• 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

GRE 600 (Help Needed)

ChuckinSC

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
98
Location
Irmo, SC
I'm in South Carolina where the system I monitor is Palmetto 800. The system has changed and is now Project 25 Phase I APCO-25 Common Air Interface Exclusive. For whatever reason the scanner is no longer picking up many of the trunked conversations - missing a lot. How should it be set up in WIN 500? I've tried Trunking Tables at P25 800Mhz and Trunking Tables Default. That's not doing it... Are there other settings in WIN500 I should be looking at? Is the GRE 600 too old to handle this? Help Please.
 

krokus

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
3,777
Location
Southeastern Michigan
I'm in South Carolina where the system I monitor is Palmetto 800. The system has changed and is now Project 25 Phase I APCO-25 Common Air Interface Exclusive. For whatever reason the scanner is no longer picking up many of the trunked conversations - missing a lot. How should it be set up in WIN 500? I've tried Trunking Tables at P25 800Mhz and Trunking Tables Default. That's not doing it... Are there other settings in WIN500 I should be looking at? Is the GRE 600 too old to handle this? Help Please.
The 600 era models have issues with simulcast, and do not process phase 2 signals.

Assuming neither of those are the issue, did you have Win500 pull the information from the database on this site?

Sent using Tapatalk
 

ScannerSK

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
1,116
Location
Gilcrest, CO
Out of curiosity, what was the system prior to the change?

The RadioReference database (https://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?sid=5042) shows at least 12 of the control channels are simulcast. The PSR-500/600 scanners have more difficulty decoding simulcast control channels than Uniden scanners and will tend to lock onto a non-simulcast control channel if you have both types (simulcast and non-simulcast) in your control channel list. Uniden scanners tend to work better with simulcast control channels however the PSR scanners still function ok with simulcast control channels.

To receive more statewide activity, try programming in control channels that have more frequencies associated with them. To receive more local activity verify the nearest control channels are programmed into the scanner.

Possibly someone in your immediate area will respond with some helpful suggestions on how they have their scanner programmed.

Shawn
 

ChuckinSC

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
98
Location
Irmo, SC
To answer a few questions. The system was standard 800 trunking and then, at some point, was rebranded before becoming P25-1. Yes, I downloaded from the RadioReference database directly to WIN500. I have the Trunking Table set to P25 800 Mhz and Default since I’m only tracking a single site. I have a roof antenna designed for the 800 band and the signal strength is very good. Something is very wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ScannerSK

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
1,116
Location
Gilcrest, CO
The GRE PSR scanners don't typically do very well with roof top antennas as they are very prone to RF overload from nearby transmitters. Did you just start using the roof top antenna? Maybe a new transmitter began broadcasting in your area. Try running the scanner with a rubber duck or other handheld type antenna and also try turning on the attenuator on the system to see if that helps.
 

dcr_inc

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
549
Location
Delta, Pa
Your problem is LSM.. Linear Simulcast Modulation or C-QPSK modulation.. The PSR600 is made for standard FM or C4FM modulation, the original system was just that, C4FM for P25 Phase I.. The system has upgraded to P25 Phase I with the LSM transmitters, thus, Your scanner will have a very hard time decoding the C-QPSK modulation. In other words, It's time to upgrade your receiver to a Unication pager or a SDS100/200 scanner
 

ChuckinSC

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
98
Location
Irmo, SC
Your problem is LSM.. Linear Simulcast Modulation or C-QPSK modulation.. The PSR600 is made for standard FM or C4FM modulation, the original system was just that, C4FM for P25 Phase I.. The system has upgraded to P25 Phase I with the LSM transmitters, thus, Your scanner will have a very hard time decoding the C-QPSK modulation. In other words, It's time to upgrade your receiver to a Unication pager or a SDS100/200 scanner
That makes sense, but how do we know the system I'm monitoring is using LSM transmitters? Are all P25 Phase I LSM? If so, I guess my -600 is about to sit on the shelf with some of my other hardware. Just more $$ for this hobby.
 

