Using a Unication G5 (got it from Nielsen Communications in Green Bay at a competitive price). Works well on DaneCom and WISCOM, not to mention conventional analog and P25. Very sensitive, no interference or intermod experienced. You just have to learn to live with a max of eight 16-channel scan zones, one zone at a time.
DaneCom
- Thread starter stevejacobson
- Start date
- Status
I'll chime in to wd9fli's request. I was very glad to see a post like this, because I haven't been able to connect with anyone directly in the city to see what their experience is. Like wd9, I'm suffering as well with both a Grecom PSR-600 and a Radio Shack Pro 106. Reception on the east side of Madison is terrible. I'll occasionally get a few words here and there, but that's about it. Have never heard the paging channel. The patch for the sherrif to WISCOM works great ... get that one all the time. But everything else is non-existent.
I thought it might have been the scanners or the software I was using to program, so I tried a few different combinations and tweaks, and nothing worked. I traveled to Sun Prairie last week, so I decided to throw my scanner in a bag and take it along to see what, if anything, I could get. To my surprise, the PSR-600 did great. I heard all kinds of traffic on DaneCom. I would assume that the handheld would have similar results. There were some discussions on here which said that most top-of-the-line scanners would have difficulty monitoring this system, but my experience found that, in a good location, the scanner can broadcast just fine. Location location location ... I'll take these scanners out to my office on the west side one of these days and see how they perform out there.
I must say that, with as much planning and headaches that this system had from its inception to the in-service date last week, I was very surprised that the reception in the Madison metropolitan area is so poor. Perhaps it was designed that way on purpose, but I would imagine that there are many people (first responders, others with a vested interest in monitoring that don't have an issued radio) who are now shut out from listening to the system. A Unication device is upwards of $900 + ... that's way beyond this enthusiast's budget.
If this wasn't an intended result, I would question whether or not there was enough effort put into the site studies where the towers would be located. One would think that a county-wide radio system should be able to be heard throughout the entire county. With the city of Madison switching to a similar system, I fear that we'll be locked out of everything unless we invest in much more expensive equipment.
I'm assuming that the system's radios themselves aren't having the issues that the scanners are. I'll admit outright that I'm a very basic scanner enthusiast ... I'm learning a little more each time thanks to the good folks on this site, but there's lots to learn! From a novice's perspective though, I'm a bit befuddled as to the poor reception in an area that one would think would have very good reception, as it's a major hub of the county-wide system.
I made a little graphic of the tower locations in Dane County. There are three towers close to the east side of Madison - in De Forest, Sun Prairie and Deerfield. Are these towers too close together, and that's what is causing the problem? Is one tower broadcasting at a higher power than another, causing issues when the scanner tries to lock on to a talkgroup? When my scanner picks up the talkgroup here in the city, the reception slashes indicate great reception (all the way up), but it only locks on for a second, or it stays for a few seconds to transmit some garble, and that's about it.
Does anyone think that any adjustments will be made in the system to improve reception? I can imagine that this is affecting quite a few people. If nothing changes, then I guess I'll be forced to listen online only, or I'll have to wait until the Unication radios come down in price.
It's disappointing to say the least.
I thought it might have been the scanners or the software I was using to program, so I tried a few different combinations and tweaks, and nothing worked. I traveled to Sun Prairie last week, so I decided to throw my scanner in a bag and take it along to see what, if anything, I could get. To my surprise, the PSR-600 did great. I heard all kinds of traffic on DaneCom. I would assume that the handheld would have similar results. There were some discussions on here which said that most top-of-the-line scanners would have difficulty monitoring this system, but my experience found that, in a good location, the scanner can broadcast just fine. Location location location ... I'll take these scanners out to my office on the west side one of these days and see how they perform out there.
I must say that, with as much planning and headaches that this system had from its inception to the in-service date last week, I was very surprised that the reception in the Madison metropolitan area is so poor. Perhaps it was designed that way on purpose, but I would imagine that there are many people (first responders, others with a vested interest in monitoring that don't have an issued radio) who are now shut out from listening to the system. A Unication device is upwards of $900 + ... that's way beyond this enthusiast's budget.
