SDS100/SDS200: SDS100 Firmware 1.03.05M/1.01.05S Open Beta5

Status
Not open for further replies.

UPMan

In Memoriam
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,296
Location
Arlington, TX
http://info.uniden.com/twiki/pub/PartnerWeb/SDS100-Beta/SDS-100_V1_03_05M_V1_01_05S.zip

To apply this public beta, unzip the above file and put the two files in the scanner's firmware directory then reboot the scanner. Note that the sub-processor version did not change for this beta...it is included here for those who may not have applied the previous beta.

Release Notes:
1. Improved reception on trunked systems.
2. Improved reception for short communications on P25 trunked systems.
3. Fixed the issue of Unit ID Alert
4. Fixed several minor bugs
5. Added the feature of Site NAC Operation

Regarding Site NAC Operation:

You can select (use or ignore) Site NAC of P25 Trunked Systems (including P25 OFT) in RRDB and Favorites Lists. When we added NAC support, we did not anticipate that the NAC would be incorrect in RRDB for many sites. This has caused many reports that the scanner stopped working with the new firmware (it was actually working correctly and rejecting the site traffic with the "incorrect" NAC). So, we've added an option to ignore the programmed NAC.

MENU-->Settings-->Site NAC Operation

When you set to ignore, the scanner will pass all traffic, even if the programmed NAC does not match the received NAC. If the NAC does not match, the CTCSS/DCS/NAC field in the display will show "NAC:xxxh xxxh" (Display two NACs simultaneously.)

The first xxxh is the incorrect (dB setting) NAC, and the 2nd xxxh flashes the received NAC.

We hope that this will help to facilitate getting corrected information into RRDB.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS IN THIS THREAD.

If you have a question, use either an existing other topic or create a new one. Keep this thread reserved for actual performance reports and test results.

If you see an operational issue that you wish to report, use the following format:

1) Clearly describe the issue.
2) Link to the specific system exhibiting the issue.
3) Report the RSSI, NOISE, and D-Error values (if applicable).
4) Attach a log file taking while the issue occurs.

To make a log file:

a) Isolate your scan list to the bare minimum needed to demonstrate the issue.
b) Hold AVOID while powering on the scanner.
c) MENU --> SETTINGS --> SET Debug Log Mode --> SD Card (File)
d) Let the scanner scan long enough to catch the issue.
e) MENU --> SETTINGS --> SET Debug Log Mode --> Off

The resulting log is in the scanner's debug folder.

Note that it can also be helpful for you to post the HPE file of the Favorites List you used to create the log. Export the FL in Sentinel and add it to your report.
 
Last edited:

KF9L

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
28
Location
Odin, IL
There is a issue with the analog reception in this release. Here is the description if someone can confirm it. In the previous firmware when i received a analog transmission and the received transmission ended it dropped/ended quietly as it should operate.(I hope i explained that ok) In this firmware release on the same frequencies on analog when they ended there was like a noisy stutter at the end and then it dropped. I thought it was just that department until it did it on several departments. I downgraded back and everything is perfect and back to normal. So something on the analog reception is messed up. It went away and dont have that issue when i went back to the previous beta firmware. Other than that everything else seems to work fine but its a definite no go no matter what with the analog issue. I dont want to listen to that noisy stutter issue after every transmission.
 

Attachments

  • log0027251.txt
    2.6 KB · Views: 28
Last edited:

budevans

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
2,175
Location
Cleveland, Ohio
Parma P25 test 1.03.05M/1.01.05S Open Beta 5

Parma P25 Simulcast Phase I, Cuyahoga County, OHIO. A Harris System.
Previous post with Firmware 1.03.03M/1.01.05S Open Beta dated 7/9/2018
#122 (permalink) https://forums.radioreference.com/u...-03-03m-1-01-05s-open-beta-7.html#post2963904

No improvement. Misses a large majority of the traffic.
RSSI: -45db to -55db
Noise: Majority low triple digit (100-500), small percentage four & five digit.
 

Attachments

  • Parma P25.zip
    1.3 KB · Views: 8
  • log0046270.zip
    10.3 KB · Views: 6

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
13,416
Location
VA
D-ERROR still always shows an even multiple of 5 (0, 5, 10, 15, 20, etc.) when the scanner is dwelling on a control channel (P25 and DMR). Also, the D-ERROR value on the control channel seems to be about 5x what it is on a voice channel (e.g. if the voice channel D-ERROR averages 5, the control channel D-ERROR will average 25).
 

kikito

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,601
Location
North Pole, Alaska
There is a issue with the analog reception in this release. Here is the description if someone can confirm it. In the previous firmware when i received a analog transmission and the received transmission ended it dropped/ended quietly as it should operate.(I hope i explained that ok) In this firmware release on the same frequencies on analog when they ended there was like a noisy stutter at the end and then it dropped. I thought it was just that department until it did it on several departments. I downgraded back and everything is perfect and back to normal. So something on the analog reception is messed up. It went away and dont have that issue when i went back to the previous beta firmware. Other than that everything else seems to work fine but its a definite no go no matter what with the analog issue. I dont want to listen to that noisy stutter issue after every transmission.