ScannerSK

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
1,116
Location
Gilcrest, CO
That makes sense, but how do we know the system I'm monitoring is using LSM transmitters? Are all P25 Phase I LSM? If so, I guess my -600 is about to sit on the shelf with some of my other hardware. Just more $$ for this hobby.
In the RadioReference database, the control channels listed as "simulcast" are definitely LSM. The other control channels may or may not be LSM. On my PSR-500/600 scanners, if I manually monitor a control channel, the signal strength swings around rapidly on LSM control channels however is steady on non-LSM (non-simulcast) control channels.

I use an older Uniden handheld TrunkTracker IV on our simulcast system and it works fine. The SDS100 does not receive any better on my local simulcast system than does the older BCD436HP or TrunkTracker IV handheld models (with one exception and that was around high RF overload prone environments). So, an older less expensive Uniden scanner may work just fine for you. My PSR-600 works nearly perfect on our simulcast system using an 800 MHz designed whip antenna. I have a tall desktop computer on one side of the scanner which appears to block out signals from one direction so I get a great decode.

Shawn
 

mmisk

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2003
Messages
558
Location
Ottawa, Canada
I agree with dcr_icr.
Ottawa Ontario switched to a P-25 system that is CQPSK, [by Harris] my 600 only receives garbled voice comms.
It does work fine with Fleetnet and other C4FM P-25 Systems in the area.
 

ChuckinSC

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
98
Location
Irmo, SC
It's time to upgrade. I did some testing, first removing the outside antenna connection and going to my 800Mhz portable both with and without attenuation enabled. That made no difference. Then, I monitored a tower without simulcast and was able to receive trunking though there was some distortion (all digital). Next I tried monitored a site well within range that simulcasts. No trunking at all and a lot of distortion. Thanks for your help and it seems a SDS200 and then a SDS100 may be in my future. Yes, technology changes.
 

kruser

Retired
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
3,007
Location
St. Louis County, MO
It's time to upgrade. I did some testing, first removing the outside antenna connection and going to my 800Mhz portable both with and without attenuation enabled. That made no difference. Then, I monitored a tower without simulcast and was able to receive trunking though there was some distortion (all digital). Next I tried monitored a site well within range that simulcasts. No trunking at all and a lot of distortion. Thanks for your help and it seems a SDS200 and then a SDS100 may be in my future. Yes, technology changes.
If Richland County is what you are trying to monitor, it looks like most all LAW type talk is encrypted in that county. No scanner will hear that.
Several other categories or counties on the system have some encrypted talkgroups as well.
On the GRE PSR-600, encrypted talk will be heard on the scanner as digital noise. That model does not mute encrypted signals so you must program and then lockout the talkgroups listed as encrypted so you don't hear the digital noise of encryption.
Look at the system link that ScannerSK posted and under the Mode column, any Mode shown as DE is encrypted for that talkgroup.
 

ChuckinSC

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
98
Location
Irmo, SC
I'm aware of encryption and yes, more and more law enforcement here is going that way. First Lexington County Sheriff, recently Richland County Sheriff and now Columbia Police is in the transition. It's a shame but understandable considering the gang element and drug/human trafficking. But there's still a lot to monitor - and I trust they'll not be encrypted anytime soon. Fire, EMT, Highway Patrol, etc..
 

kruser

Retired
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
3,007
Location
St. Louis County, MO
Good deal, just making sure as encryption seems to cause confusion with many around here!

My entire county went E a couple years ago now. They started out using clear mode and then encrypted TAC channels for secure comms. Then after an office was ambushed and shot in one of the muni's in the county, they started programming all radios with strapped encryption enabled on all Law type talkgroups including college PD. Fire and other stuff is still mostly in the clear and hopefully will remain that way.
Our Highway Patrol is on a separate statewide system where encryption is rarely used except for some rare situations or with federal users that are allowed on the system.
It is what it is.
 
Top