Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2014, 03:52:55 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Request for feed hosters
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Request for feed hosters  (Read 4405 times)
cornholio
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« on: February 25, 2011, 01:04:03 PM »

I am extremely grateful for those of you who have spent your time and effort to set up feeds for liveatc.  What a resource!  Thanks for your effort.

Can I make a request, though?

Most feeds are using scanners to prowl several frequencies at once, of course.  This is generally a great solution to the problem of dead air, especially at smaller airports.  However, if your scanner is set to change frequencies immediately after the conclusion of a transmission, it's very easy-- even likely-- that we'll miss the reply.

I think the multi-frequency feeds are much more "listenable" if the scanner isn't so jumpy, and many or most scanners can be set to wait longer between frequency jumps.

I know that setting a delay of 3-4 seconds would cause more dead air and would cause us to miss transmissions on other frequencies more often, but it is my opinion that this is a good tradeoff to hear more of a single conversation.

Any one else have an opinion on this?
Logged
Spedz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


Mike "Spedz"


« Reply #1 on: February 25, 2011, 01:10:44 PM »

I believe, at least for me, that the scanners are suppose to be set to Delay if that function is available on the scanner!!!....not sure that everyone does this however when you get the info to put up a feed it is suggested to do this!!!! shocked afro
Logged

\___@(")@___/
       
       KBAK
      Feeder
    ~Spedz~
dave
Site Founder
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3626



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 25, 2011, 01:11:05 PM »

Couple of things.  First, I agree.  In most cases.

Some notes:

1) All feeders are encouraged to do this when they sign up.

2) Not all scanners have programmable delay.  That is utopia.  Only a few scanners have that, and those are typically higher-end models.  It usually is not economical to use those higher-end scanners for feeds.

3) Some frequencies beg for no delay.  A classic example is a frequency that controllers "simulcast" on all the time that only very occasionally has pilots on it.  That is a good example of where no delay is warranted - so as not to miss the response on the other frequency where the controller is transmitting.

The Bearcat 780XLT has programmable delay and so do several other higher-end models.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2011, 01:24:35 PM by dave » Logged
Spedz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


Mike "Spedz"


« Reply #3 on: February 25, 2011, 01:14:32 PM »

Ha beat ya too it Dave....LOL...However your answer was a much better answer vs my ramblings LOL
Logged

\___@(")@___/
       
       KBAK
      Feeder
    ~Spedz~
cornholio
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #4 on: February 25, 2011, 01:38:23 PM »

2) Not all scanners have programmable delay.  That is utopia.  Only a few scanners have that, and those are typically higher-end models.  It usually is not economical to use those higher-end scanners for feeds.

Ah ha.  I'll admit that my experience is with Marine VHF scanners and very high end HF transceivers.  I didn't realize that a programmable delay wasn't typical with VHF scanners in the aviation band.

Also, your example about when a no-delay feed is appropriate is spot-on.
Logged
JetScan1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 647


« Reply #5 on: February 25, 2011, 03:20:56 PM »

Quote
Any one else have an opinion on this?

Personally I find the delay function in most cases to be extremely annoying, because as you state it just ends up blocking out the other frequencies more often than it helps in hearing a reply, the result being a lot of missed or clipped transmissions. If you're having a problem following the conversation it's probably more of an indication that the scanner is set to too many busy frequencies, rather than not having a delay set. Just my opinion.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2011, 03:35:31 PM by JetScan1 » Logged
dave
Site Founder
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3626



WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 25, 2011, 03:48:45 PM »

Quote
Any one else have an opinion on this?

Personally I find the delay function in most cases to be extremely annoying, because as you state it just ends up blocking out the other frequencies more often than it helps in hearing a reply, the result being a lot of missed or clipped transmissions. If you're having a problem following the conversation it's probably more of an indication that the scanner is set to too many busy frequencies, rather than not having a delay set. Just my opinion.

In cases where limited resources are available it simply isn't possible to separate feeds into multiple receivers.  So of course it is what everyone wants, but it isn't always practical.  It's a probability game - in some cases multiple frequencies works out just fine, in others not so much.

Logged
cornholio
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #7 on: February 25, 2011, 03:51:12 PM »

I know.  We need a separate receiver for every frequency used near a certain airport-- at each airport.  Then a web interface where we can all choose the frequencies to combine through a virtual scanner.

I'll get right on that.
Logged
JetScan1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 647


« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2011, 04:45:50 PM »

Quote
In cases where limited resources are available it simply isn't possible to separate feeds into multiple receivers.

Yes of course, I wasn't suggesting that.

Quote
I'll get right on that.

Full credit on the sarcasm.

Maybe a poll ? Delay function ON or OFF.

