¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

  1. Repeater-Builder
  2. Messages
Expanded Topics Messages Polls
Date
Re: Why use a purpose built repeater box as a repeater rather than a transmitter, receiver, and controller tied (lashed) together?

 

We are using communications quality audio.
It is to communicate, not for high fidelity music. Oh the number of times that someone has been 100% copy and yet someone complains that it isn't broadcast quality. And speaking of broadcast, we are not supposed to broadcast, we transmit!

Mick - W7CAT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Mowery via groups.io"
To: "[email protected]"
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 02:41:41 PM
Subject: Re: [repeater-builder] Why use a purpose built repeater box as a repeater rather than a transmitter, receiver, and controller tied (lashed) together?

One can sell some of the audiophiles most anything.? ?The best I know
of is special wire from the equipment to the 120 volt AC receptacle in the wall.? I have seen ads for that 6 to 10 feet of wire go for over $ 100.? They are too hung up not to think of the cheap 20 to 100 feet of wire in the wall going to the breaker box or the junk aluminum wire from there to the power transformer.
We are using communications quality audio .? Frequency response
limited from about 300 to 3000 Hz at the most.
Ralph ku4pt


On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 04:15:25 PM EST, Skyler Fennell wrote:



Without exception? We're talking about audio, not rocket science.
Audiophiles spend many thousands trying to recreate the most perfect audio possible. They install a cartridge made by one company into a turntable made by another. It's connected to a pre-amp made by another, which feeds a power amp made by another, which is powered from a line conditioner made by another. Then there's speakers made by another, and of course they're connected via special oxygen-free copper wires made by another. They're fussy beyond belief and pick the best equipment for each job, and it's not all made by the same company.

?Audiophiles like that annoy me. Several blind tests must be
performed, and a confidence level of 95% must be achieved for any statistical significance. I highly doubt they will be able to tell the difference between which speaker wire is used on a blind test.
Honestly, I would be surprised if some of these people who think they
know what they are talking about would even be able to tell the difference between a tube amp and a solid state in a blind test, but I may be proven wrong, and in that case I'm all for it!
_._,_




--
Untitled Document
Re: Why use a purpose built repeater box as a repeater rather than a transmitter, receiver, and controller tied (lashed) together?

 

One can sell some of the audiophiles most anything.? ?The best I know of is special wire from the equipment to the 120 volt AC receptacle in the wall.? I have seen ads for that 6 to 10 feet of wire go for over $ 100.? They are too hung up not to think of the cheap 20 to 100 feet of wire in the wall going to the breaker box or the junk aluminum wire from there to the power transformer.

We are using communications quality audio .? Frequency response limited from about 300 to 3000 Hz at the most.

Ralph ku4pt



On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 04:15:25 PM EST, Skyler Fennell <electricity440@...> wrote:


Without exception? We're talking about audio, not rocket science. Audiophiles spend many thousands trying to recreate the most perfect audio possible. They install a cartridge made by one company into a turntable made by another. It's connected to a pre-amp made by another, which feeds a power amp made by another, which is powered from a line conditioner made by another. Then there's speakers made by another, and of course they're connected via special oxygen-free copper wires made by another. They're fussy beyond belief and pick the best equipment for each job, and it's not all made by the same company.?

?Audiophiles like that annoy me. Several blind tests must be performed, and a confidence level of 95% must be achieved for any statistical significance. I highly doubt they will be able to tell the difference between which speaker wire is used on a blind test.?

Honestly, I would be surprised if some of these people who think they know what they are talking about would even be able to tell the difference between a tube amp and a solid state in a blind test, but I may be proven wrong, and in that case I'm all for it!

_._,_
Re: Why use a purpose built repeater box as a repeater rather than a transmitter, receiver, and controller tied (lashed) together?

 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Hi Skyler,

>Audiophiles like that annoy me.

Sure, but my point was the audio goes through all those devices and still comes out good. I don't know why a receiver/controller/transmitter audio chain is so feared. We're talking <300 Hz to 5 kHz. We hotshot technical types really ought to be able to handle it.

73,

Bob



    
On 1/20/2021 2:15 PM, Skyler Fennell
      wrote:

    

    

				
					
					

					



      
      

        


        

        

        

          
On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:41
            PM Bob <bob@...>
            wrote:

          

          

            

              
Hi Dan,

              
>When you throw a controller in-line, even on the
                best purpose-built repeater, you will sacrifice audio
                quality, often just to add voice IDs and announcements.

            

          

          
I disagree, this is mixed in and the original audio is
            not touched when the voice announcement is not playing. I
            built a basic controller with the dumbest mixer circuit ( 2
            resistors) and the original audio is practically untouched.?