If this wasn't an intended result, I would question whether or not there was enough effort put into the site studies where the towers would be located. One would think that a county-wide radio system should be able to be heard throughout the entire county. With the city of Madison switching to a similar system, I fear that we'll be locked out of everything unless we invest in much more expensive equipment.
I'm assuming that the system's radios themselves aren't having the issues that the scanners are. I'll admit outright that I'm a very basic scanner enthusiast ... I'm learning a little more each time thanks to the good folks on this site, but there's lots to learn! From a novice's perspective though, I'm a bit befuddled as to the poor reception in an area that one would think would have very good reception, as it's a major hub of the county-wide system.
I made a little graphic of the tower locations in Dane County. There are three towers close to the east side of Madison - in De Forest, Sun Prairie and Deerfield. Are these towers too close together, and that's what is causing the problem? Is one tower broadcasting at a higher power than another, causing issues when the scanner tries to lock on to a talkgroup? When my scanner picks up the talkgroup here in the city, the reception slashes indicate great reception (all the way up), but it only locks on for a second, or it stays for a few seconds to transmit some garble, and that's about it.
Does anyone think that any adjustments will be made in the system to improve reception? I can imagine that this is affecting quite a few people. If nothing changes, then I guess I'll be forced to listen online only, or I'll have to wait until the Unication radios come down in price.
It's disappointing to say the least.
Attachments
I've said this before, and apparently it bears repeating:
What you hear with a scanner is not what users hear. Your scanner is not made to pick up simulcast CPQSK P25 transmissions, they only decode C4FM P25. Anyone who truly needs a radio will have one; these days many officers, firefighters and paramedics get personal portables issued to them.
If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the people who make the scanners. They've known full well that their receivers won't work well for CPQSK, but either they don't care, or some other issue is holding them back from producing a CPQSK set. I've stopped caring *why* many years ago.
Yes, you can get lucky with a location here and there, even with a receiver that isn't CPQSK - but it's mainly luck. Some people do get lucky with what they get, and proclaim a scanner as great, not understanding that if they went mobile or were even a couple of miles removed, they'd have hot garbage for audio.
There are more transmitters than what's in that diagram - if you Google just a bit you should find official documents with the transmitter sites in them. A huge - huge! - amount of work goes into tower selection. Done wrong, you get a terrible system. Done right and everything's golden. Tower location, surrounding geography, antenna gain pattern (both vertical and horizontal), transmitter power, distance to surrounding sites, antenna wind load, tower load, tower age, symbol delay time for ISI mitigation, cost... so many variables.
Are there adjustments being made? Hopefully, these were done already during the testing and burn-in phases, but areas that need improvement will likely be found, and I'd expect the county to be on Harris to make the appropriate adjustments.
Regarding the paging channel - it's conventional FM and has high power, I've heard it in Illinois, north of the Dells and in eastern Waukesha county - and it's used often. If you've heard nothing, check to make sure you haven't transposed a digit in the frequency or something like that.
What you hear with a scanner is not what users hear. Your scanner is not made to pick up simulcast CPQSK P25 transmissions, they only decode C4FM P25. Anyone who truly needs a radio will have one; these days many officers, firefighters and paramedics get personal portables issued to them.
If you want to be mad at someone, be mad at the people who make the scanners. They've known full well that their receivers won't work well for CPQSK, but either they don't care, or some other issue is holding them back from producing a CPQSK set. I've stopped caring *why* many years ago.
Yes, you can get lucky with a location here and there, even with a receiver that isn't CPQSK - but it's mainly luck. Some people do get lucky with what they get, and proclaim a scanner as great, not understanding that if they went mobile or were even a couple of miles removed, they'd have hot garbage for audio.
There are more transmitters than what's in that diagram - if you Google just a bit you should find official documents with the transmitter sites in them. A huge - huge! - amount of work goes into tower selection. Done wrong, you get a terrible system. Done right and everything's golden. Tower location, surrounding geography, antenna gain pattern (both vertical and horizontal), transmitter power, distance to surrounding sites, antenna wind load, tower load, tower age, symbol delay time for ISI mitigation, cost... so many variables.
