Icom 4261 DS or DT?

[matt131]

Hello,

I am looking to purchase a few Icom IDAS 4261 portable radios, but I am not sure if I need the DS or DT model. I am looking to be able to do private call radio to radio and all call with the radios. I would also like to be able to do text messaging but that isn't really a feature I really need like the other calling features. With this said which units should I purchase?

I guess my other question is can I do a direct entry private call with the DT model because it has a full keypad?

Thank You

[rapidcharger]

The DS model will be sufficient for selective calling. The DTMF keypad isn't required for that. One of the buttons needs to be programmed for "CALL" and then you press that and use chan up/down to select from a list the station you want to call.

The 4261 will do the short data messaging but I haven't used that before but I'm 95% sure you don't need a keypad for that either. I have used status messaging before in other radios (analog) and it was selected by knobs or chan up/dn. A keypad might be another way to enter in the code however.

[maxkelley]

The DT is really not that much more expensive than the DS, if I remember correctly. I would go for the DT, so you can do direct entry and not have to reprogram the whole radio to put in a radio ID that was added to your system so you can selcall it.

[ElroyJetson]

My personal (extensive) experiences with iDas are such that I do not recommend it. Not at all. I can't get into any details but I do have my reasons.

[rapidcharger]

Originally Posted by ElroyJetson

My personal (extensive) experiences with iDas are such that I do not recommend it. Not at all. I can't get into any details but I do have my reasons.

Well that was incredibly insightful.

[W2GLD]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with iDAS, which is really NXDN and supported by both ICOM and Kenwood universally (except in trunking mode); that said, for maximum operational ability, especially text messaging, but the DT model; you'll be happy for it in the end, especially if you plan to add telephone interconnect in the future...

NXDN (iDAS) works great, in-fact; it's beginning to take off in the ham radio market as well given numerous limitations with MotoTRBO. Just make sure your dealer gives you the latest firmware/DSP, which current is 4.9 for the firmware and 3.1 for the DSP.

[W2GLD]

Originally Posted by ElroyJetson

My personal (extensive) experiences with iDas are such that I do not recommend it. Not at all. I can't get into any details but I do have my reasons.

I'd personally like to hear some of your "extensive experience" and reasons as to why it's so terrible! It's no better or worse that MotoTRBO. Care to explain your rather off-handed bashing comment?

[ElroyJetson]

I'll give you this: Use the latest firmware. It certainly helps.

I've seen this on a consistent basis: The radios stop working when their received signal strength drops to about -105 dBm, when talking from antenna to antenna. But when using inline attenuation and dropping the power output of one radio to another, the radios talk reliably down to -120. In both cases, using the signal strength meter in the radios to make this measurement. The meters having been verified accurate by checking against calibrated signal generators.

Having a lowest usable signal of -105 dBm in digital does not compare well in the real world with
analog radios that are usable down to -120 dBm. That 15 dB difference is way more than just "significant".

It's resulted in having to base system coverage on a minimum acceptable signal level of -105 or better
for portable equipment. This creates a considerably smaller coverage footprint than if you were to shoot for -120.

My largest customer is now up to eight sites of eight channels each in a multitrunk environment. It's
working, and it gets better with (nearly) every firmware upgade and fine tuning has helped a lot, but
we are still having to base everything off of a higher minimum signal strength than was originally anticipated.

[W2GLD]

Originally Posted by ElroyJetson

I'll give you this: Use the latest firmware. It certainly helps.

I've seen this on a consistent basis: The radios stop working when their received signal strength drops to about -105 dBm, when talking from antenna to antenna. But when using inline attenuation and dropping the power output of one radio to another, the radios talk reliably down to -120. In both cases, using the signal strength meter in the radios to make this measurement. The meters having been verified accurate by checking against calibrated signal generators.

Having a lowest usable signal of -105 dBm in digital does not compare well in the real world with
analog radios that are usable down to -120 dBm. That 15 dB difference is way more than just "significant".

It's resulted in having to base system coverage on a minimum acceptable signal level of -105 or better
for portable equipment. This creates a considerably smaller coverage footprint than if you were to shoot for -120.

My largest customer is now up to eight sites of eight channels each in a multitrunk environment. It's
working, and it gets better with (nearly) every firmware upgade and fine tuning has helped a lot, but
we are still having to base everything off of a higher minimum signal strength than was originally anticipated.

While I cannot speak to your exact issues, firmware 5.0 was recently released and applies significant changes to multisite, so perhaps that will continue to enhance your customers coverage and overall usage...

With that said, for those in the amateur radio conventional world, NXDN, at least from the ICOM side, actually does quite well... In-fact, I'll go as far as to say that I personally believe that the NXDN audio, again, at least from the ICOM side using firmware v4.6 or higher actually sounds better than MOTOTRBO using an XPR8400 (latest firmware) and XPR7550 (again latest firmware)... I know because I have both systems on the air here in Southeast Michigan... The NXDN audio is much clearer overall and has less digital artifacts than MOTOTRBO AND maintains equal coverage alongside the MOTOTRBO repeater... I have both an ICOM IC-FR6000 and XPR8400 co-located, both using Cellwave 526 duplexers and both running 40-watts and the coverage is dead on equal... However, NXDN still wins out on audio and the ability to perform analog and digital AND still be connected to the WW NXDN network AND still be connected to a traditional repeater controller such as the SCOM 7330... The Motorola XPR8400 is basically a dumb digital repeater box that just sits there and passes whatever traffic it hears, I can't even limit which talkgroups I want to repeater; whereas the NXDN side, I can pick and choose to listen to certain PL/DPL's, certain RAN's, and specific talkgroups, while ignoring everything else...

Both have their pluses and minuses, but overall for amateur radio use, I think NXDN is a far better solution...

Anyway, checkout v5.0 firmware from the ICOM side and see if it enhances your customer's performance, I suspect it will make it better... Also, don't forget to update the UC-FR5000 to v4.0 as well...

[rapidcharger]

Originally Posted by W2GLD

In-fact, I'll go as far as to say that I personally believe that the NXDN audio, again, at least from the ICOM side using firmware v4.6 or higher actually sounds better than MOTOTRBO

<snip>

The NXDN audio is much clearer overall and has less digital artifacts than MOTOTRBO AND maintains equal coverage alongside the MOTOTRBO repeater...

I concur with these findings.

[ElroyJetson]

I'll grant that NXDN audio does sound very good. However I'll always place communications reliability over audio quality. Ideally, you have both.

I have found that the Kenwood NX-200 radio has substantially better audio quality than the Icom F3161. Not having compared the internal components, particularly the speakers, to each other directly, I can't say if it's due to Kenwood using better speakers or just having better audio processing.

Several months ago I'd have had a longer list of complaints about idas than I do now. Icom has fixed a fair number of issues, but not without kicking and screaming and denying they had a problem until my organization submitted raw data to them demonstrating specific issues in a very clear manner.

What I find most amusing is when I get a response back saying "Your test method is invalid." This, despite it being based on an analytical model rather than an empirical model.

I'm not at all against Icom or any form of NXDN technology. I just want them to get it right and get it reliable under demanding, real world conditions. Strides have been made but they're still not quite there yet.