Extended Frequencies

[cdenton]

Is it possible to enter extended frequencies on the Pro96 through Win96, or just through the keypad?
In Win96, when I move the pointer over the extended frequencies check box, it says something about it having no bearing on the ability to enter the frequencies in Win96.

Thanks As Usual!!

[KCChiefs9690]

I have a PRO-93 and WIN93 lets me enter extended frequencies, but since I don't own a -96, so I can't really say about WIN 96. Hopefully someone else will be of better help than me.

[n4voxgill]

I have one bank with milair frequeancies that I entered with WIN96. If you are talking about cellphone fequencies, the scanner is blocked for them and WIN96 is not able to open them.

I just clicked on extended frequencies then went to a bank and started entering, then downloaded into scannrs.

[cdenton]

I'm trying to load wireless microphone frequencies from 175.400 to 196.800.
Win96 & the scanner won't take anything above 174.000.

[pocho]

I've got Extended Frequencies enabled and it won't take anything above 174 Mhz or below 216 Mhz.

[cdenton]

Well, at least it's not just me.
Kinda' makes me wonder why those weren't enabled by GRE in the first place.

[n4voxgill]

If you check the starrsoft website you will see the following:

Addendum: Some ranges still appear to be "blocked" by the scanner. Here are the ranges that seem to be "opened" with this feature:
17 - 25
54 - 108
225 - 406
512 - 550
764 - 806
960 - 1240

So WIN96 does not open any frequencies above the factory in VHF. It just adds those specific listed to the stock frequencies.

[cdenton]

Thank you, Sir!
I did poke around his site, but I somehow missed that. ops:

[Al42]

Originally Posted by cdenton

Kinda' makes me wonder why those weren't enabled by GRE in the first place.

Because, due to the design of the front end you wouldn't receive anything on certain ranges unless you were a few feet from the transmitter. And not even that on some other ranges. Just being able to set the scanner to a frequency doesn't mean that you can hear a signal on that frequency.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by cdenton

Well, at least it's not just me.
Kinda' makes me wonder why those weren't enabled by GRE in the first place.

Because they wanted specs for the entire range they cover that would make people want to buy it! The specs for many of the extended frequency ranges stink.

Also, their FCC Type Acceptance is only for the spec'ed ranges. Maybe they could meet the image rejection in the 700 MHz band or something.

Joe M.

[PhilJSmith67]

FYI, any wireless mics I've encountered that operated in the range for VHF-High TV channels (174-216) were wideband-FM. Even if the Pro-96 has any "hearing" at all in that range, the audio would be extremely distorted.

[cdenton]

I'm not entirely familiar with what that means ... does that mean 25 mHz of bandwidth for the signal versus 12.5?
I thought only newer radios Tx'd in narrow bandwidth.
Are there certain freq ranges for narrow vs wide :?:

Thanks

[PhilJSmith67]

In the context of scanner radios, what is considered "normal" FM bandwidth today used to be called Narrow-FM on older receivers, such as the Regency/AOR MX-7000 that I have from 1985.

Today's scanners that tout "Narrow-FM" or NFM are those that receive the narrow signals aligned on 6.25 kHz frequencies.

True "Wideband-FM" or WFM is typically FM Broadcast or TV Audio, where signals can cover 75 to 100 kHz. Since wireless mics are typically geared toward fidelity, they are typically WFM as well.

The reason TV stations or wireless mics sound distorted on a scanner is because the scanner is geared to pick up FM signals that are very narrow by comparison. Basically, the scanner's FM discriminator is "hearing" a signal far wider than it is capable of converting to audio. It's not far from the sound you would get if you pumped 100W of audio through a 10W speaker, except that in the scanner nothing will start on fire!

[cdenton]

So, I've got that going for me, which is nice.

[PhilJSmith67]

Originally Posted by cdenton

Are there certain freq ranges for narrow vs wide :?:

Thanks

As for the second part of your question... There are some ranges where 5 kHz spacing is maintained, and there are others where 6.25 kHz will be used. Throughout VHF-Low it's all 5 kHz. Throughout UHF it's mostly 6.25. On VHF-High it's a haphazard arrangement of segments of 5 kHz and 6.25 kHz spacing.

The FCC is pushing (or should I say "hoping") that over time, all conventional VHF and UHF systems will adopt Narrow-FM equipment over the next few years. With signals being "narrower" than in the past, the interference between stations 6.25 kHz apart will be reduced to the point where these steps are viable.

Since there is no mandate for the change in equipment, though, it is going to take somewhere between a long time and forever for that to happen.

[cdenton]

Kinda' sounds like my Pro96's lack of 174-216 doesn't leave me missing much if I couldn't stand to listen to it anyway.
Any scanners out there that will receive WFM (and reproduce the audio, of course)?

[PhilJSmith67]

I believe the AOR 8200's do. A couple of the Icom units do, too. I don't know which if any Uniden scanners do, but I could swear there was at least one that could do WFM across the FM broadcast band as well as 174-216. Perhaps someone else can chime in on new receivers capable of Wide-FM with coverage of 174-216...

My WFM-capable radio is a Regency/AOR MX-7000, with a whopping 20 channels of storage @ 7 channel-per-second scan. It almost doesn't even qualify as a "scanner" by today's standards, but as for reception sensitivity and selectivity, it is without a doubt my BEST receiver. 25-550 and 800-1300 MHz continuous, AM/NFM/WFM modes on any frequency, and 5/12.5/25 kHz selectable step.

This is going to sound funny, but another receiver that might do a great job of picking up VHF-High wireless mics can probably be had for $5 at most garage sales. Just get your hands on one of those older analog AM/FM/TV portable radios, which receive Wide-FM by default. No scanning capability, but the search speed can be excellent depending on how fast you can twist the tuning knob.

[nd5y]

Originally Posted by PhilJSmith67

The FCC is pushing (or should I say "hoping") that over time, all conventional VHF and UHF systems will adopt Narrow-FM equipment over the next few years. With signals being "narrower" than in the past, the interference between stations 6.25 kHz apart will be reduced to the point where these steps are viable.

Since there is no mandate for the change in equipment, though, it is going to take somewhere between a long time and forever for that to happen.

That is wrong. The FCC has mandated that narrow bandwidth will be
used in the future.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_publi...CC-03-34A1.pdf

[PhilJSmith67]

I stand corrected... I know that the deadline had been pushed back and overruled several times over the past decade, but I was unaware that 2013 and 2018 were officially locked-in for all non-PS and PS systems, respectively.

Thank you for the info and the link!

[SAR2401]

In addition to Phil's listing, Yaesu has several DC to daylight scanners and transceivers that will cover WFM TV signals in both the VHF and UHF bands. They can be nice to have on something like a camping trip so you can listen to TV sounds for things like the news but otherwise, it's basically a curiosity. I don't know of any scanner that capable of trunk tracking that will also do WFM TV bands also.