Are there adjustments being made? Hopefully, these were done already during the testing and burn-in phases, but areas that need improvement will likely be found, and I'd expect the county to be on Harris to make the appropriate adjustments.
Regarding the paging channel - it's conventional FM and has high power, I've heard it in Illinois, north of the Dells and in eastern Waukesha county - and it's used often. If you've heard nothing, check to make sure you haven't transposed a digit in the frequency or something like that.
I have had some luck with the GRE600 scanner and no real luck with the BCD996XT. The BCD536HP does perform better on the system as well as the HP-1 with Firmware 3.4, the newest firmware does not do well with Simulcast.
However my go to radio is the G5, I use it on ARMER, WISCOM, DANECOM, the Green Bay System, and it works great. I got mine in Baraboo at Pointon, and I think they have a $200 rebate right now on them.
The G5 does not do some things a scanner will, like lock out a channel. I have been told that it may be added at some point. There is enough memory to make several scan lists and you can do priority scan on the trunking as well. The other down side is you can not scan multiple systems at once.
You can have up to 128 zones with 8 functions in each zone. Each function can be a Scan Function, Single Channel, or Two-Tone Page. You can scan up to 64 talk-groups that are preprogrammed into the system or you can turn on monitor mode and you will hear any talkgroup on the system, priority given to the programmed ones.
With a Bluetooth speaker or earpiece it works great.
However my go to radio is the G5, I use it on ARMER, WISCOM, DANECOM, the Green Bay System, and it works great. I got mine in Baraboo at Pointon, and I think they have a $200 rebate right now on them.
The G5 does not do some things a scanner will, like lock out a channel. I have been told that it may be added at some point. There is enough memory to make several scan lists and you can do priority scan on the trunking as well. The other down side is you can not scan multiple systems at once.
You can have up to 128 zones with 8 functions in each zone. Each function can be a Scan Function, Single Channel, or Two-Tone Page. You can scan up to 64 talk-groups that are preprogrammed into the system or you can turn on monitor mode and you will hear any talkgroup on the system, priority given to the programmed ones.
With a Bluetooth speaker or earpiece it works great.
Last edited:
Here is an idea to try, granted he is listening to a 800 System.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKxp3-2_y8g&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKxp3-2_y8g&feature=youtu.be
I think I'm going to have to try a Yagi antenna and see what that does. Today, I actually heard DAPAGE, so perhaps if I can point a Yagi to the north, maybe I'll have better luck. Perhaps I'll have to wait for the Unication device and see how it develops. It would be nice to have the best of both worlds with its technology and the ability to function as a scanner.
While I don't really advocate streaming of PS comms, there is someone streaming an acceptable quality stream of what I believe is the main sheriff channel on Danecom:
Dane County Sheriff Dispatch
Audio quality isn't great but streaming involves transcoding so that's likely where at least some of the quality gets lost. There are some missed transmissions.
This will at least let you know that the system audio is at least workable for the users, and a good idea of what you could hear with a CQPSK receiver.
Using a yagi - which is going to be physically huge at VHF - may or may not buy you anything. Yes, you could get lucky. But remember you are trying to use a FSK receiver on a CPQSK signal. Can you sometimes get a decent, listenable audio signal? Yes, you could get lucky. But you can also spend a lot of time and effort, and things can (and will) change from day to night and from day to day and even season to season.
I don't mean to come across as rude, but people talk about "towers interfering" and "simulcast distortion" when really the problem is using the wrong receiver for the job. There is no interference, no distortion with CPQSK. There are no yagis, and there are no P25 decode settings on CPQSK radios - it just works.
Dane County Sheriff Dispatch
Audio quality isn't great but streaming involves transcoding so that's likely where at least some of the quality gets lost. There are some missed transmissions.
This will at least let you know that the system audio is at least workable for the users, and a good idea of what you could hear with a CQPSK receiver.
