SDS100/SDS200: Firmware Release 1.07.00-1.07.04 Main / 1.02.00 Sub

[Peerlessk]

I updated to the latest firmware this morning. So far no problems. I have noticed the radio seems to be running warmer than usual. Anyone else notice this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not getting extra heat here . Nothing noticeable anyways

 

[paparazzo]

I have an Issue listen into a RAS enabled DMR single Frequency Repeater. No audio is heard, with DSD+ and Airspy audio is fine.
FW is 1.07.00 and SUB is 1.02.00
I don't know if it may have okay with a previous FW Version.

Please see attached my DEBUG Log including a conversation.

 

[u2brent]

I'm sorry. This seems like a step in the wrong direction..

 

[NM1D]

I'm sorry. This seems like a step in the wrong direction..
View attachment 68081

With the new firmware, I Haven't tried recordings yet, but I'll agree, the user display of the date stamp should be at least readable by a human.

If the underlying file or folder names look like this on the SD card, it would be a bit less friendly, but the radio firmware should translate the time/date into something we can humans can read please! I wonder why the easier to read format was causing such a drain on the CPU to slow down the keys (if I remember the release notes properly).

 

[phask]

This will convert the recording file folder names

http://info.uniden.com/twiki/pub/PartnerWeb/SDS200_Beta/Audio_Folder_Rename_V1_00_00.zip

You should make a back up of your card, just in case, before running the above.

 

[NM1D]

I'd like to first give another vote of thanks for this improvement, and also an extra thank you for listening to the users and giving us back the ability to select no filtering.

With that being said, I do have some questions about the new filter settings.

I don't see much documentation on the filtering, so I'm going to try to make some assumptions, and I'm sure I'm wrong!

The settings are loosely documented as a RF HPF, or High Pass Filter, with settings as Normal (HPF), Inverted (which I assume translates into a RF LPF (Low Pass Filter), Auto (which tries both a HPF or LPF until a signal is heard), and OFF, which is no filtering. This to me seems to make sense.

It sure would help to have a clear understanding to specifically what the terms "Normal" and "Inverted" and what they change. I know they are loosely defined as a RF High Pass Filter and an Inverted HPF. But high pass of specifically what HPF of all frequencies above the desired RX frequency? Or HPF of frequencies above a desired RX frequency but in an 8 MHz window?

With the above understanding, I assume what "Normal" would place a HPF starting close to, or just about the desired listening frequency. I believe it's been stated that the internal single 'chip' receiver has a default bandwidth of 8 MHz? So the reason for the Normal/Inverted selection is to help mitigate potential interference, depending if said interference is above or below the desired receiving frequency.

In my case I have a very nearby strong pager transmitter on 152.600 MHz. There could be others also, but this one is almost constantly transmitting.

Using the local WX frequencies to test as it's a fairly constant signal, I tested with the filtering set to Normal, Inverted and OFF.

162.450 MHz with Filter OFF signal is -98dBm, Filter Normal is -60dBm, Filter Inverted is -60 dBm
162.400 MHz with Filter OFF signal is -103dBm, Filter Normal is -99dBM, Filter Inverted is -99 dBm

So for this particular combination I didn't see a large difference between Normal or Inverted, but performance is definitely better than OFF. Perhaps these frequencies are far enough away from the 152.600 MHz pager transmitter so that Normal and Inverted give about the same results?

Is my assumption on how this works wrong? Because if I was trying to listen to any particular frequency, I would think that I may need to have my filter set to Normal or Inverted, depending on if my desired RX frequency was above or below any potential interfering strong signal(s).

With this in mind, I would expect in Sentinel to be able to set the filter choice per 'channel' or 'site frequency.

I can't find how to do this on a per Channel/Site (frequency) in Sentinel. I see the filter option on "Options" per department (group of frequencies) which affect all channels listed, but not for each Channel (frequency). Am I missing something?

Hopefully I don't have some of the Sentinel terms wrong, but the net result is the same, how can I set the filter per frequency or was it not intended to work this way?

Thanks for any help!

 

[UPMan]

When making comparisons, NOISE and D-ERROR are much more important than RSSI.

 

[NM1D]

When making comparisons, NOISE and D-ERROR are much more important than RSSI.

Thanks, but the WX scan mode only lists RSSI
WX Scan was the easiest way to get to a constant signal for my quick tests.

Can we get a more detailed description of how the filtering works and do we want to be able to set it on a per frequency basis in Sentinel, or was I just using Sentinel wrong (I'm still learning how to use Sentinel)?

 

[UPMan]

Specific methods are proprietary. In general, your description was accurate enough.

