|
Post by jimhenry2000 on Jul 14, 2017 1:06:21 GMT
Today I had lunch with the Chairman of our board of supervisors. Our discussions covered a wide array of issues, but during the meeting I did pitch the idea of adding a 2nd Procaster installed at the township building to better communicate our message. He was extremely receptive. Apparently improving communications to the township residents is a very high priority. My intention is to synch both transmitters via an Internet stream. I was also very clear that the township must pay for this 2nd xmtr and related equipment such as Barix boxes, etc. Has anyone here done this? One nice thing is that the township building has a steel roof so I believe we can ground to that and be Part 15 compliant. I really would appreciate any input and wisdom. Thanks. Jim
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 1:15:39 GMT
Moving and Shaking in Honey Brook
What I've always heard is that the Rangemaster 1000 Transmitters can be synched, but never heard that any of the others would do it.
Your only hope (I think) is to contact Chez ProCaster and get their input.
|
|
|
Post by jimhenry2000 on Jul 14, 2017 1:17:07 GMT
Yes I'm aware and will do just that. Moving and Shaking in Honey BrookWhat I've always heard is that the Rangemaster 1000 Transmitters can be synched, but never heard that any of the others would do it. Your only hope (I think) is to contact Chez ProCaster and get their input.
|
|
|
Post by jimhenry2000 on Jul 14, 2017 1:27:16 GMT
Let me add that the township building is about 4 miles from the edge of my coverage from the original xmtr., so I'm not understanding what might be the problem with putting a 2nd xmtr there on the same frequency. I guess I'm just not seeing the issue with synching. Of course it is important to me that there is no interference between the 2 stations. Yes I'm aware and will do just that. Moving and Shaking in Honey BrookWhat I've always heard is that the Rangemaster 1000 Transmitters can be synched, but never heard that any of the others would do it. Your only hope (I think) is to contact Chez ProCaster and get their input.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 1:27:38 GMT
Quick Thinking
Jim, is your present transmitter site receivable in town at the township building?
It is likely you can install an independent ProCaster there without encountering overlap problems. The rooftop transmitter will dominate in town, and any overlap will probably occur well within your property boundaries where no one is listening.
|
|
|
Post by jimhenry2000 on Jul 14, 2017 1:47:06 GMT
Carl, I think more info is in order. Our township surrounds a small town that is a completely different entity, Honey Brook boro. Distance wise we are much larger. When I was a state Fire Police Officer it took me a solid 5 minutes to get to HQ and that was in the center of town and speed limits be damned. We're talking 25 square miles to cover the township. Quick ThinkingJim, is your present transmitter site receivable in town at the township building? It is likely you can install an independent ProCaster there without encountering overlap problems. The rooftop transmitter will dominate in town, and any overlap will probably occur well within your property boundaries where no one is listening.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 1:56:32 GMT
Rising to the Occasion
Jim, given the distance challenge you are dealing with perhaps you should consider bringing in a consulting engineer to determine whether you could build a licensed AM or FM station to serve the area.
Or, do a study to see what a carrier current AM station would do, which depends on the physical properties of the power-lines running in the area... in some cases carrier current covers miles, whereas in other cases no better than one part 15 transmitter.
|
|
|
Post by jimhenry2000 on Jul 14, 2017 2:08:39 GMT
Carl, Thanks again.I am certain that the township has no appetite for the fiscal expenditures required by a licensed station. One positive (I think) is that the terrain is much more level where the township bldg. is than at my location. Rising to the OccasionJim, given the distance challenge you are dealing with perhaps you should consider bringing in a consulting engineer to determine whether you could build a licensed AM or FM station to serve the area. Or, do a study to see what a carrier current AM station would do, which depends on the physical properties of the power-lines running in the area... in some cases carrier current covers miles, whereas in other cases no better than one part 15 transmitter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 3:03:25 GMT
Synching multiple transmitters seems to be the holy grail of Part 15. I've read stories of people supposedly doing it, but have never read a first hand account, or seen any real evidence that it has been done. And I've been doing this (and been on these Forums) for over 10 years.
