Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!ron
From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>)
Newsgroups: net.ham-radio
Subject: Re: squelch comments
Message-ID: <112@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 17:07:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.112
Posted: Tue Jul 23 17:07:37 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 06:30:24 EDT
References: <18922@mgweed.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 10

> Why try to eliminate the squelch tail anyway? It does serve as an audible
> "over" signal. My only objection is to real long tails such as in a receiver
> with a very loosely adjusted squelch.
> 
Because it can be quite harsh, especially with repeaters like the old
07/67 in Baltimore that had no input receivers at the transmitter site.
When carrier was dropped, you would hear both the input receiver, the
link receiver, and your own radio's squelch tail.

-Ron