ElroyJetson
Getting tired of all the stupidity.
If they're giving it free on new radios, they should give the LTE hardware option free to those of us who already have LTE enabled radios (via feature) but don't have the hardware. Fair's fair.
-
To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:
Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.
If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.
To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.
The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.
For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).
This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
Harris XL-200P Programming trouble
- Thread starter ChristianPeri26
- Start date
-
- Tags
- harris programming xl-200
BMDaug
I am licensed…
I don’t think the industry works that way in general, but since BeON is the only real reason to need LTE, I’d bet that if you were on a big contract and we’re upgrading cores to support BeON and signing on to a BeON system, they would probably throw that hardware retrofit in for a cent a SU or something.
I just can’t see an individual getting very far trying to get free LTE hw from l3h…
-B
ChristianPeri26
Member
I just was talking into a vhf local repeater line of site to some other Hams using my XL-200 with the stubby on it. I have a softer voice however they claim the audio coming into their end is a little quiet, is there some audio settings I should adjust? They were mentioning Gain adjusting.
Is this repeater narrow band?
BMDaug
I am licensed…
This is likely a ‘narrow’ vs. ‘wide’ issue. Ham repeaters are pretty much the only remaining wideband signals you will commonly encounter, as the FCC mandated that all new commercial users move to narrowband about 10 years ago.
I honestly with hams would just go narrow! It would make things easier all around and allow for easier coordination in congested areas. But hams love their bandwidth!
-B
ChristianPeri26
Member
Okay great thanks guys. I’m guessing it is a wideband repeater. I wonder what the wideband feature for this radio costs from Harris, anybody have an idea?
BMDaug
I am licensed…
Well, it’s supposed to be $0.01, but that’s not the issue… they have become increasingly strict about issuing wideband entitlements. You will need to justify the need for wideband and sometimes ‘I’m a ham’ isn’t good enough. I’m in SAR and we make use of ham repeaters in an pinch and I had to get my comms director to sign a document on official letterhead before they would process it! Kinda ridiculous, but it is what it is…
-B
Besides the low audio, depending on the repeater you may be choppy into the machine due to low deviation on the PL.
12dbsinad
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2010
- Messages
- 2,018
Probably a wide/narrow issue as others stated. To answer your question, there is mic gain settings in RPM2. I jacked mine up. The compressed audio and AGC will still make it sound good even if you get made at the wife and yell in the radio, so no worries there.
ElroyJetson
Getting tired of all the stupidity.
I am not bothering to pursue the wideband entitlement for 2M usage. It's way past time for the amateurs to get with the times and accept 2.5 KHz narrowbanding. It's actually better, with better signal penetration and resistance to interference than 5KHz wideband. Done properly there are no downsides to it for voice mode operation.
ChristianPeri26
Member
Yeah I’m guessing it’s a Wide vs Narrow issue because when I talk to another one of my radios using my Harris the audio sounds nice and loud on the other radio, so I don’t really feel like it’s a mic gain issue, who knows
BMDaug
I am licensed…
Ya, as far as I can tell, Harris radios are set up to automatically receive narrow or wide at any time on any channel, regardless of the channel bandwidth settings.
Put another way, the channel bandwidth setting in RPM seems to only affect TX and does not appear to alter RX in any way.
-B
Even if the the radio has WIDEBAND DISABLED, it will still do wideband on VHF ham, marine and weather frequencies. The only thing it won't do is UHF ham and GMRS.
No its not....NB is poorer S/N radio....and 99% of amateurs still run 5kHz deviation...no need for NB in ham use....DTMF and other signaling suffers at lower deviation when MI is LESS than 1......which NB is.....Sorry your facts are incorrect....
Correct, we experienced a range reduction when converting to NBFM.
ElroyJetson
Getting tired of all the stupidity.
Sorry, wrong. As bandwidth increases, so does channel noise.
This is why CW signals get through noisy conditions when any higher bandwidth signal (such as voice) may not.
DTMF? Frankly it's an anachronism at this point. Who bothers with the autopatch when everbody has a cell phone?
I have not heard the autopatch being used in my area in literally years.
Narrowbanding gives a better signal to noise ratio and increases power density per Hz of bandwidth.
If you're getting range reduction, something is very wrong.
This is why CW signals get through noisy conditions when any higher bandwidth signal (such as voice) may not.
DTMF? Frankly it's an anachronism at this point. Who bothers with the autopatch when everbody has a cell phone?
I have not heard the autopatch being used in my area in literally years.
Narrowbanding gives a better signal to noise ratio and increases power density per Hz of bandwidth.
If you're getting range reduction, something is very wrong.
You can put it in bold all you want and it does not change the fact that many systems lost range simply by reducing bandwidth. Comparing FM to CW is a strawman argument and has nothing to do with anything we are discussing. I agree about the autopatch, but DTMF is alive and well being used as a control mechanism to turn things on/off etc.
They get into the technical details on why an FM signal will lose range with lower deviation/bandwidth.
They get into the technical details on why an FM signal will lose range with lower deviation/bandwidth.
ElroyJetson
Getting tired of all the stupidity.
