BCT15X or 996XT Lower Volume Wx Alert?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Eng74

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,682
Location
Kern County, CA
The weather alerts on all scanners are at a set level so someone will not have it turned down and miss something that could save a life.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
Just curious if a 15x or 996XT has a way to lower the volume of the weather alert. It is SOOOO loud. Too loud!

Thanks
You can work around this issue by using the tone out feature of the radio. Obtain the local frequency for the NOAA WX Station and input it in a tone out slot, set the tone out frequency A only to 1050.0 Hz and when the WX alert tone is broadcast while the scanner is on the frequency it will open up the squelch.
This stops the SAME weather alert advantage but you can set the volume to whatever you wish and use the tone out delay to close the squelch after a period of time. You can set the alert tone sound and volume to whatever you wish or turn them off.
Hopefully this will not wake up the better half when there is a amber alert @ 2 am. ;-)
 

SLJ2137694

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
43
Location
Lehighton, PA
The weather alerts on all scanners are at a set level so someone will not have it turned down and miss something that could save a life.
When I am sleeping and the scanner is 2 ft away from me I don't need it screaming full blast to awaken me. It isn't a Uniden or goverment responsability to assure that we can hear the alarm, if it was then the weather alert function would always be on. It is the responsability of the user to assure the volume is appropriately set for the situation. I have chosen NOT to use the function just because is it can't be adjusted to an appropriate volume. I am sure many others have taken this stand also! So Uniden, what good is the weather alert function if people choose not to use it? As I understand it, and I may be in error, our scanners ARE NOT required to have the volume of the alert at full blast. I have been told this is a manufacturers decision. Uniden, give us the option, and there-by we accept the responsability, of lowering the volume!!! If I have been informed wrong please let me know, Thank You.
 

Eng74

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,682
Location
Kern County, CA
When I am sleeping and the scanner is 2 ft away from me I don't need it screaming full blast to awaken me. It isn't a Uniden or goverment responsability to assure that we can hear the alarm, if it was then the weather alert function would always be on. It is the responsability of the user to assure the volume is appropriately set for the situation. I have chosen NOT to use the function just because is it can't be adjusted to an appropriate volume. I am sure many others have taken this stand also! So Uniden, what good is the weather alert function if people choose not to use it? As I understand it, and I may be in error, our scanners ARE NOT required to have the volume of the alert at full blast. I have been told this is a manufacturers decision. Uniden, give us the option, and there-by we accept the responsability, of lowering the volume!!! If I have been informed wrong please let me know, Thank You.
It is not just Uniden but the GRE's are the same. I have known people when the quick call goes off that it will still not wake them up and it turns the lights on too. I know of a couple times when my bed had to be kicked. Remember when you are useing it as a weather alert radio, it is not a scanner then, it could fall under different rules then. Where is one of the guys up on all the FCC stuff, maybe UPMan could give a reply with all the why'sand for's.
 

FlashP

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
195
To market the scanner as an alerting device, they have to comply with the CEA specifications for both RF decoding and aural alerting.
 

safetyobc

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Messages
3,345
Location
South Arkansas
To market the scanner as an alerting device, they have to comply with the CEA specifications for both RF decoding and aural alerting.
Does that mean they cannot have a user selectable volume? Maybe just have it default to the loudest, but make a selectable volume available. That would be nice!

But for now, I'll use the Tone Out feature as mentioned above.
 

W6KRU

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
3,388
Location
Oceanside, CA
I have read a lot of complaints about the volume of the weather alert and I was curious how bad it was but I had never heard one. This week we have had some unusually bad weather and it provided a good opportunity to hear one. I had 2 alerts yesterday and I think you guys are whiners. :lol::lol:
 

KE4ZNR

KE4ZNR@radioreference.com
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
7,069
Location
Raleigh, NC
UPMan has said this in the past:

We adhere to CEA-2009-A specifications which call for a minimum 77dB at one meter within the range of 500 to 1500 Hz.

We consider All Hazards Alert to be as critical as your smoke detector in its ability to rouse you from near death to take action.
So don't expect variable volume anytime soon :)
Marshall KE4ZNR
 

gary123

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
1,090
It is loud infact its almost 95 DB at 3 feet (measured with a chaep radioshack sound meter) being loud enough to wake you is fine but being so loud you are deafened and cant hear the alert is another :) .

perhaps uniden would concider a hidden menu adjustment for this feature along with a warning along the lines of "adjusting the alert from the preset value will void the CEA compliance and/or warrenty for that unit" Uniden can cover thier "butt" by adding a digital marker in the unit memory showing that the level had been adjusted thus releasing them from any action.
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
It is loud infact its almost 95 DB at 3 feet (measured with a chaep radioshack sound meter) being loud enough to wake you is fine but being so loud you are deafened and cant hear the alert is another :) .

perhaps uniden would concider a hidden menu adjustment for this feature along with a warning along the lines of "adjusting the alert from the preset value will void the CEA compliance and/or warrenty for that unit" Uniden can cover thier "butt" by adding a digital marker in the unit memory showing that the level had been adjusted thus releasing them from any action.
There is a way to change the WX alert in the firmware, but you need to figure out how to download it, change it and upload it back to the radio.
 

KE4ZNR

KE4ZNR@radioreference.com
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
7,069
Location
Raleigh, NC
There is a way to change the WX alert in the firmware, but you need to figure out how to download it, change it and upload it back to the radio.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Any change in the firmware would at the very least void the warranty.
Not to mention you would need to decompile the firmware, find out exactly which bits to modify, and write it back to the radio without bricking the radio.
Basically, not gonna happen.
Marshall KE4ZNR
 

rvictor

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
1,045
Location
Milwaukee, WI
I assume that all of you that want it less loud would be willing to indemnify Uniden as to any lawsuits and resulting judgments that it might sustain as a result of making it less loud, right?