Synching, by definition, is when you have multiple transmitters operating on the same frequency, with their coverage areas overlapping at the boundaries so that there is no loss of signal as listeners travel from one transmitter to another.
That is fraught with technical problems, from minimizing interference to synching up the audio feeds.
It sounds as if what you want to do is to have multiple transmitters that DON'T overlap coverage areas, in which case you don't have the interference issue, and there is not the same urgency to synch up the audio feeds exactly.
Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?
|
|
|
Post by jimhenry2000 on Jul 14, 2017 3:30:13 GMT
Davidc, No you are correct. I am not intending to create a seamless hand-off just a separate coverage area. Synching multiple transmitters seems to be the holy grail of Part 15. I've read stories of people supposedly doing it, but have never read a first hand account, or seen any real evidence that it has been done. And I've been doing this (and been on these Forums) for over 10 years. Synching, by definition, is when you have multiple transmitters operating on the same frequency, with their coverage areas overlapping at the boundaries so that there is no loss of signal as listeners travel from one transmitter to another. That is fraught with technical problems, from minimizing interference to synching up the audio feeds. It sounds as if what you want to do is to have multiple transmitters that DON'T overlap coverage areas, in which case you don't have the interference issue, and there is not the same urgency to synch up the audio feeds exactly. Or am I misinterpreting what you're saying?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 3:48:15 GMT
Then the only real issue you'll have is to distribute your audio to the 2nd transmitter. You could use Barix boxes, or even stream from your studio, and capture that stream at the 2nd transmitter. You could use a computer, or even an Internet Radio for that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 11:51:12 GMT
Audio Distribution
DavidC names three easily achievable means of sending audio to out-lying transmitters: "You could use Barix boxes, or even stream from your studio, and capture that stream at the 2nd transmitter. You could use a computer, or even an Internet Radio for that."
Of those methods, which is the least likely to fail and need re-setting?
I am guessing that the Barix Box would be the most solid and maintainable method.
Computers receiving stream audio are more likely to crash and need re-booting.
I have no knowledge of how solidly internet radios lock onto a signal or where they'd draw that signal from.
|
|
|
Post by Druid Hills Radio on Jul 14, 2017 14:01:18 GMT
Then the only real issue you'll have is to distribute your audio to the 2nd transmitter. You could use Barix boxes, or even stream from your studio, and capture that stream at the 2nd transmitter. You could use a computer, or even an Internet Radio for that. I recommend Barix. We us it it as a STL from the university to the transmitter site. Very reliable. If your stream drops it will reconnect when the connection is restored. No computer required.
|
|
|
Post by Boomer on Jul 14, 2017 15:56:18 GMT
Can Barix do an uncompressed stream, like Flac or another kind of lossless codec?
Lately I've been hearing lots of digital artifacts on AM/FM stations, watery sound and ringing, or whines on crowd noise, and I have to think that stations must have upgraded to some kind of new STL box, and it's showing.
I see Barix units on Ebay regularly, one time there was a whole page of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 16:57:06 GMT
As usual, the best answer is ... it depends. It depends on your 2nd location and facilities, and what you might want to do in the future.
If all you ever want to do is to repeat your primary signal verbatim, then, if you can afford it, perhaps Barix is the way to go. An internet radio is a much more inexpensive way to repeat your signal, and most will automatically reconnect if the signal is lost.
If, however, you might want to make the 2nd site more independent, and give yourself greater flexibility, then a general purpose computer might be the solution. I can't see a dedicated computer running tried and true software, with no mucking about, to be any more unreliable than a Barix box (most people get themselves into trouble with experimentation, installing new software, etc.). All the Barix box is, after all, is a computer with a fixed purpose.
|
|