You can change the WX mode screen to show NOISE as one of the fields.

 

[NM1D]

With the new firmware, I Haven't tried recordings yet, but I'll agree, the user display of the date stamp should be at least readable by a human.

If the underlying file or folder names look like this on the SD card, it would be a bit less friendly, but the radio firmware should translate the time/date into something we can humans can read please! I wonder why the easier to read format was causing such a drain on the CPU to slow down the keys (if I remember the release notes properly).

Oh sorry, I tried a recording with the new firmware, and the session names on the scanner looked readable, not like the hex only numbers shown in post.

Sorry to have commented without trying it myself first.

 

[NM1D]

Specific methods are proprietary. In general, your description was accurate enough.

You can change the WX mode screen to show NOISE as one of the fields.

Thanks for the quick answer and thanks for confirming that I'm on the right track.

 

[UPMan]

4D786CA‐>2018‐11‐24_13‐37‐24
convert function sample source (C)

void convert_dir_name(char *buff, const char *source_name)
{
unsigned long year,month,day;
unsigned long hour,minute,second;
unsigned long fat_time = strtol(source_name, NULL, 10);

year = ((fat_time>>25) & 0x7f) + 1980;
month = (fat_time>>21) & 0xf;
day = (fat_time>>16) & 0x1f;
hour = (fat_time>>11) & 0x1f;
minute = (fat_time>>5) & 0x3f;
second = (fat_time<<1) & 0x3f;

sprintf(buff,"%04d-%02d-%02d_%02d-%02d-%02d",
year, month, day,
hour, minute, second );
}

The long folder names exponentially increased the processing time, resulting in keylag issues that have been reported by many users. Note that the folders still sort in date/time order, and you can use the time stamp of the folder (when you view the directory) to get the same information in a date/time format.

 

[sibbley]

I can't find how to do this on a per Channel/Site (frequency) in Sentinel. I see the filter option on "Options" per department (group of frequencies) which affect all channels listed, but not for each Channel (frequency). Am I missing something?

You can't set the filter on a per frequency basis. It's only available on a per Department/Site basis.

 

[NM1D]

You can't set the filter on a per frequency basis. It's only available on a per Department/Site basis.

This is what I'm finding, but by the way it works, we should have the ability to do it per frequency/channel basis.

Some of my site/departments have quite a mix of frequencies in them, and who's to say if an interfering signal could be above or below any specific channel?

Thanks for the confirmation that it's not that I can't find how to do it, but that we can't set the filter per frequency. I hope this can be added in the future, unless there's a good technical reason why we can't do it.

 

[sibbley]

I wonder though if setting on a per frequency basis would slow scanning down like using auto does. I imagine constantly switching between normal/inverted could slow scanning?

 

[mancow]

I'm finding that OFF is best for regular phase 1 systems and NORMAL is best for simulcast.

 

[K9JLR]

A big selling point was travelling with the whole database loaded and GPS updating your location/systems along the way. All these filter settings might help on local systems after some trial and error, but that does not seem feasible while travelling through unknown territory. I guess just pick a setting while travelling and hope for the best.

Travelling with previous scanners just meant figuring out the freqs and systems, not how to make the radio perform best on each system.

My experience from FRI-SUN when traveling through parts of west central IL, east central IA, and northwest IL was to leave the filter set to off when traveling, as that had the overall best results on the largest variety of systems. However, if you're in an area where you are primarily monitoring a few simulcast sites, you will probably find that the "normal" setting works best, but of course your mileage may always vary.

 

[werinshades]

[QUOTE="K9JLR, post: 3064286, member: 70954However, if you're in an area where you are primarily monitoring a few simulcast sites, you will probably find that the "normal" setting works best, but of course your mileage may always vary.[/QUOTE]

So far any local simulcast sites I'm monitoring, Off is working best. As I scroll through here and read the many users trying different settings, I've come to the conclusion "your results may vary". Experiment as to what works best.

 

[K9JLR]

[QUOTE="K9JLR, post: 3064286, member: 70954However, if you're in an area where you are primarily monitoring a few simulcast sites, you will probably find that the "normal" setting works best, but of course your mileage may always vary.

So far any local simulcast sites I'm monitoring, Off is working best. As I scroll through here and read the many users trying different settings, I've come to the conclusion "your results may vary". Experiment as to what works best.[/QUOTE]

On regular STARCOM sites that has been the case for me. On the RACOM EDACS system, however, I found that the normal setting was doing a better job in the Quad Cities area.

 

[WX4JCW]

I think we are forgetting that these filters are for high noise/intermod areas if you are in the boonies it may not be an issue


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro