Would a higher gain antenna improve Phase 2 on BCD436?

On my BCD436, I notice that withTrunked systems, my radio performs just fine with phase 1 transmissions, however Phase 2 transmissions sound terrible and often break up or cannot even be heard. I notice the signal strength bars show "full bars", yet these phase 2 transmissions still break up. Is it worth buying a higher gain 800 MHz antenna even though my signal bars are already indicating full signal strength? Will it still make a difference or is the radio itself just really crappy for phase 2 reception?

N2ZGE said:

On my BCD436, I notice that withTrunked systems, my radio performs just fine with phase 1 transmissions, however Phase 2 transmissions sound terrible and often break up or cannot even be heard. I notice the signal strength bars show "full bars", yet these phase 2 transmissions still break up. Is it worth buying a higher gain 800 MHz antenna even though my signal bars are already indicating full signal strength? Will it still make a difference or is the radio itself just really crappy for phase 2 reception?

Click to expand...

On my 436, I find that Phase II to be a bit more "hit or miss" than Phase I. Rather than buying a different antenna, and since there are some many Phase II systems within 15 - 25 miles of my location, I simply drove into those areas and found that the Phase II reception, while greatly improved, was still not as consistent as Phase I.

Your location is actually pretty much within the Phase II primary operating area of the NJICS systems, where a lot of Phase II actually takes place, so I would imagine that adding a higher gain antenna would no improve reception that much--- you're probably pretty close to some of the towers being used by NJICS.

Why don't you take a listen on YOUTUBE to some of the other folks demonstrating Phase II reception on the 436 with various systems to get some idea of how their Phase II reception is?

While I'm pretty happy with my Phase II reception on the 436, it could probably stand a little more "tweaking" in a future firmware upgrade.

P.S. As per your tag line, that "Analog will always be the most reliable form of public safety communication" --- I fully agree --- anyone who is familiar with the FDNY's attempts to go digital on their handi-talkies some 15 or so years ago knows what a disaster that was for them--- it did not take them long to go back to analog operation.

Just a note for consideration.

The signal strength is one component and the signal quality is another.

I have some antennas that give me higher signal strength (more bars) but provide a lower quality received signal.

I tend to like the higher quality signal over the stronger one, when there is a difference. The received signal is more understandable even with less strength.

I use the analyze function on the extreme upgrade for HP1/HP2 radios and find that the signal quality is a much better barometer of satisfactory reception.

The antenna is one component of this quality and strength, and the radio placement is also. For 700-800 mz systems I find you can move the radio a couple inches and greatly change the signal received. So antenna is important and so is the radio placement.

Mark
WS1095/536/436/996P2/HP1e/HP2e/996XT/325P2/396XT/PRO668/PSR800/PRO652

I agree with Mark. With my set-up (HP-2, Laird ABSCANC with a MBC 800 base kit), I can recieve a system with just one bar that is clearer then another system I may show 2 or 3 bars. So in my book high quality signal reception is king at the end of day over signal strength.

However, it is hard to not get hung up on signal strength......you would think more bars would equal better reception, but I can say from experience that is not always the case.

Keep in mind a "gain" antenna can be a double edged sword. While it can enhance signal strength, it will also enhance the crud you don't want from interference and multi path.
BG..

I think I'll give it a try, if I have any money left over from my next paycheck. I guess worst case scenario - it doesn't make a difference and I can just re-sell on ebay or buy one offering a return policy.

... welcome to LSM issues... we have done a lot of documented research and have found that an antenna of lesser abilities will work better as the radio (any brand scanner) can not handle the simultaneous signals from different towers... mobile applications as you move around in between the the towers works better with a stubbie type antenna or an antenna of lesser abilities... in a fixed situation if you are close to one tower then you shouldn't have a problem with the back of set antenna but a roof top will not work well as you will get more than one tower... if you're far from a system then a beam type antenna pointed towards the closest tower might work... the bottom line is that every system is different and is calibrated differently... some poorly but the pro Mot radios can handle it... it affects all brands and models of scanners and until the scanner companies address the problem we're stuck with it unless you get pro equipment...

In regard to a Phase 2 Simulcast system, I agree with trentbob. In my limited experience, I have more problems with my local dispatcher while showing 5 bars than other transmissions.

I watch the error rate and as long as it stays at or below 45 I can hear the transmissions fine. When it jumps up around 65-75 error rate, they become unintelligible. I have the impression the problem lies with competing signals causing confusing with the decoding. I have read more expensive systems might use some type of GPS timing signals to differentiate the transmissions. I believe a scanner only depends on signal strength.

In my situation, which means relation to repeater towers, I feel raising the squelch setting helps.

That being said, I have ordered two new antennas which will arrive tomorrow and I will be testing those.

More gain .. typically bad.

I am having issues where .. some scanners (my Whistler 1095 in particular) just cannot handle the RF environment it is in.

I likely will add some 'carefully regulated' attenuation after today, and not from the scanner .. to all signals, cause the front end just cannot handle it. Even my HP1E is not that happy .. and I will have to add some attenuation to rid it of all the intermod.

From what I have seen here at RR .. people always want to add a 'bigger antenna' without understanding the cause of the problem at all. The result is often .. worse performance cause scanners are no where near as good as commercial gear .. and even most ham gear when it comes to performance.

The only resolution .. better front end designs, but I don't know if we will see it .. as the cost of such units would be excessive and no one would buy them. Just does not make financial sense for the manufacturers ..

We will likely see more front end and LSM issues in the years to come .. not less. But what do I know ..

I agree with Mark as well.

Whether a higher gain antenna will work better depends on the cause of the degradation.

If it's purely a weak signal issue, gain will usually help (hilly terrain aside).

If it's a result of adjacent channel interference, gain will likely worsen it.

If it's a result of co-channel interference (LSM), gain will likely worsen it unless the gain is accompanies by a loss with respect to other sites (such as using a yagi to null interfering sites out).

If it's a result of multipath distortion, gain will likely worsen it.

So, in most cases, especially the way modern systems are designed, less antenna will often work better.

N2ZGE said:

I think I'll give it a try, if I have any money left over from my next paycheck. I guess worst case scenario - it doesn't make a difference and I can just re-sell on ebay or buy one offering a return policy.

Click to expand...

I received my 5dB gain antenna and it seems to have cleared up the distortions I was having on the Trunked system on my BCD536HP. Error rate dropped to just above 0 where before it was 35-75.

The 436 has always seemed to pick up transmissions better than the 536 but moving or pointing the radio a different way can make a large difference on the signal strength. As you say, it won't hurt to try.

My comments are based on my particular situation, those with different circumstances may have different results.

One other thing to think about, is the wattage output of the PhaseII transmitter the same as the PhaseI transmitter.