What are your thoughts on this? Seems like it has just about every common protocol.
Welcome to Yaesu.com
Welcome to Yaesu.com
Yaesu AR-DV10 with a receiver made by AOR
- Thread starter SurgePGH
- Start date
- Status
There are some serious issues with the AOR AR-DV10, read through the AOR threads:
https://forums.radioreference.com/forums/aor-receivers.83/
Not to be confused with the AR-DV1, which I have and really like!
I see this now. Wow! I am still trying to get used to the new forum format. I will have to look at the DV1.
Thanks
Dave
Thanks
Dave
The DV-10 has many bugs, as reported by many on this board. I just ordered a DV-1 as well and I am looking forward to trying it out. I have previously owned an AOR 8200MKIII, an AOR Mini, and an AOR8600MKII with the P25 board installed and a DV10 which is now gone. All had their quirks. The DV-10 will leave you frustrated for sure. I'm sure the DV-1 has some quirks as well.
The AR-DV1 has very few quirks in my experience, and none which I would describe as anything other than 'minor. If AOR would just give up this nonsense about it being a Communication Receiver and NOT a Scanner, with a few additions like a Close Call feature, and Trunking there would be little to rival it in the Mobile/Base Scanner market.
It is still a real puzzle to me how the DV-10, so obviously related to the AR-DV1 can be so disappointingly flawed. Very sad.
Despite AOR's opinion of me, and their subsequent personal punitive actions as punishment for me daring to help bring the AR-DV10's frequency stability issues into the Public domain, I am still an AOR fan, and continue to praise the Company when appropriate. The AR-DV1 is a great bit of kit.
It is still a real puzzle to me how the DV-10, so obviously related to the AR-DV1 can be so disappointingly flawed. Very sad.
Despite AOR's opinion of me, and their subsequent personal punitive actions as punishment for me daring to help bring the AR-DV10's frequency stability issues into the Public domain, I am still an AOR fan, and continue to praise the Company when appropriate. The AR-DV1 is a great bit of kit.
The thing that killed the DV-10 for me was simple CTCSS/DCS decoding of analog FM in memory mode. The DV-10 would not pass the audio when the proper code was entered in memory mode. VFO mode worked fine. This was on two different brand new units. Attempts were made with AOR and Yaesu to troubleshoot. No response from Yaesu. AOR gave me the old we were unable to duplicate your issue. Digital decode of Yaesu Fusion worked fine for me, which is the main reason I purchased the DV-10. VHF air was fantastic for me (others had different opinions). I would have kept the 10 but in the end, $800 for a receiver that couldn't handle basic CTCSS/DCS decoding that my $150 Wouxun KG-UV9D Plus handles with ease was the killer. Your right, it's a damn shame. On a brighter note, I just watched some videos of your software and it looks fantastic, As soon a I have my serial number for my DV-1 I'm going to buy it. Q reminds me of the old Scancat Gold the way it handles frequency lists.
Holy for cow that's expensive
I have yet to get my hands on the DV-10. After reading everything here I doubt I ever will. My DV-1 on the other hand is a solid perfomer. Found a great deal on a lightly used one & am glad I jumped on it
Just got my DV-1 yesterday. What a pleasure to see simple analog CTCSS/DCS decoding work properly. Much to learn on this beast but DV1 over DV10 any day of the week.
scannersnstuff
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,920
Maybe someone can enlighten me. I know this is a communication's receiver, and not really a true scanner. What is the point of being able to decode all those mode's, without trunktracking capability ? .
Yaesu Fusion, DStar, Alinco digital, Federal VHF UHF P25, NXDN, and TETRA to name a few. I have a trunk tracking digital scanner to monitor trunked and trunked digital systems only. The Whistler 1098 I have sucks on VHF analog as well while the DV-1 handles VHF analog very nicely including weak signals.
To many people the decision of AOR to 'dig there heels in' and stick to this 'Communication Receiver and not a Scanner' approach is mysterious and frankly illogical.
Why did AOR incorporate a Scanning function at all if so? A Radio can be a Communication Receiver AND a Scanner. If it has Scanning functions it is clearly a Scanner too.
For 'reasons' AOR decided that adding Trunk Tracking would place the Receiver in the 'Scanner Market'. The simple question is 'Why not'?
Well, here are my conclusions about that.
The AR-DV1 is a very fine piece of equipment in its own right, however when it first appeared there was a lot of criticism about its 'scanning speed'. AOR improved this to a degree quite quickly, in firmware, but nowhere near as fast as many Scanners from other Manufacturers.
In fact this is a hardware matter, relating to the DV1's design. It has a definite 'ceiling' when it comes to just how fast it can Scan, partly due to the many Modes on offer, and switching between them. There is no problem with that, all the extra Modes are a bonus.
So to avoid, or rather counter criticism about its operation as a Scanner, speed wise, AOR decided on its 'Not a Scanner / being a Communication Receiver' approach.
Sadly they interpreted / supported this by refusing to consider adding Trunking, and as this also was a cheaper solution they maintain that position.
To be fair, AOR are not alone in this type of short sighted approach, but probably for different reasons. ICOM for example have not incorporated DMR as a mode option in their latest excellent Receivers. The signs at present are that they will not do so, even as a paid 'add on'.
The only factor both AOR and ICOMS's decision have in common is a complete disregard for what their Customers would like to see incorporated, I am sure AOR could incorporate Trunking if they set their mind to it.
I am an 'AOR man', and no doubt will continue to be so, although like others no doubt, my confidence in them has been very shaken by the AR-DV10, and their abject refusal to correct or acknowledge its major flaws. A commercial decision of course, but one they will live to regret.
Why did AOR incorporate a Scanning function at all if so? A Radio can be a Communication Receiver AND a Scanner. If it has Scanning functions it is clearly a Scanner too.
For 'reasons' AOR decided that adding Trunk Tracking would place the Receiver in the 'Scanner Market'. The simple question is 'Why not'?
Well, here are my conclusions about that.
The AR-DV1 is a very fine piece of equipment in its own right, however when it first appeared there was a lot of criticism about its 'scanning speed'. AOR improved this to a degree quite quickly, in firmware, but nowhere near as fast as many Scanners from other Manufacturers.
In fact this is a hardware matter, relating to the DV1's design. It has a definite 'ceiling' when it comes to just how fast it can Scan, partly due to the many Modes on offer, and switching between them. There is no problem with that, all the extra Modes are a bonus.
So to avoid, or rather counter criticism about its operation as a Scanner, speed wise, AOR decided on its 'Not a Scanner / being a Communication Receiver' approach.
Sadly they interpreted / supported this by refusing to consider adding Trunking, and as this also was a cheaper solution they maintain that position.
To be fair, AOR are not alone in this type of short sighted approach, but probably for different reasons. ICOM for example have not incorporated DMR as a mode option in their latest excellent Receivers. The signs at present are that they will not do so, even as a paid 'add on'.
The only factor both AOR and ICOMS's decision have in common is a complete disregard for what their Customers would like to see incorporated, I am sure AOR could incorporate Trunking if they set their mind to it.
I am an 'AOR man', and no doubt will continue to be so, although like others no doubt, my confidence in them has been very shaken by the AR-DV10, and their abject refusal to correct or acknowledge its major flaws. A commercial decision of course, but one they will live to regret.
Not all digital communications are trunked. That being said if public safety monitoring is your goal then the AR-DV1 is not what you want or need. I have a BCT15X and a BCD996P2 to handle that. The AR-DV1 does scan and search, it also has a manual tuning knob and can be programmed and virtually controlled via PC software.
scannersnstuff
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,920
Not bashing, I just think at that price point,pay the royalties to add trunking, or ask a few more buck's, for an already overpriced receiver.
AOR partnered with Yaesu here in the U.S. to market and distribute the DV-10, which has turned into a disaster for both Yaesu and AOR. Can you imagine if AOR would have instead, partnered with Uniden to make a DV-1 type device incorporating Uniden's SDS200 technology to add trunking? They would sell like hot cakes. Won't happen though, AOR makes money from government contracts. Hobbyists are an afterthought. I still love AOR radios even with all their quirks.
It's expensive I agree but if you really look at all it's capabilities rather than comparing it to a scanner you'd understand, there's nothing like it at that price point. I certainly wouldn't complain if they added trunking, but I didn't buy it with that use intended nor did AOR attempt to lure that market.
IMONITOR is right about the DV1's capabilities, and the price point. It is a superb Communication Receiver. The 'ideal' would of course be a Radio that does everything, however having to compromise and own other Radios so that most 'wants' are achieved has always been the case.
ICOM 'came close with their IC-R8600, then dropped the ball by not including DMR (sigh). Nevertheless the price, and small footprint of the DV1 would still make it a strong competitor.
AORradiofan is also correct. I was told a couple of years ago by someone closely associated with AOR that the Company estimated non-Government sales at around 15%, and consequently had little interest in people from that Group. That most probably includes most of us here.
I pointed out that this seemed very short sighted. They may not care very much about gaining an extra 15%, but if they lost 15% of their profits that would be a different matter. That fell on deaf ears, and elicited no comment.
I too am an AOR man, and with the exception of the AR-DV10, have always been really pleased with their Radios.
I have little doubt that adding Trunking would take the desirability of the AR-DV1 up many notches, and improve sales, but probably only to the non-Government market. Since that market, or increased revenue from it is apparently considered a very low priority by AOR, it is VERY unlikely. However any Company attitude that sneers at improving their profit, from any legitimate source, does does not make sense to me.
That said, no Trunking on an AR-DV1 is most likely the least of AOR's worries at the moment. Far too busy trying to put the toothpaste back in the Tube re. the DV10, whilst imitating an Ostrich re. that Receivers problems.
prcguy
Member
The digital decode capabilities of the DV1 and the DV10 go way beyond the Icom R8600, but they are in two completely different leagues with the DV1 being a mediocre quality receiver at best where the R8600 is top notch. Talking with a few other DV1 owners, the HF performance is similar to an Yaesu VR-5000, which is probably the worst performing HF receiver I have ever used.
- Status
