Re: [tracker2] T2 Deaf?
- I've had a couple of reports, but nothing consistent. You're always
welcome to send it back for testing, and I'll run a full decode test
against it to see how it compares to the baseline - that'd tell us if
there's a problem with your specific unit.
Also, what is your power setup? I've had at least one report of bad
decode performance that was caused by a noisy power system. Switching
to battery power made the problem go away.
I've had at least a couple of people report specifically that their T2
did BETTER than AGWPE, and while I won't guarantee that'll always be the
case it ought to be close.
Tim Smith wrote:
> > Take a look at
> > t2protoc-schematic.png , Schematic for Proto C revision
> > in the files section and you'll see the EQ jumper and C25 (.1) that
> > gets put in parallel with C1 (.01).
> Thanks Hank...that sheds some light on the input circuit, but I'm
> still having problems with the T2 being either a little deaf or not
> decoding a number of packets for other reasons. I do not see much of
> a difference in EQ jumper impact, either in decoded packets or what I
> see on the scope in terms of mark/space levels. Both radios I have
> tried are discriminator-tapped (Icom and Alinco)...which are fixed
> level, but also tried full audio chain as well. In all cases, the
> software TNC is hearing much better than the T2.
> Scott...I did some side by side tests when deploying the T2 at our
> digi site. In comparing with two different radios using AGWPE with a
> SBII sound card, I was seeing the expected packets being decoded.
> However, when replacing the sound card TNC with the T2, I'm missing
> about 20% of the packets. I tried a wide range of levels from 50mv to
> 2v ptp. There is one station that the T2 will not receive at all
> despite EQ settings, audio levels, etc (which happens to be an
> adjacent wide area digi).
> I began to notice this at home when letting the trial run in prep for
> the wide digi installation.
> Anyone else seeing problems with T2 deafness?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Scott Miller <scott@...> wrote:
>Thanks Scott...going to try a couple of more things and if no
> I've had a couple of reports, but nothing consistent. You're always
> welcome to send it back for testing, and I'll run a full decode test
> against it to see how it compares to the baseline - that'd tell us if
> there's a problem with your specific unit.
progress, I'll take you up on your offer. -Tim