Can you recommend a scanner where squelch works?
 

Hi - I've gone through five scanners and was wondering if someone can
recommend one before I run out of money. On all of these scanners, I
try and set the squelch so that it skips unused frequencies. However,
when a used frequency is found, the squelch chops out most of the
audio. If I turn the squelch all the way down, I can hear all of the
audio. I try and use the least amount of squelch possible, 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 recommend a scanner where squelch works?
 

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

:Hi - I've gone through five scanners and was wondering if someone can
:recommend one before I run out of money. On all of these scanners, I
:try and set the squelch so that it skips unused frequencies. However,
:when a used frequency is found, the squelch chops out most of the
:audio. If I turn the squelch all the way down, I can hear all of the
:audio. I try and use the least amount of squelch possible, 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 the squelch too difficult to regulate.

I assume you've turned the squelch all 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 the squelch just 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?

Can you recommend a scanner where squelch works?
 

I suspect you've hit the nail on the head Sarah. Operator error springs to
mind.


"Sarah Czepiel" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

:Hi - I've gone through five scanners and was wondering if someone can
:recommend one before I run out of money. On all of these scanners, I
:try and set the squelch so that it skips unused frequencies. However,
:when a used frequency is found, the squelch chops out most of the
:audio. If I turn the squelch all the way down, I can hear all of the
:audio. I try and use the least amount of squelch possible, 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 the squelch too difficult to regulate.

I assume you've turned the squelch all 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 the squelch just 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?

Can you recommend a scanner where squelch works?
 

In article 6aed6992-1f7e-41a7-8677-cedec48f6612
@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com, says...
Hi - I've gone through five scanners and was wondering if someone can
recommend one before I run out of money. On all of these scanners, I
try and set the squelch so that it skips unused frequencies. However,
when a used frequency is found, the squelch chops out most of the
audio. If I turn the squelch all the way down, I can hear all of the
audio. I try and use the least amount of squelch possible, 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.


I've owned over 50 scanners going back over 35 years, and only two had
any squelch issues. One had a defect, the other was just a bad design.
I think the problem is you, to be honest.

BDK

Can you recommend a scanner where squelch works?
 

Can you recommend a scanner where squelch works?
 

On Apr 28, 4:56 am, "Rob Cullen" wrote:
I suspect you've hit the nail on the head Sarah. Operator error springs to
mind.

"Sarah Czepiel" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT), 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.

Can you recommend a scanner where squelch works?
 

In article 33aa57dd-fbb5-4306-8dfe-d7ee9b3c0815
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says...
On Apr 28, 4:56 am, "Rob Cullen" wrote:
I suspect you've hit the nail on the head Sarah. Operator error springs to
mind.

"Sarah Czepiel" wrote in message

...

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT), 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.



The only thing that makes sense is either you are getting a lot of bad
scanners, or you don't understand that squelch isn'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, the
squelch circuit 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 a squelch circuit 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
count squelch issues on the fingers of both hands.

BDK

Can you recommend a scanner where squelch works?
 

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:56:30 GMT, "Rob Cullen"
wrote:

:I suspect you've hit the nail on the head Sarah. Operator error springs to
:mind.

I'm leaning that way too Rob especially considering he said he's had the
problem with five scanners.


:"Sarah Czepiel" wrote in message
. ..
: On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
:
: :Hi - I've gone through five scanners and was wondering if someone can
: :recommend one before I run out of money. On all of these scanners, I
: :try and set the squelch so that it skips unused frequencies. However,
: :when a used frequency is found, the squelch chops out most of the
: :audio. If I turn the squelch all the way down, I can hear all of the
: :audio. I try and use the least amount of squelch possible, 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 the squelch too difficult to regulate.
:
: I assume you've turned the squelch all 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 the squelch just 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?
:

Can you recommend a scanner where squelch works?
 

On Apr 29, 1:04 am, BDK wrote:
In article 33aa57dd-fbb5-4306-8dfe-d7ee9b3c0815
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says...



On Apr 28, 4:56 am, "Rob Cullen" wrote:
I suspect you've hit the nail on the head Sarah. Operator error springs to
mind.

"Sarah Czepiel" wrote in message

.. .

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT), 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 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

Can you recommend a scanner where squelch works?
 

In article c660fbe4-996e-4ff4-81a4-86817c64eb69
@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says...
On Apr 29, 1:04 am, BDK wrote:
In article 33aa57dd-fbb5-4306-8dfe-d7ee9b3c0815
@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com, says...



On Apr 28, 4:56 am, "Rob Cullen" wrote:
I suspect you've hit the nail on the head Sarah. Operator error springs to
mind.

"Sarah Czepiel" wrote in message

.. .

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT), 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 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 important 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