          


          

          
If you are using a DSP system like AllStar link to
            process and rebroadcast your audio, of course, quality will
            be sacrafised.?

          
?

          

          

            

              
?

            

          

          

            

              
Without exception? We're talking about audio, not
                rocket science. Audiophiles spend many thousands trying
                to recreate the most perfect audio possible. They
                install a cartridge made by one company into a turntable
                made by another. It's connected to a pre-amp made by
                another, which feeds a power amp made by another, which
                is powered from a line conditioner made by another. Then
                there's speakers made by another, and of course they're
                connected via special oxygen-free copper wires made by
                another. They're fussy beyond belief and pick the best
                equipment for each job, and it's not all made by the
                same company.?

            

          

          
?Audiophiles like that annoy me. Several blind tests must
            be performed, and a confidence level of 95% must be achieved
            for any statistical significance. I highly doubt they will
            be able to tell the difference between which speaker wire is
            used on a blind test.?

          


          

          
Honestly, I would be surprised if some of these people
            who think they know what they are talking about would even
            be able to tell the difference between a tube amp and a
            solid state in a blind test, but I may be proven wrong, and
            in that case I'm all for it!

          


            

          
_._,_._,

          
 

        

      

      
    

  


					


				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Why use a purpose built repeater box as a repeater rather than a transmitter, receiver, and controller tied (lashed) together?
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				


On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 1:41 PM Bob <bob@...> wrote:

  
    
  
  

    
Hi Dan,

    
>When you throw a controller in-line, even on the best
      purpose-built repeater, you will sacrifice audio quality, often
      just to add voice IDs and announcements.
I disagree, this is mixed in and the original audio is not touched when the voice announcement is not playing. I built a basic controller with the dumbest mixer circuit ( 2 resistors) and the original audio is practically untouched.?

If you are using a DSP system like AllStar link to process and rebroadcast your audio, of course, quality will be sacrafised.?
?
?

    
Without exception? We're talking about audio, not rocket science.
      Audiophiles spend many thousands trying to recreate the most
      perfect audio possible. They install a cartridge made by one
      company into a turntable made by another. It's connected to a
      pre-amp made by another, which feeds a power amp made by another,
      which is powered from a line conditioner made by another. Then
      there's speakers made by another, and of course they're connected
      via special oxygen-free copper wires made by another. They're
      fussy beyond belief and pick the best equipment for each job, and
      it's not all made by the same company.?
?Audiophiles like that annoy me. Several blind tests must be performed, and a confidence level of 95% must be achieved for any statistical significance. I highly doubt they will be able to tell the difference between which speaker wire is used on a blind test.?

Honestly, I would be surprised if some of these people who think they know what they are talking about would even be able to tell the difference between a tube amp and a solid state in a blind test, but I may be proven wrong, and in that case I'm all for it!

_._,_._,
 



				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Why use a purpose built repeater box as a repeater rather than a transmitter, receiver, and controller tied (lashed) together?
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
Dan,

Do you have much real experience with Kenwood hardware??? The TKR-750v2 and TKR-850v2 are excellent repeaters. I've not experienced any of the "problems" you suggest are common and I've had a small fleet of them installed for better than a decade now.? They're as close to bulletproof as any repeater I've ever encountered.? I run pHEMT RX preamps and a variety of window filters, including 2-pole and 4-pole front end crystal filters on the VHF gear, duplexers on some systems, etc. Most of these systems are colocated with high-power broadcast gear.? As far as performance, they kick butt and take names.

Sorry you've had bad experiences.? But, your experiences are not typical, from what I've seen.

73, David KB4FXC



				
					
					

					


On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 09:41 PM, Dan Woodie wrote:




Jim,

?


Calling Kenwood repeaters "damn good" is going a bit far.? They are better than average but certainly have their shortcomings.? A Quantar, GTR8000, Codan/Daniel's, or MastrIII would be more in the class of "damn good".? To meet that classification requires certain reliability, a variety of external interfaces, external freq reference ability, and duty cycle requirements in my opinion.? While the Kenwood repeaters are easy to setup and have good audio they have to be derated for high-duty-cycle and the only (rebranded) PSU they offer for them has a tendency to fail and sometimes melt down the output terminals.? Anything over about 20W requires a third-party or Kenwood rebranded amplifier. I can confirm however that they are definitely not mobiles in a box like the Bridgecom, Yaesu, some Icoms, and older low-tier Motorola (non-public-safety) repeaters.??


?


