TRX-1 Possible New Conventional DMR Issue

Hello again,

This theory of mine can be confirmed or debunked by someone that has both a TRX-1 and BCD436HP, but it would be helpful to hear from anyone that just has the TRX-1 as well.

I am scanning the same set of multiple scanlists with both the TRX-1 and BCD436HP. While doing so the TRX-1 seems to never stop on conventional DMR signals. On the 436 I have heard numerous lengthy conventional DMR transmissions during close to 4 hours of side-by-side comparison with the two radios. The TRX-1 did not stop once.

To be clear, this is a conventional only issue, if it is in fact an issue. There was no problem with the other Con+ trunked systems I was scanning as compared to the 436.

To ensure that my programming did not get hosed somehow, I locked out everything except for my DMR Conventional scanlist. It immediately came to life and started hearing the same transmissions the 436 was stopping on.

Not sure what's up with this but to ensure it's not me, as stated above the two tests would be:

1. Run both side by side with the same scanlists (or as close as possible) running.
2. With the TRX-1 (or 2 I'd guess) alone try scanning multiple scanlists and see if the scanner ever stops on conventional DMR.

In the interest of fair testing, again I was using the same antennas (Radio Shack RS800) with the scanners at an equal height side by side on my porch.

scancapecod said:

I am scanning the same set of multiple scanlists with both the TRX-1 and BCD436HP. While doing so the TRX-1 seems to never stop on conventional DMR signals. On the 436 I have heard numerous lengthy conventional DMR transmissions during close to 4 hours of side-by-side comparison with the two radios. The TRX-1 did not stop once.

Click to expand...

I have both radios and for me is mostly the opposite. The TRX-1 stops and decodes more often than my BCD436HP. Many times the TRX is decoding loud and clear and on the BCD436 all I get is the undecoded raw digital stream.

I will continue testing and paying more attention per your description of the problem and report back.

For the BCD, do you have the Audio Option on Digital Only or All?

AggieCon said:

For the BCD, do you have the Audio Option on Digital Only or All?

Click to expand...

If this question is for me, I'm not sure what the relevance is, as the BCD436HP is not the scanner with the issue. Maybe I'm missing something?

No it was for Kikito. He was saying he was hearing the digital noise as analog audio.

AggieCon said:

No it was for Kikito. He was saying he was hearing the digital noise as analog audio.

Click to expand...

OK, thanks. I just want to make sure we don't go off topic in the thread as in if it is an issue and I'm not suffering from visual and/or auditory hallucination (which I suppose is not out of the question) it would be in fact a Whistler issue.

Now, that being said and my original post in the books, I went back to scanning multiple systems and just observed the TRX-1 stop on a conventional DMR transmission. The first one in hours. And the only one before I hit the "Submit Reply" button.

Knowing nothing regarding the "algorithms" of how either scanner works when scanning, maybe the timing is just bad? Who knows? I will say one thing; the 436 seems to be FAR faster than the Whistler and seems to receive a considerably more amount of traffic. I've mentioned that elsewhere but it certainly could be a factor.

I still think any side-by-sides should be done whenever possible with identical antennae, same conditions if possible, and as close to same scanlists as the different programming allows for. The conventional DMR I'm trying to listen to is primarily UHF based, and yes I realize that the RS 800 antennas are not cut for that band, but again both scanners are using them and the signal strength is enough to make it irrelevant anyway, or so I think. As a matter of fact I've read some recent threads that seem to gripe about the 436 being deaf at 450-460 MHz. I'd say no...without much doubt.

Some of it could be me and I'll be the first to admit it. It literally has been years since I've used any scanner other than a Uniden. I'd hope that the defaults in software would be so to provide the best scanning experience out of the chute, but I expect some GRE/Whistler veterans might have some suggestions to improve things, like cutting down dwell time on trunked systems, hypothetically? I tried that before and thought it might have helped, but of course that's only with regards to trunking. I expect otherwise as Eric has mentioned elsewhere that time spent on any one scanlist is dependent on the size of it. If that is the case the 436 is winning large. Good for Uniden, but I'd like to see the Whistler work as well as possible, for obvious reasons!

AggieCon said:

No it was for Kikito. He was saying he was hearing the digital noise as analog audio.

Click to expand...

Yes, I have the option set to Digital Only.

