Batboard

A couple of years ago we moved to an area which had
a fire repeater with different TX & RX Pl tones.

No big deal, right?

Nope, The X9000, Spectra, & M1225 use the repeater transmit PL as the
new 'talkaround' PL. The HT1250 & EX600 seem to do it 'right'.

Am I missing something, or did Mot screw it up?

In my mind, if I want to open the squelch of someone elses radio using talkaround,
then I would use the RX PL.

Rant on or off?

Tim

Talkaround normally uses both the TX repeater frequency, and the TX PL. This allows one to hear both the repeater (if within it's range) as well as the local radios in talkaround mode.

if you're looking for a way around using the talk around option just create another simplex channel with the correct pl and go to that channel instead of pushing the talk around button.

Hi Wavetar,

I agree, when in talkaround, the pl that is transmitted from the mobile or handheld
should be the same pl as the repeater uses as it's transmitted, so all mobile/portable
receivers will open up.

The X9000, M1225, etc don't do that. They use the mobile's 'normal' repeater transmit pl,
as the talkaround PL.


HLA - Yes, I can do that, but that's just a bandaid on something that was done wrong.
(& that's what I've had to do)!

On a 16 channel portable, having to dedicate a separate channel for talkaround is a big
deal when the all the channels are already used.

Thanks for the suggestions!

Tim

the simple solution wouold be to alter the repeater and make the pl's or dpl's the same?

gee, don't I wish!!

Actually, we have 3 separate repeaters in the county with the same
output and input, but all have different repeater rx pl tones.

To change it would be like pushing a rope!

Now they are putting in a VHF trunking system, however we're not
going to buy into it.

Tim

Tim wrote:Actually, we have 3 separate repeaters in the county with the same
output and input, but all have different repeater rx pl tones.

This is quite common. A customer of mine has 7 sites, all with the same downlink PL, but of course each site has a different input PL.

In context, this is simply a reflection of how things were done at the time the (older) radios were issued.

Bay in the day, it was not common to have "split" tones. As a result, while talkaround dictates using the subscriber's receive freq and tone, it was assumed that using the receive freq and the transmit tone would be the same thing. This is true of Sabers and Systems Sabers, and the only known workaround is programming a second channel.

Newer radios reflect the growing commonality of split tones, and go the extra step of grabbing both the receive freq and tone.

Hi RKG,

I kinda figured that might be the issue, but was really surprised when
the M1225 did the same thing, especially when the MTS2000 & other
Jedi series radios worked 'properly'.

Oh well, guess I'll turn off the rant!

Thanks all.

Tim

I believe you can do it on the M1225.
In radio wide, once you select one of the buttons as talkaround, check the "talkaround CSQ" box.
That should make the tx talkaround pl match the rx pl.

Max-trac,

YOU ARE THE MAN!!!!

That made it work. I saw the field, but didn't look to see what it
really did... I figured it just made no pl (CSQ) on tx!

Thanks again!

Tim

Great!
Now you gave me a chance to rant about RSS being intuitive... NOT!
In this case, the label was misleading and the help file actually helped.
Usually, the help file says something STUPID like to enable or disable this type Y or N,
and not how the radio is going to BEHAVE under each choice. This teaches us to not even TRY using the help.

And some RSS talkaround enable means "ALLOW" the user to select T/A, in others in means FORCE THIS CHANNEL SIMPLEX and then you don't have to enter the other field.....
The nice ones (like MTSX) fill in the default for you, BUT YOU CAN change it if needed.
Rant over, they will never let folks like us proof-read anything....

While none of the RSS/CPS qualifies as being genuinely "intuitive," it is only fair to recognize the differences between and among the various packages, which have entirely different heritages and were written by entirely different groups of folks. It is fair to say that the M1224 is one of the worst, but, then, look at the radio it addresses. If you want to see something really awful, look at the package for the (somewhat obscure) MTX8250 (Waris family) PP trunked radio.

I also think it fair to observe that, generally, things have improved over time. Surely the MTSX metaphor, after some early familiarization, was easy enough to use. Frankly, my favorite of all is the CDM Professional series. And I regard the XTL/XTS package, with its funky disaggregation of "personality" attributes and "zone/channel" attributes, a bit of a step backward (though the drag-and-drop and clone wizard features of the XTL/XTS package are exceedingly useful features).

I guess I come out as follows: Is it perfect? By no means. Could it be worse, a lot worse? Absolutely. Are the shortcomings of the current packages worth breaking a sweat over (bearing in my that in my vicinage right now, it is over 90 degrees after 2100 at night): no.