<wdoe999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:33aa57dd-fbb5-4306-8dfe-d7ee9b3c0815@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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]
wrote:
>>
>> > :>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
> squelch as possible.
> I did have one scanner that 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 the squelch at that
> point. Rather it seems that they just use some old crappy analogue
> squelch circuit that chops out the audio (especially on weak
> signals). I'm seriously considering making my own scanner unless
> somebody knows of a good one that doesn't use WWII technology.
>
Sounds like you are trying to use a carrier(AM) or noise(FM) operated
squelch as an audio squelch - different animals.
Google "audio squelch" for details - it is indeed a simple digital device;
and when done properly will ignore all except human voice (or some signal
which approximates the syllabic rate of human voice).
Carrier and noise squelch have been around for generations - I have used
them in scanners, ham transceivers and professional equipment for over 50
years without the problems you are having. Aviation, public safety, Ham
radio and other mass users of squelch don't have the problems you are
encountering.
Audio squelch has been used for a quarter century or so, especially for
SSB,
in professional equipment and has started to become more common in
consumer
level stuff in the last ten years or so.
If you really want a voice squelch Google "SSB Squelch" the first hit will
give you a source, and there are others in the 53,000 Google hits.
Dave
|
