On Apr 30, 11:53 am, "Dave Holford" <holf...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <wdoe...@[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
> >squelchas 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 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 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)
operatedsquelchas an audiosquelch- different animals.
>
> Google "audiosquelch" 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 noisesquelchhave 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 ofsquelchdon't have the problems you are
> encountering.
>
> Audiosquelchhas 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 voicesquelchGoogle "SSBSquelch" the first hit will
> give you a source, and there are others in the 53,000 Google hits.
>
> Dave
Thanks I'll give that a shot.
|
