• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

DaneCom

bc780l

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
258
#22
Washington Co Interference

Have occasionally been receiving Washington County (SysID 29E on control channel 154.9650) traffic bleeding over onto DaneCom control channel 154.9725. Goes to show that channel separation becomes more and more important in crowded bands, especially during even mild band openings or morning tropo. Washington Co isn't that far from Dane Co, and this separation isn't adequate. Most folks in at least NE Dane Co can pick up Washington Co with handhelds.

While this is on a BCD996T, issues will remain for other scanners, especially if they're on good antenna systems. Perhaps some newer scanners will allow putting in a system id filter??
 
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
77
Location
Eagle, WI
#23
Washington county has 5 different control channels they can use according to the database. To cause the least amount of problems, I think 154.9875 would be the best one for them to use as a control channel.
154.965 too close to danecom 154.9725
155.250 too close to danecom 155.2425
155.535 too close to danecom 155.5275 and kenosha pd 155.5275
154.740 (stoughton pd) and too close to whitewater pd on 154.7475
 

cpd38

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
147
Location
Northern Dane CO WI
#24
Have occasionally been receiving Washington County (SysID 29E on control channel 154.9650) traffic bleeding over onto DaneCom control channel 154.9725. Goes to show that channel separation becomes more and more important in crowded bands, especially during even mild band openings or morning tropo. Washington Co isn't that far from Dane Co, and this separation isn't adequate. Most folks in at least NE Dane Co can pick up Washington Co with handhelds.

While this is on a BCD996T, issues will remain for other scanners, especially if they're on good antenna systems. Perhaps some newer scanners will allow putting in a system id filter??
Last night I was getting something full strength on Dane Comm. And yes, it did sound like Washington CO. I've heard this quite often in the past and I was just assuming that it was a patch for coverage testing.
 

bc780l

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
258
#25
Too close for comfort. If you see a talk group ID of 57xxx you'll know it's a Washington Co unit, 13xxx you'll know it's a Dane Co unit. I have not heard any significant testing on DaneCom.
 

SB-Wi

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
296
Location
Eastern Dane Co
#26
Have occasionally been receiving Washington County (SysID 29E on control channel 154.9650) traffic bleeding over onto DaneCom control channel 154.9725. Goes to show that channel separation becomes more and more important in crowded bands, especially during even mild band openings or morning tropo. Washington Co isn't that far from Dane Co, and this separation isn't adequate. Most folks in at least NE Dane Co can pick up Washington Co with handhelds.
I can pick it up on my 396XT with stock antenna in a vehicle or light building when there is tropo.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
73
Location
Washington Co. Wisconsin
#27
Wash Co/Dane Com

I think will be ok :) LOL Keeping the radios in narrowband mode and using NACs should keep the systems in operation with no real issues.(smiling at my P25 scanner radio expert brothers.. oh what would we do with out you :)) There are times I even I get frustrated that the radios dont act like the scanners and the scanners dont act like the radios. Then I remember oh ya.. the scanner only cost me $500 bucks and my Unity radio was $4000. Still, I understand the frustration. Esp. when it comes to Simulcast systems.

Will see what the future brings when Dane Com brings more channels online. We work closely with them already to assist them anyway we can, and look forward to coexsisting with the other Harris system to the West :)

-Keep scanning and keep streaming, the truth is out there somewhere-
 

SB-Wi

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
296
Location
Eastern Dane Co
#28
Analog Tac Testing

Has testing started on the analog tac channels? I'm receiving an open carrier on 154.070 (Fire D) from the I-94 tower and on 155.790 (Sheriff 6) from somewhere else. Also heard Sheriff 5 is out of service and there was cross talk from Fire B to EMS E.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
19
#30
As of tonight I have been hearing a "test 1 2 test 1 2" on TG 4946 and 4947 on the new Danecom...

73
Kevin
KF9AQ
 
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
58
#33
Good luck using a scanner with DaneCom unless you have omnidirectional antenna. DaneCom is using LSM so all the scanners will have trouble decoding. My PSR-800 is worthless unless I lay the receiver on its side and point it towards a DaneCom tower.

TG 4946 and 4947 are testing talk groups. I don't recognize 13898.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
19
#36
Now hearing what sounds like a simulcast from Madison PD Channel 1 to TG 13601 on DaneCom. Audio not the best ...
10/31/2013 7pm
Happy Halloween
 

SB-Wi

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
296
Location
Eastern Dane Co
#37
I've made some progress with my 396XT settings

P25 LP Filter: Off
P25 Adjust Mode: 14
P25 Adjust Level: 200

Very choppy audio but at least I'm decoding it as non-trunked. I'll need to find or build a directional antenna (yagi, moxon, etc) to follow the control channel and decode better.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
465
#38
I really hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's precious little you can do to improve reception on a simulcast P25 system - and I'm being generous when I say that. Either you're in a good spot or you aren't - and obviously your spot changes continuously if you're mobile.

Scanners don't have the separate I and Q branches needed to correctly decode LSM.

Yes, I've heard the stories of those people that "fixed" reception one way or the other, but I'll counter with "confirmation bias" - Google it if you need to.

Sorry - I'm a listener myself and I know the pain. But I also don't like to see people putting effort into solutions that just aren't going to pay off.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
647
#40
Just a thought, I don't monitor the system down there but with any simulcast system if your getting "clash" from more than one transmitter maybe you need to eliminate the other transmitter. I'd suggest maybe playing around with your antenna. If you are in a area where you can hear more than one transmitter....try reducing your antenna.

There are tons of variables here. Some spots may hear three or four transmitters, some only two etc. But I generalized it a bit here to make things easy.

In the analog world, you'd listen to sheriff transmitting from Verona. You needed an antenna that's able to hear that one repeater. With the new digital system, you have many transmitters making the need for a large antenna array not necessary. If you reduce your antenna, you may reduce the number of transmitters your hearing which should help eliminate clash.

This is just an idea to try and help some. Your mileage may vary.
 
Top