Re: Wanted: used digital receiver

["Bob La Londe" <none@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Bob La Londe" <none@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:nqphb3$f9v$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Rocky T. Squirrel" <gafa_usa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Lvmdna-bv_P241LKnZ2dnUU7-fnNnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Had a small town fire dept. contact us to try and help them find a used
>> old school (3+1)  digital alarm receiver.
>>
>> They had an old Sur-Guard I,  I think..
>> No printer, only one line.  formatting it seems is 3+1 slow..
>> (about as basic as it gets)
>>
>> Seems their monitoring all the Vol. FD's in their county and a few
>> others...
>>
>> My guess, cost would be the main issue..
>>
>> Any leads would be appreciated...
>>
>>
>> RTS....
>
> 3+1 is slow.  All the pulse formats are slow.  I went to tone formats a
> long time ago to reduce long distance costs, but any time I had issues I
> switched those accounts back to pulse format or set their back reporting
> as pulse format.  For some reason it just seems more reliable.  EVEN on
> VOIP lines. Had some panels also that would not take proper kissof tones
> for no good reason when in tone formats like CID.  Switched those back to
> pulse and they worked fine.
>
> Anyway.  Pulse formats are slow.
>

Check Ebay.  On a search for alarm receiver there was an Ademco 685 in the
first page of 1800 results.  A quick refinement showed several more.