Using a yagi - which is going to be physically huge at VHF - may or may not buy you anything. Yes, you could get lucky. But remember you are trying to use a FSK receiver on a CPQSK signal. Can you sometimes get a decent, listenable audio signal? Yes, you could get lucky. But you can also spend a lot of time and effort, and things can (and will) change from day to night and from day to day and even season to season.
I don't mean to come across as rude, but people talk about "towers interfering" and "simulcast distortion" when really the problem is using the wrong receiver for the job. There is no interference, no distortion with CPQSK. There are no yagis, and there are no P25 decode settings on CPQSK radios - it just works.
No offense taken, sixty-two. I appreciate your expertise and your sharing with us. When I started reading up on P25 distortion, there was a whole bunch to read, that's for sure! It's a problem everywhere, and now I understand a little more why it's happening, which is helpful. There have been some creative solutions to try and negate it a bit, but it's still an issue nonetheless and there's no sure fix. It's a mix of antenna, location and position. I'll try the yagi and see if I might be able to luck out. I'm close - I'm hearing broken words and can make some transmissions out, but still not enough to listen reliably. I'll report my findings and we'll see what happens ...
So will the scanner manufacturers try to deal with this issue and address it in future models? I would think that many would very much like this feature, since this seems to become the wave of the future. Is it even possible to address in a future model?
Maybe I'll go outside, hold on the to scanner and put some spoons in my ears and see what happens!
So will the scanner manufacturers try to deal with this issue and address it in future models? I would think that many would very much like this feature, since this seems to become the wave of the future. Is it even possible to address in a future model?
Maybe I'll go outside, hold on the to scanner and put some spoons in my ears and see what happens!
Last edited:
I am dyslexic, of course where I had CPQSK I meant CQPSK...
Uniden has known of this problem/opportunity for many many years now. They haven't released any CQPSK gear - that should tell you all you need to know.
Of course it's do-able. For some reason, they've gotten themselves into a situation where they can't or won't update their line. It doesn't even have to be expensive; the demodulation needed isn't complicated.
Uniden has known of this problem/opportunity for many many years now. They haven't released any CQPSK gear - that should tell you all you need to know.
Of course it's do-able. For some reason, they've gotten themselves into a situation where they can't or won't update their line. It doesn't even have to be expensive; the demodulation needed isn't complicated.
Greetings All...
While passing through Dane County this weekend, I did a little bit of monitoring of DaneCom. I also had the same trouble tracking the system with my BCD396xt.
I noticed that Stoughton PD is still on 154.7400. I also heard an unknown PD using 151.0550, which I believe was Middleton PD based on the one intersection I heard (Of course they abbreviated their unit number to just the last 2 digits on the few transmissions I heard).
So that leads me to ask the following..
01) Is there a final (Current?) listing of which municipalities decided to not use DaneCom (Besides City of Madison and Monona PD)?
02) Is Middleton PD indeed on 151.055 and if so...are they planning on using DaneCom in the future?
03) Are all of the municipal local governments using the system permanently at this time (i.e. DeForest LG, Fitchburg LG, Etc)?
Tim
While passing through Dane County this weekend, I did a little bit of monitoring of DaneCom. I also had the same trouble tracking the system with my BCD396xt.
I noticed that Stoughton PD is still on 154.7400. I also heard an unknown PD using 151.0550, which I believe was Middleton PD based on the one intersection I heard (Of course they abbreviated their unit number to just the last 2 digits on the few transmissions I heard).
So that leads me to ask the following..
01) Is there a final (Current?) listing of which municipalities decided to not use DaneCom (Besides City of Madison and Monona PD)?
02) Is Middleton PD indeed on 151.055 and if so...are they planning on using DaneCom in the future?
03) Are all of the municipal local governments using the system permanently at this time (i.e. DeForest LG, Fitchburg LG, Etc)?
Tim
Thanks for the post, Tim. I, too, have heard traffic on 151.055. It was originally used for the Dane County Highways Dept. but it must have been repurposed for something else. It's still listed on RR as belonging to the Highways Dept., so am not sure.