Is kind of a distant station too. So unfortunately I think part of it is because the Uniden is less sensitive in the UHF band in question. (Not trying/Don't want to start a war on that here and hijack this thread, there's plenty of other threads related to that already, sorry)

Anyway, I'm still testing per the OP (ScanCapeCod) and report anything else I come across.

To ScanCapeCod: I see you're latest response and want to add that sometimes I also switch positioning between the two scanners just in case a foot away makes a difference, and sometimes it does but still I get more fully decoded hits on the TRX so far. Still testing....

Interesting. I have about 18 DMR channels programmed as "conventional" in both the TRX-1 and 436HP. I actually find that TRX-1 stops on stuff the 436HP misses, then the 436HP stops on the same stuff that the TRX-1 misses, and often they hit together. I have not had the time to mess with LCN and try to figure truly figure out "conv," "Cap Plus," Con Plus," w or w/o RAS etc. Just have a mixture of all set to a "conventional" scan list. I usually have to "avoid" a couple of control/voice channels on 436HP because scanner hangs up on them, whereas the Whistler TRX-1 handles these fine and scans right by if no voice.
One of these days I'll get into the nuances of DMR and all its flavors, then be able to offer a more educated comparison between radios. Might even figure out how to program my Tytera MD-380 for some non-ham DMR scanning.

.

I've been doing side-by-side also and loading and trying each and every one of Uniden's 4 beta releases followed by their 4 "release candidates" (still waiting - 2 months later - for a fully functional Sentinel...)

For side by side, I've tested programming a local CON+, CAP+, and frequencies programmed as conventional (even tried some of that "one frequency" programming).

In my case, the Whistlers are hearing things and the 436 seems more or less "deaf" unless I do things like go outside my house, go to the 2nd floor, and/or attach an external antenna. Even then, it still doesn't stop on as much as my Whistlers.

When I try custom searches, the radio sometimes stopped on digital data signals that are clearly DMR but it won't routinely decode them.

There is no question my Whistlers are picking up far more than my 436.

Interesting mixed results. I'm going to dial back on this a bit myself after a test on my work antenna system this morning. The TRX-1 is again picking up conventional DMR traffic as I believe it should.

All of the conventional DMR I listen to here is between 451-465 MHz. Perhaps something in the way I had the radio sitting yesterday combined with the antenna I was using was rendering it deaf in that range, don't know, but it is far more well behaved today.

Each of these have their strengths and weaknesses, but this "anomaly" is apparently, for whatever reason, on me, so I'll conclude my comments on that part of it now. I still think the 436 hears more traffic overall when both scan the same scanlists. I guess it's a matter of environment and the frequency ranges any of us are scanning that yield such wide ranging results.

When you say side-by-side, how close are the radios physically?

It might be best to keep them a foot apart to not introduce any unknown variables.

MichaelBhere said:

When you say side-by-side, how close are the radios physically?

It might be best to keep them a foot apart to not introduce any unknown variables.

Click to expand...

They were about a foot apart. Maybe 6 feet above the ground, and within a screened in porch. There was also a laptop PC present. However, both radios were subject to the same conditions, and in that case the 436 was definitely outperforming the TRX-1.

But suffice to say it does not appear to be a TRX-1 "bug", I'm pleased to say. I'll be trying it again asap (but a few days at least) and I'll use antennas on each that are more conducive to UHF reception.

Otherwise my testing, to include now, has always used external tower mounted antennas fed through the same multicoupler.

Hello,

Results get subjective quickly on multiple channels even when the same scanlist is used. The scanners could be on different frequencies and order the search of frequencies differently. They may use different dwell times and respond to the non-voice data differently.

I have seen DMR systems where a voice terminator lasts over two seconds and voice headers around a second. One scanner could be in talkgroup delay during the voice terminator while the other scanner comes upon the terminator and continues scanning since the voice transmission is over. It would seem like the later scanner ignored two transmissions.

This is not like analog where you hear everything that opens the squelch. The scanner is doing more quietly in the background.

73 Eric

Understood of course; not as technically as you do, but I know you can only get "as close as you can get". That's what I was referring to in an earlier post in this thread. But, at some point these two need some type of side by side comparison as they are pretty much in direct competition with one another.

I find if I set the DMR channels to Digital and set the Slot and color,it works better and sounds better. I formerly had it as AUTO and ANY ANY I also notice after killing of my old router and replacing it with a new brand,I have better performance on this radio!