I can confirm I’m seeing the same anomalies with analog conventional frequencies programmed with a CTCSS/DCS tone.
 

KF9L

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
28
Location
Odin, IL
I can confirm I’m seeing the same anomalies with analog conventional frequencies programmed with a CTCSS/DCS tone.

I hope they can find a quick fix to this issue because i like having the additional feature and fixes in this beta release but am not using it till the analog issue is resolved because that is really a huge problem and annoying to hear that at end of the transmission. Upman please check into this issue. You are all doing a great job
 

Badboy536

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2015
Messages
156
There is a issue with the analog reception in this release. Here is the description if someone can confirm it. In the previous firmware when i received a analog transmission and the received transmission ended it dropped/ended quietly as it should operate.(I hope i explained that ok) In this firmware release on the same frequencies on analog when they ended there was like a noisy stutter at the end and then it dropped. I thought it was just that department until it did it on several departments. I downgraded back and everything is perfect and back to normal. So something on the analog reception is messed up. It went away and dont have that issue when i went back to the previous beta firmware. Other than that everything else seems to work fine but its a definite no go no matter what with the analog issue. I dont want to listen to that noisy stutter issue after every transmission.

Yes i am getting the same stutter at the end of most analog transmissions.
 

N9PBD

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
535
Location
Southern Illinois (Metro St. Louis)
D-ERROR still always shows an even multiple of 5 (0, 5, 10, 15, 20, etc.) when the scanner is dwelling on a control channel (P25 and DMR). Also, the D-ERROR value on the control channel seems to be about 5x what it is on a voice channel (e.g. if the voice channel D-ERROR averages 5, the control channel D-ERROR will average 25).

I'm not seeing this Jon. I'm monitoring the Illinois STARCOM21 (https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=2324), St. Clair County Simulcast site 059, RSSI -45 to -50dBm. Noise: four digits, D-ERROR is 0 for control channel and voice channels.
 

budevans

Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
2,175
Location
Cleveland, Ohio

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
13,416
Location
VA
D-ERROR is 0 for control channel and voice channels.

0 times 5 = 0, so you aren't going to see what I'm talking about unless you attenuate the signal until the D-ERROR is a non-zero value on a voice channel. Try a paper clip antenna or something to get RSSI into the -80 to -90dBm range.
 

N9PBD

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 24, 2003
Messages
535
Location
Southern Illinois (Metro St. Louis)
0 times 5 = 0, so you aren't going to see what I'm talking about unless you attenuate the signal until the D-ERROR is a non-zero value on a voice channel. Try a paper clip antenna or something to get RSSI into the -80 to -90dBm range.

OK, you left that part out of your original post. I pulled my antenna, and put the scanner in an RF noisy spot, and drove the control channel RSSI down to -98 to -103 dBM, and got D-ERROR numbers of 0 for control channel all the time, and 0, 2, 5, 11, 13, 16 for some of the voice channels. I guess I'm too close (1 km) from the transmitter site to get errors on the control channel.
 
Last edited:

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
13,416
Location
VA
At my location, D-ERROR on a voice channel is typically between 0 and 5. Not enough to garble the audio noticeably, but enough to notice the scale difference between voice channels and control channels.
 

UPMan

In Memoriam
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,296
Location
Arlington, TX
D-ERROR for control channel is not calculated the same way as D-ERROR for voice, so it is normal for the values between the two to differ.
 

nessnet

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
1,732
Location
Eastside of Lake WA
Issue #1: Unit ID.
Using a 436 as a 'control' (basis for comparison), now, on this new beta, every time a Unit ID name shows/alerts on the 436, it shows/alerts on the 100. For at least me anyway, the issue is fixed. I'll keep watching this, but I am not seeing the delay/missing issue some of you reported above.

Issue #2: Squelch tail
I mostly monitor a Moto Type II smartzone system, which is analog. I am not hearing the annoying squelch tail some of you are reporting.
http://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=604

I have no idea why I am not seeing the issues y'all are having. If it is germane: Delay/holds are all 0.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top