On the few nights that DaneCom has come in, I've heard traffic on the Middleton PD talkgroup on DaneCom, so I think they're using it.
My understanding is that when the cutover took place at the beginning of the month, everyone has now switched over, and the old legacy freqs have been abandoned. At least that's according to a note I read about DaneCom.
On the few nights that DaneCom has come in, I've heard traffic on the Middleton PD talkgroup on DaneCom, so I think they're using it.
My understanding is that when the cutover took place at the beginning of the month, everyone has now switched over, and the old legacy freqs have been abandoned. At least that's according to a note I read about DaneCom.
w9bsd
Member
Middleton PD has their analog channels permanently patched into their DaneCom talkgroups. I believe Sun Prairie PD and Fire, and Fitchburg PD and Fire are also maintaining patches for both. Stoughton was still deciding what to do last I knew. Monona Fire is still on their analog channel; I believe they are supposed to have a patch on Fitchburg's gateway, but I've never heard it.
Given the history of the rollout/rollback, I suspect some will be hedging their bets and keeping their own frequencies active until the system has show its true colors, whatever those might be.
Having said that, it's very common for small to mid-sized agencies to have informal chat channels that aren't tied into their overall trunking system - I see instances of this all over the country.
At 03:30:
"Want to meet up at 7-11 for coffee?"
"Yeah, sure, I can fill you in on that last call, gimme 5 minutes"
I see less of this in larger systems, but it can still be there.
Having said that, it's very common for small to mid-sized agencies to have informal chat channels that aren't tied into their overall trunking system - I see instances of this all over the country.
At 03:30:
"Want to meet up at 7-11 for coffee?"
"Yeah, sure, I can fill you in on that last call, gimme 5 minutes"
I see less of this in larger systems, but it can still be there.
My understanding is that when the cutover took place at the beginning of the month, everyone has now switched over, and the old legacy freqs have been abandoned. At least that's according to a note I read about DaneCom.
I think they were referring to just the county frequencies (ie.. Sheriff 1,3,5 & County Fire Channels A-G).
On the Middleton PD Broadcastify feed this morning they were looking for a lost 6yo boy. I heard a Dane County K9 unit talking to Middleton PD and it sounded like a digital to analog patch to me. Based on that, I believe that MI PD patching analog onto TRS. I didn't hear anything on the Sun Prairie or Fitchburg analog VHF channels for the 20-30 minutes of being able to monitor while passing thru Dane County. While resting on the CC in conventional mode, you can see Talkgroups flashing that are in use and I did see Fitch PD 13182 show up a number of times. Perhaps the above referenced patched channels are on a non-dispatch talkgroup?
Tim
From the monitoring that I have done, Middleton PD is on Analog VHF with a hard patch to the trunking system. Sun Prairie and Fitchburg PD have moved to DaneCom and there appears to be no patch in place at this time.
I have heard some DPWs making the move as well but I have no idea which ones are for sure coming over.
I have heard some DPWs making the move as well but I have no idea which ones are for sure coming over.
w9bsd
Member
Yeah, looking back at my logs I see Sun Prairie's PD patch was active on day 1, but hasn't been up since then. SP Fireground appears to be on TG 13094. Fitchburg should have their two analog tac channels patched, but I'm not sure where they are yet.
KC9UNK
Member
Danecom
I get Danecom with a full signal listening through Wiscom. I have not be able to program my XTL5000 with all of Danecom directly yet. Still awaiting some information needed for that.
I get Danecom with a full signal listening through Wiscom. I have not be able to program my XTL5000 with all of Danecom directly yet. Still awaiting some information needed for that.
KC9UNK
Member
XTL5000
Finally got it programmed last night. Get a full signal better then analog. I was getting full signal with no cut out all the way down in Beloit(Rock Co)
Finally got it programmed last night. Get a full signal better then analog. I was getting full signal with no cut out all the way down in Beloit(Rock Co)
- Status
Similar threads