I will also point out that anybody who has more than a few minute's experience with any decent spectrum analyzer soon learns that the displayed noise floor REDUCES as the bandwidth is reduced, reducing ultimately to the lowest possible noise floor at zero span. This is exactly the same effect. A spectrum analyzer is, after all, essentially a specialized receiver with a visual means of presenting its output.
You might want to do some reading:
It is true that some factors such as modulation efficiency and demodulator design will play a role, but that doesn't change the raw fact that S/N ratio improves with reduced bandwidth signals.
You might want to do some reading:
Receiver Sensitivity and Equivalent Noise Bandwidth
High Frequency Electronics
www.highfrequencyelectronics.com
It is true that some factors such as modulation efficiency and demodulator design will play a role, but that doesn't change the raw fact that S/N ratio improves with reduced bandwidth signals.
You are not addressing anything specific to FM and are trying to base your argument simply on bandwidth/noise floor. Many engineers disagree with you and there is plenty of real world experience to back them up. I personally narrow banded many systems and observed a degradation in range as described in the PDF I linked. The only literal change was bandwidth in the majority of these systems. Non radio people had no idea what had changed, yet they complained of coverage issues.
You can strawman all you want and vaguely attempt to discredit those who do not share your viewpoint, but that does not mean you are in the right.
A search of your posts on recent technologies shows you are incorrect at times and argue with them as well.
I stand behind the math and what I have said relating to the narrow banding affects on a frequency modulated signal. Others can look at the data and make up their own mind.
Cya!
You can strawman all you want and vaguely attempt to discredit those who do not share your viewpoint, but that does not mean you are in the right.
A search of your posts on recent technologies shows you are incorrect at times and argue with them as well.
I stand behind the math and what I have said relating to the narrow banding affects on a frequency modulated signal. Others can look at the data and make up their own mind.
Cya!
ElroyJetson
Getting tired of all the stupidity.
I was involved in the narrowbanding and transition of some customers from analog to nxdn digital. In every case, whether it was due to narrowbanding or due to the digital changeover, their performance within their range increased and their usable talking range increased noticeably as well. But nobody took the time to figure out exactly which factor was most responsible for the increased performance.
I, too, stand behind the math and the theory of what I posted, and other electromagnetic theory as well. If range degrades when going to narrowband, it's not due to the narrowbanding ITSELF, which increases the in-band signal to noise ratio and power density. In that scenario it's fair to presume that the modulation format is less than optimal for the application. (Or the implementation of the modulation and demodulation schemes.) I can certainly accept that notion. If you say that narrowbanding often results in a FUNCTIONAL range degradation, with no other factors in play, I can't argue with that outcome. But the CAUSE of that outcome is the basis of my disagreement.
Narrowing the bandwidth from 5 to 2.5 KHz in and of itself will not make the S/N ratio within the channel worse, in fact it will make it better, effects on modulation/demodulation circuits notwithstanding.
Hams are hopelessly behind the times. The idea that they're still using DTMF signalling, for ANY purpose, is comically 20th century, and I'm just the kind of old school guy who got his start in the days where radios were rockbound (crystal controlled on a per frequency basis) that you might expect to be defending such archaic technology....yet I don't.
I knew I'd expect too much of those who have FCC amateur licenses like myself. Here I was, thinking 30 years ago that by 2020 there could be a natiowide amateur communications system that lets you work any state, any region, any repeater, at will, from the comfort of your own HT, just by selecting the appropriate talkgroup or dialing the appropriate code in your radio. But 30 years later they can't even decide which digital radio format is going to win in the above-30-MHz bands. (I favor P25.) Instead, we have very limited participation in Echolink and IRLP.
I, too, stand behind the math and the theory of what I posted, and other electromagnetic theory as well. If range degrades when going to narrowband, it's not due to the narrowbanding ITSELF, which increases the in-band signal to noise ratio and power density. In that scenario it's fair to presume that the modulation format is less than optimal for the application. (Or the implementation of the modulation and demodulation schemes.) I can certainly accept that notion. If you say that narrowbanding often results in a FUNCTIONAL range degradation, with no other factors in play, I can't argue with that outcome. But the CAUSE of that outcome is the basis of my disagreement.
Narrowing the bandwidth from 5 to 2.5 KHz in and of itself will not make the S/N ratio within the channel worse, in fact it will make it better, effects on modulation/demodulation circuits notwithstanding.
Hams are hopelessly behind the times. The idea that they're still using DTMF signalling, for ANY purpose, is comically 20th century, and I'm just the kind of old school guy who got his start in the days where radios were rockbound (crystal controlled on a per frequency basis) that you might expect to be defending such archaic technology....yet I don't.
I knew I'd expect too much of those who have FCC amateur licenses like myself. Here I was, thinking 30 years ago that by 2020 there could be a natiowide amateur communications system that lets you work any state, any region, any repeater, at will, from the comfort of your own HT, just by selecting the appropriate talkgroup or dialing the appropriate code in your radio. But 30 years later they can't even decide which digital radio format is going to win in the above-30-MHz bands. (I favor P25.) Instead, we have very limited participation in Echolink and IRLP.