For the folks claiming "no desense" I would bet the majority don't know the procedure for measuring desense and EVERY repeater has some level of desense, even with the best hardware and duplexers.? It is unavoidable as any high-powered transmission will increase the noise floor - so the goal is to reduce the impact of this.? Adding a preamp in many cases actually makes matters worse, not better, and if your receiver is that deaf it isn't going to fix it.? The only place a preamp makes sense is in a TTA or Multicoupler where it is used to compensate for splits and bring things back to unity gain..? Most mobiles simply do not have the level of filtering (TX and RX) to perform as well as a purpose-built repeater.? Also most purpose-built repeaters have far better audio quality when used with internal controllers and have audio levels optimized.? When you throw a controller in-line, even on the best purpose-built repeater, you will sacrifice audio quality, often just to add voice IDs and announcements.? ?A better approach is to connect said controller to a wireline or similar and mix it with the repeated TX audio or use logic table to set priority and/or ID holdoff.? The other benefit is if you use a digital-capable repeater such as a Quantar you don't give up that capability just to add voice IDs.


?


Yes I have built repeaters from mobiles.? Yes I have used many different purpose-built repeaters.? Yes I have seen many Ham Hack Jobs and have seen quite a few thrown out of sites for causing issues.? If you put some engineering and common sense into things you will end up with a nice system- if not you are likely to end up with a mediocre system that is rarely used and is just there to satisfy your ego - which is the only reason for most voice IDs I might add.? Many will not like to hear this but it is the truth.


?


Thanks,


?


Dan Woodie, CETsr


KC8ZUM





					


				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Why use a purpose built repeater box as a repeater rather than a transmitter, receiver, and controller tied (lashed) together?
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				

  
  




¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

    
Hi Dan,

    
>When you throw a controller in-line, even on the best
      purpose-built repeater, you will sacrifice audio quality, often
      just to add voice IDs and announcements.

    
Without exception? We're talking about audio, not rocket science.
      Audiophiles spend many thousands trying to recreate the most
      perfect audio possible. They install a cartridge made by one
      company into a turntable made by another. It's connected to a
      pre-amp made by another, which feeds a power amp made by another,
      which is powered from a line conditioner made by another. Then
      there's speakers made by another, and of course they're connected
      via special oxygen-free copper wires made by another. They're
      fussy beyond belief and pick the best equipment for each job, and
      it's not all made by the same company. 

    

    
73,

    
Bob

    

    
Bob Schmid, WA9FBO
S-COM, LLC
P.O. Box 1546
LaPorte, CO 80535
970-416-6505




    
On 1/19/2021 10:40 PM, Dan Woodie
      wrote:

    

    

				
					
					

					



      
      
Jim,
        


        

        
Calling Kenwood repeaters "damn good" is going a
          bit far.? They are better than average but certainly have
          their shortcomings.? A Quantar, GTR8000, Codan/Daniel's, or
          MastrIII would be more in the class of "damn good".? To meet
          that classification requires certain reliability, a variety of
          external interfaces, external freq reference ability, and duty
          cycle requirements in my opinion.? While the Kenwood repeaters
          are easy to setup and have good audio they have to be derated
          for high-duty-cycle and the only (rebranded) PSU they offer
          for them has a tendency to fail and sometimes melt down the
          output terminals.? Anything over about 20W requires a
          third-party or Kenwood rebranded amplifier. I can confirm
          however that they are definitely not mobiles in a box like the
          Bridgecom, Yaesu, some Icoms, and older low-tier Motorola
          (non-public-safety) repeaters.??

        


        

        
For the folks claiming "no desense" I would bet
          the majority don't know the procedure for measuring desense
          and EVERY repeater has some level of desense, even with the
          best hardware and duplexers.? It is unavoidable as any
          high-powered transmission will increase the noise floor - so
          the goal is to reduce the impact of this.? Adding a preamp in
          many cases actually makes matters worse, not better, and if
          your receiver is that deaf it isn't going to fix it.? The only
          place a preamp makes sense is in a TTA or Multicoupler where
          it is used to compensate for splits and bring things back to
          unity gain..? Most mobiles simply do not have the level of
          filtering (TX and RX) to perform as well as a purpose-built
          repeater.? Also most purpose-built repeaters have far better
          audio quality when used with internal controllers and have
          audio levels optimized.? When you throw a controller in-line,
          even on the best purpose-built repeater, you will sacrifice
          audio quality, often just to add voice IDs and announcements.?
          ?A better approach is to connect said controller to a wireline
          or similar and mix it with the repeated TX audio or use logic
          table to set priority and/or ID holdoff.? The other benefit is
          if you use a digital-capable repeater such as a Quantar you
          don't give up that capability just to add voice IDs.