My vote .... OFF
Logged
dave
Site Founder
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3626



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2011, 10:47:19 AM »

Everyone's opinions are important.  But this isn't something that lends itself to a poll, really.  I work with each feeder and actually spend time deciding what is appropriate for each feed.  In some cases the feeder has strong opinions and we disagree slightly on which channels to scan, but in the end it is far better to have a feed than not have a feed.  And we're always looking for redundant and additional feeds in each location to expand things.  So, in time, everyone wins.
Logged
JetScan1
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 647


« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2011, 12:59:29 PM »

Quote
Everyone's opinions are important.  But this isn't something that lends itself to a poll, really.

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the reply and all the effort you put into this great resource, much appreciated. I realize it must be tricky trying to balance all the opinions out there. I guess we can just agreee to disagree on the scan delay thing, no worries. Where it really doesn't work is on feeds scanning enroute frequencies where you can't hear the controller, most feeds like that don't appear to have the delay set anyway, so I was a little concerned when the OP mentioned the delay should be set as a general rule. Happy to hear your judgement is involved when setting things up. Thanks again for the info. Cheers.
Logged
poj
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2011, 09:40:36 PM »

I know.  We need a separate receiver for every frequency used near a certain airport-- at each airport.  Then a web interface where we can all choose the frequencies to combine through a virtual scanner.

I'll get right on that.

A project that I've been thinking about for years, and have actually started working on now is to take multiple single channel feeds and "undouble" them, such that when one audio stream is being listened to, the others are buffered, then played when the first is done. (kind of like sequencing aircraft!) A professor at Seneca College, Toronto, has been working on audio processing in javascript, and it will be available in FireFox 4, so I'm trying to use that.
ref http://vocamus.net/dave/ and https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Manipulating_audio_using_the_enhanced_audio_API

The problems I've run in to is that FF4 audio needs to be in .ogg format to manipulate, and the security models restrict inspection/capturing of raw audio bytes, so this project is currently on hold.

Meanwhile, my feeds are going to single receiver per channel, so no scanning. It does bother Dave a bit that I have different receivers on the left and right channels since some apps don't have L-R balance control, but that's the way I'm doing it anyways. (sorry Dave!)
Logged
uplink
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90

PPL ASEL, SOCAL AREA


WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 08, 2011, 05:44:44 AM »

I am extremely grateful for those of you who have spent your time and effort to set up feeds for liveatc.  What a resource!  Thanks for your effort.

Can I make a request, though?

Most feeds are using scanners to prowl several frequencies at once, of course.  This is generally a great solution to the problem of dead air, especially at smaller airports.  However, if your scanner is set to change frequencies immediately after the conclusion of a transmission, it's very easy-- even likely-- that we'll miss the reply.

I think the multi-frequency feeds are much more "listenable" if the scanner isn't so jumpy, and many or most scanners can be set to wait longer between frequency jumps.

I know that setting a delay of 3-4 seconds would cause more dead air and would cause us to miss transmissions on other frequencies more often, but it is my opinion that this is a good tradeoff to hear more of a single conversation.

Any one else have an opinion on this?

Excellent post, Agreed!  In most cases delay should definitely be ON.  You are right, this will help in not missing the reply and make conversations more easy to follow.   Without delay on, especially when there are multiple frequencies, listening becomes a jumbled mess of sentences.  
   I would only turn off delay on maybe a ground frequency or lower priority channel when you don't want to miss something on the other frequencies.  In the case of the KVNY feed, only the ground freq has DELAY OFF, as the the ground controller also handles helo traffic (simulcast) and can get too busy and hang up the scanner, all other freqs on the feed have DELAY ON.  
  Another trick I have recommended on the forums, especially those doing approach or multiple channels is to help "prioritize" your feed:
Instead of programming your scanner in the following way:

CH1.Tower
CH2.Approach N
CH3.Approach W
CH4.Approach E
CH5.Approach S

I do this on my scanner:

CH1.Tower
CH2.Approach N
CH3.Tower
CH4.Approach W
CH5.Tower
CH6.Approach E
CH7.Tower
CH8.Approach S

Because tower is on every other channel, the scanner has less chance of missing a tower transmission and getting "hung up".

As Dave has said, the more volunteers the better, creating redundant and additional feeds in each location.  This means less channels per scanner and less lost replies/transmissions.
 grin
« Last Edit: March 09, 2011, 02:58:39 PM by uplink » Logged

Dan CZQM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2011, 01:58:36 PM »

Uplink,

I like the way you have yours.  I must do that when I get mine back online.

Dan
Logged

Dan
CZQM-CYQM Feeder
dave
Site Founder
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3626



WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2011, 05:38:22 AM »

uplink-  A great trick...I have used that on a few feeds, where it made sense.  Thanks for the post!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!