When there is a safety standard and a company fails to comply with the standard, liability often follows. Uniden appears to be smart enough to not do that.

Dick
 

SLJ2137694

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
43
Location
Lehighton, PA
I assume that all of you that want it less loud would be willing to indemnify Uniden as to any lawsuits and resulting judgments that it might sustain as a result of making it less loud, right?

When there is a safety standard and a company fails to comply with the standard, liability often follows. Uniden appears to be smart enough to not do that.

Dick
Of course I would and I am sure others would also. For me it would make the alert functional as I refuse to have it 2 feet from my ears while I sleep and have it go off full blast!!! Uniden could clearly make it mentioned in the on-screen set-up function (do I have the correct terminology here?) and in the manual/CD that modifying the volume would release Uniden from any responsability. How good is this function if people refuse to use it? It is only a good marketing tool. I am reaching back in my memory now and I don't have the time to read alot of postings from the past, but didn't someone mention that Uniden wasn't required to make the alert that loud but decided to do it anyway? If they were not required by law to do so they would be serving their customer base very well by addressing this concern so we/I could make use of this feature.
 

gary123

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
1,090
I certainly would have no issues protecting uniden against action. The only way I can see for uniden to proactivly protect itsself would be to do as I suggested, make the level adjustable but also set the software to "mark" a memory location so that it can be shown that the level was adjusted from the factory level (no mark= un modified). We use this method in our software it lets the end user make changes they want but releases us from liability (the mark is write only and cannot be changed back).

KE4ZNR you are right although it would be nice to be able to edit the firmware , there are lots of changes I would like to make.
 

rvictor

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
1,045
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Of course I would and I am sure others would also. For me it would make the alert functional as I refuse to have it 2 feet from my ears while I sleep and have it go off full blast!!! Uniden could clearly make it mentioned in the on-screen set-up function (do I have the correct terminology here?) and in the manual/CD that modifying the volume would release Uniden from any responsability. How good is this function if people refuse to use it? It is only a good marketing tool. I am reaching back in my memory now and I don't have the time to read alot of postings from the past, but didn't someone mention that Uniden wasn't required to make the alert that loud but decided to do it anyway? If they were not required by law to do so they would be serving their customer base very well by addressing this concern so we/I could make use of this feature.
You obviously don't understand the concept of indemnification or you lack good judgment. From what you say you'd be willing to agree to pay all legal fees and judgments that Uniden might incur as a result of making the change that you propose. Unless you have no assets, that would be a pretty foolish thing to do and, if you have no assets, your indemnification wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on and Uniden would be foolish to rely on it.

Dick
 

K9JDN

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
28
Location
Madison County, Illinois (STL Metro-area)
I like this workaround idea of using the Tone-Out function of the scanner for a WX alert! It's too bad the Tone-Out function of the scanner couldn't be expanded to "decode" the digital FIPS codes when an alert is sent via the NOAA frequency. That would be a neat "function" of the scanner, without jeopardizing Uniden's compliance with the CEA specifications of the WX_Alert function.
 

rvictor

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
1,045
Location
Milwaukee, WI
I certainly would have no issues protecting uniden against action. The only way I can see for uniden to proactivly protect itsself would be to do as I suggested, make the level adjustable but also set the software to "mark" a memory location so that it can be shown that the level was adjusted from the factory level (no mark= un modified). We use this method in our software it lets the end user make changes they want but releases us from liability (the mark is write only and cannot be changed back).

KE4ZNR you are right although it would be nice to be able to edit the firmware , there are lots of changes I would like to make.
It is not a sure thing that the method you use does, in fact, release you from liability. Even if it were to be ultimately decided that it did, you could spend thousands of dollars litigating the issue. Of course, if you have liability insurance, then your insurance company could spend the thousands of dollars.

With respect to the merits of indemnification, see my prior post. Frankly, I'm amazed that my rhetorical question was really seriously considered as a possible solution that at least two of you would consider doing. Just goes to show how foolish things get here and how little people understand the workings of our legal system.

How's this scenario? A family of four is wiped out while they are sleeping when a tornado relocates their home from Kansas to Oz. NOAA sounded a timely alert, but they didn't hear it because they thought that the alert on their Uniden scanner was too loud and had used the option you suggest to turn it down. Their heirs hire an attorney to determine whether they have any possible redress and he/she can't think of anyone that's still alive to blame other than Uniden so suit is commenced against Uniden and its various officers and employees. The jury is composed of the neighbors of the deceased who survived the tornado because their warning devices woke them up. You'd be willing to pay all of Uniden's legal fees and the possible judgment granted by neighbors of the poor deceased family? And you're willing to do this because you want the alert tone to be less loud?

Sure thing.

I've seen far less meritorious lawsuits result in verdicts for the plaintiffs. This isn't even much of a stretch.

Dick
 

SLJ2137694

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
43
Location
Lehighton, PA
You obviously don't understand the concept of indemnification or you lack good judgment. From what you say you'd be willing to agree to pay all legal fees and judgments that Uniden might incur as a result of making the change that you propose. Unless you have no assets, that would be a pretty foolish thing to do and, if you have no assets, your indemnification wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on and Uniden would be foolish to rely on it.

Dick
I was thinking along the line of my not holding Uniden liable for for a loss I incurred because of my not hearing a warning because I turned the volume down. Of course in this world it isn't that simple. The probability of others using the legal system to bring an action against Uniden is far from remote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top