        


        

        
Yes I have built repeaters from mobiles.? Yes I
          have used many different purpose-built repeaters.? Yes I have
          seen many Ham Hack Jobs and have seen quite a few thrown out
          of sites for causing issues.? If you put some engineering and
          common sense into things you will end up with a nice system-
          if not you are likely to end up with a mediocre system that is
          rarely used and is just there to satisfy your ego - which is
          the only reason for most voice IDs I might add.? Many will not
          like to hear this but it is the truth.

        


        

        
Thanks,

        


        

        
Dan Woodie, CETsr

        
KC8ZUM

      

      

      

        
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021, 9:52 PM
          Jim Barbour <wd8chl@...> wrote:

        

        
> On
          1/16/2021 10:53 PM, TGundo 2003 via  wrote:

          >> To retort:

          >>

          >> Many, if not most, current "factory" repeaters today
          are nothing more 

          >> than 2 mobiles in a box

          

          None of the Kenwood repeaters are "2 mobiles in a box". They
          are all 

          built as repeaters. And damn good ones too.

          (from a guy who has put together a bunch of Micor rptrs...)

          

          

          

          

          

          

        

      

      
    

  


					


				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Another basic digital voice question.
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
Thanks for the clarification Matt, I was in the unclear group, given the recent output from the FCC regarding illegal activity and the use of radio for nefarious reasons, which is why I asked the question.
Yes, Jim I do know streaming is not radio, however it is still a form of rebroadcasting in the general sense of the meaning.
According to Wiki
Broadcasting is the  of  or video content to a dispersed  via any electronic , 

Yes it goes on to say:? but typically one using the  (), in a  model.

However, it does not exclude any other means, which is why I asked the question.

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: How to use a VGA monitor with your broken HP gear
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				

        
The 'video out' is the connector you need to connect to an external monitor or the GSB8200 type board.




        
        

            

                
                

                    On Wednesday, January 20, 2021, 10:09:37 AM EST, BJN644 <bartnewhouse@...> wrote:
                

                


                


                
Thanks for the info. I have an HP 8935, I assume it would work on this as well, I have a couple of BNC connectors one is labeled "scope monitor out" and the other BNC is "video out". I assume it would be one of these connections that would go to the GBS8200 board? Thank you.


 
_._,_._,_
 
 



            

        

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: How to use a VGA monitor with your broken HP gear
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
Thanks for the info. I have an HP 8935, I assume it would work on this as well, I have a couple of BNC connectors one is labeled "scope monitor out" and the other BNC is "video out". I assume it would be one of these connections that would go to the GBS8200 board? Thank you.

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Tuning procedure for Mobile Duplexer TFE6030A
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							
								
								
									WB5MCT
								
							
						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
Thanks for the info! I was able to find the tuning procedure here? in the message archives and, combined with your insights, it all makes sense now. The extra adjustments are capacitors to maximize the PASS characteristics of the transmit channel. I think it will still work for my purpose even with the low isolation since I'm only planning to use a couple of watts out.

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: TPRD-1554 Troubleshooting
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
Do you have any idea what the value and voltage rating of the capacitor should be?
I'm out of town on a job so I can't check my notes, but from memory it should be 1-14 pF, Johanson 5402 or similar.

And could you recommend a preferred vendor?
Jeff's parts stock.  Email me direct, I'll be back in town this weekend.

					--- Jeff WN3A




--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Kenwood TK-760H VHF
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
At 1/19/2021 06:20 PM, you wrote:


On 1/10/2021 7:38 AM, MIKE CHRISTIE via groups.io wrote:
Thanks to all that replied. I found the problem thanks to Andy. The radio model I thought I had was a TK-760H which was what was on the Tag said but it also had after the 760H a "G" . Andy pointed out three clues, buttons on a newer model 760 were white, in program mode it should show "Programming" not "PC" and the TK760H uses the RJ11 and the TK760G uses the RJ45. Coupled with this information and the new TK760G programming software KPG56D which I had a copy of I was able to read and write to the radio. The Radio Tag was confusing to me the way it read "TK760HG" I had disregarded the the "G".
This might be a note that should be add to RB site under the Kenwood section.
Thanks again
Mike
W1ZFB
Ding ding ding! Btw, the G in this case tells you that it is narrowband 
compliant for Part 90. The non-G is not.
Then why do my TK-860s have a narrow/wide setting?  Kind of doubt Kenwood would put that in a commercial radio just for yuks.

