wdoe999@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in
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.
Lol good one. Don't even know how to use squelch, yet you are going to
design your own scanner.
Please post back with the results.
|
