
a
> > > pro 2055, and a few others that I don't recall.
> > > I suppose that it could be just bad luck that I got duds.
> >
> > > I've designed a lot of digital and microprocessor electronics in my
> > > day, and what kills me is that it would be so simple and inexpensive
> > > to digitally process the audio signal to see if there is a signal
> > > present. The computer could then just cut-out thesquelchat that
> > > point. Rather it seems that they just use some old crappy analogue
> > >squelchcircuit that chops out the audio (especially on weak
> > > signals). I'm seriously considering making my ownscannerunless
> > > somebody knows of a good one that doesn't use WWII technology.
> >
> > The only thing that makes sense is either you are getting a lot of bad
> > scanners, or you don't understand thatsquelchisn't perfect and very
> > weak signals will pop in and out, especially if it's not set
correctly.
> >
> > The latter is my guess. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but
with
> > nearly 45 years of listening on tunable receivers and scanners,
thesquelchcircuit was/is basically a non issue with all but the two I
> > mentioned before, and one of those was bad out of the box. A
replacement
> > worked fine. The other I could have fixed, but I just sold it instead.
> >
> > The scheme you mention for designing asquelchcircuit has already been
> > done, in many scanners. It works, but not much better than the "WWII"
> > technology in others radios.
> >
> > I have talked to a lot of people about scanners over the years, and
can
> > countsquelchissues on the fingers of both hands.
> >
> > BDK
>
> Can you give me a model, or what is the name of the feature for the
> smarter squelch so I can look for it?
>
> With the way it works now, I have to manually turn the squelch right
> off and, yes, the signal is bit weak and snowy, but I can hear
> everything perfectly. If I turn up the squelch a bit, all I hear is
> BA__ DE__ NO__ LE__, etc. All I need is the feature that
> automatically does what I have to do manually.
>
> Thanks
>
The Pro 2004, 2005, 2006, and many more GRE built Radio Shack scanners
made nearly 20 years ago had a feature that would force the radio to
scan to the next channel, after sitting there for a while, allowing the
squelch to be set lower than normally it could. Not perfect by any
means, but sometimes, it makes a huge difference.
But..it drives me nuts. Lots of hissing.
What you describe above is perfectly normal. NO RADIO MADE will not do
this if the signal is at the squelch threshold. Doesn't matter if it's a
commercial radio, ham radio, or scanner, they all do it, and always
will, even with digital signals, it will still pop in and out. If the
signal is that im****tant for you to hear, then get a better antenna. But
the problem is, you get a better antenna, it makes stuff you couldn't
hear at all before strong enough that it's doing the same thing the
formerly weak stuff did before. And on and on.
I think you're just not being realistic. Do you know any long term
scanner listeners personally? If not, look around on the net and see if
there is a local scanner group. These groups have info you can't get
anywhere else, and real expert users to help you out, and explain that
what you think is a problem, might just be "the nature of the beast".
Good luck..
BDK
|