Bob NO6B

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Why use a purpose built repeater box as a repeater rather than a transmitter, receiver, and controller tied (lashed) together?
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
Well..Kenwood repeaters are commercial radios and Type Accepted. Definitely not 2 mobiles in a box

Ken



At 06:52 PM 1/19/2021, you wrote:
On 1/16/2021 10:53 PM, TGundo 2003 via groups.io wrote:
To retort:

Many, if not most, current "factory" repeaters today are nothing more than 2 mobiles in a box
None of the Kenwood repeaters are "2 mobiles in a box". They are all built as repeaters. And damn good ones too.
(from a guy who has put together a bunch of Micor rptrs...)




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President and CTO - Arcom Controllers
Makers of repeater controllers and accessories.

Authorized Dealers for Kenwood and Telewave.
We offer complete turn-key repeater packages!
AH6LE/R - IRLP Node 3000

"We don't just make 'em. We use 'em!"
[]

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Why use a purpose built repeater box as a repeater rather than a transmitter, receiver, and controller tied (lashed) together?
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
On 1/16/2021 10:53 PM, TGundo 2003 via groups.io wrote:
To retort:

Many, if not most, current "factory" repeaters today are nothing more than 2 mobiles in a box
None of the Kenwood repeaters are "2 mobiles in a box". They are all built as repeaters. And damn good ones too.
(from a guy who has put together a bunch of Micor rptrs...)

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: TPRD-1554 Troubleshooting
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							
								
								
									Eric Grabowski
								
							
						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				

        
Bob,

Thanks for that info. I'll keep it in my back pocket in case my repair doesn't work out.

73 and aloha, Eric KH6CQ



        

            


                

                    On Tuesday, January 19, 2021, 2:26:19 AM HST, Bob M. <wa1mik@...> wrote:
                

                


                


                
I worked on a TPRD-4544 many years ago that was not tuning properly. I had a feeling the coax used to form the coupling loop was somehow defective. I ended up buying two new coupling loop assemblies brand new from Telewave. They had them in stock, complete, ready to screw into the cavities. I probably had to tell them whether they were for the high-side or the low-side, and the approximate frequency range, all obtained from the label. Something tells me they were around $50 each. I installed them, the duplexer tuned up perfectly, and exceeded specifications.






            

        

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							CAT WX-250 Programming Software
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							
								
								
									Markus Thomerson
								
							
						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
I am trying find/buy a copy of the programming software for the CAT WX-250.? I tried several variations in a google search to no avail.? Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Kenwood TK-760H VHF
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
On 1/10/2021 7:38 AM, MIKE CHRISTIE via groups.io wrote:
Thanks to all that replied. I found the problem thanks to Andy. The radio model I thought I had was a TK-760H which was what was on the Tag said but it also had after the 760H a "G" . Andy pointed out three clues, buttons on a newer model 760 were white, in program mode it should show "Programming" not "PC" and the TK760H uses the RJ11 and the TK760G uses the RJ45. Coupled with this information and the new TK760G programming software KPG56D which I had a copy of I was able to read and write to the radio. The Radio Tag was confusing to me the way it read "TK760HG" I had disregarded the the "G".
This might be a note that should be add to RB site under the Kenwood section.
Thanks again
Mike
W1ZFB
Ding ding ding! Btw, the G in this case tells you that it is narrowband compliant for Part 90. The non-G is not.

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Another basic digital voice question.
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
On 1/19/2021 7:43 PM, Matt Wagner wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 7:39 PM JeffBanke <jeffbanke@...> wrote:

Streaming? Isn't that rebroadcasting which is illegal?
omg...you do know the internet isn't radio, right?

This is a widely misunderstood interpretation of the law. It is, in fact,
expressly permitted by law:


				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Another basic digital voice question.
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 7:39 PM JeffBanke <jeffbanke@...> wrote:
Streaming? Isn't that rebroadcasting which is illegal?

This is a widely misunderstood interpretation of the law. It is, in fact, expressly permitted by law:

 

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
			
				
	
		
	

		
			

			
			

			
			
				
				

					

						
							
							

							Re: Another basic digital voice question.
							
						
					

				

				

			
			

				

					


						
							

								
								
							

						
					

					

						
							


						
						 
						
							
							
						
						
					

				

			

			

			

				
Streaming? Isn't that rebroadcasting which is illegal?

				
				
				
			

			
			

	

	
			

			

				
					

				
				
			

			

				

					

				

			

			
			
			

			


				
	



		
			
		
	

	
	
	
	


	

		
		
		
		
		
	

	

		
		
		
		
		
	

	
	

		
		
		
		
	



	

		

			
	
		

			
				31241 - 31260 of 214948