HomePatrol-1 v2.04.01 Released

[Brian51]

I am also having serious P25 reception problems with the new 2.04.01 firmware
in my HomePatrol. The P25 decoding was much better with the 2.03.01
firmware. I'd like to revert back to the previous version, but I do not have the file.

I would be very grateful if someone could email me the 2.03.01 firmware file.

kca574@verizon.net

Thanks in advance.

[wmlovell]

Thanks to the folks that helped me get my HP back to v2.03. I can now receive again.

I have made it available to download for anyone else that might want to jump back.

http://db.tt/qxq87j0H

Hope this helps.

Bill L.

[Mikepepd]

Bill L:

Sir,

Many thanks for posting the 2.03 as well as the cheat sheet. I was one who delayed putting 2.03 in so long that 2.04 came out. The delay paid off in that case since I am going to use 2.03. All systems that I monitor work well with that version.

The cheat sheet was just enough to remind me how to do the job; you tend to forget if you don't do it every day.

Again, thanks.

Mike

[TV88KEYS]

Thanks Kimball for the firmware!!

Tony

[edc1056]

Got the HP 1 and had it working in less than 10 min after getting in car. Went to the house and put the new firmware on then saw these post about it. Went back to the 2.03 and the digital was much better.Thanks for the 2.03 link. It helped me out. Love my HP1 now. Thanks agan..

[Gitsum]

Wonder why UPMan hasn't chimed in on this issue yet?

[DaveNF2G]

Maybe it's because "hmmmmm" is too short of a message for the forum software to allow. What more do you expect him to say?

[scanchs]

Originally Posted by Gitsum

Wonder why UPMan hasn't chimed in on this issue yet?

Originally Posted by DaveNF2G

Maybe it's because "hmmmmm" is too short of a message for the forum software to allow. What more do you expect him to say?

@ DaveNF2G

+1

All you have to do is go through any number of threads looking for examples of UPMan trying to help people, only to have his comments misconstrued and quoted out of context. In many cases, his attempts to explain things to people have been used against him in an attempt to make an unfounded point against Uniden. I don't blame him for staying quiet. I'm sure he'll speak out when he has something of value to add to the conversation. Until then, he's better off not commenting, and he knows it.

ScanCHS

[LZ56]

Originally Posted by scanchs

@ DaveNF2G

+1

All you have to do is go through any number of threads looking for examples of UPMan trying to help people, only to have his comments misconstrued and quoted out of context. In many cases, his attempts to explain things to people have been used against him in an attempt to make an unfounded point against Uniden. I don't blame him for staying quiet. I'm sure he'll speak out when he has something of value to add to the conversation. Until then, he's better off not commenting, and he knows it.

ScanCHS

Yeah, but by remaining silent he could cause some people to think that Uniden doesn't care. The least he can do is say "we're looking into it". If a good firmware fix for LSM distortion is just not possible and they have to design a new scanner instead, then so be it. But don't leave customers hanging and wondering what's going on.

[jkahn]

Originally Posted by scanchs

@ DaveNF2G

+1

All you have to do is go through any number of threads looking for examples of UPMan trying to help people, only to have his comments misconstrued and quoted out of context. In many cases, his attempts to explain things to people have been used against him in an attempt to make an unfounded point against Uniden. I don't blame him for staying quiet. I'm sure he'll speak out when he has something of value to add to the conversation. Until then, he's better off not commenting, and he knows it.

ScanCHS

Or it could be that some of us with P25 Simulcast system (Montgomery County, MD) find the 2.4 firmware does work better than 2.03. I get less robotic sounding audio than with 2.03.

FYI: I just went back to 2.03 for an hour, and decided that 2.4 was much improved decompression.

Paul: just keep doing what you do so well, you'll never make everybody happy anyway!!

[kg4pbd]

Originally Posted by jkahn

Or it could be that some of us with P25 Simulcast system (Montgomery County, MD) find the 2.4 firmware does work better than 2.03. I get less robotic sounding audio than with 2.03.

FYI: I just went back to 2.03 for an hour, and decided that 2.4 was much improved decompression.

Paul: just keep doing what you do so well, you'll never make everybody happy anyway!!

Just curious, are you using a duck or an external antenna, and what kind of signal strength do you have on the system? My experience with the Charlotte simulcast system is that the new firmware helped on a portable antenna, but greatly hurt on a directional antenna. On the directional antenna I kept getting 1-2 second periods of distortion within an otherwise very legible transmission. Since my HP is normally on a directional antenna I finally downgraded the firmware, and it's much better now.

[rrtrunk1555]

IO Information only. San Diego P25 Simulcast system, with HP1, always has digital reception-decode audio quality problems relating to simulcast and multipath (have spectrum analyzer, can see strong simulcast signal peaks-relative strength). Signal strength is usu. very good, system covers areas well, but ability for HP1 to play nice with simulcast is probably very important in SD esp. North SD county. NB: analog reception almost always has non-full-quieting "hiss". Suspect lots of frequency re-lock hunting. But don't want to break the radio . Monitoring this thread for wait and see. NB: SD RF situation/challenges: area full of hills, approx 50 or more transmitter sites. Also 800mhz may be affected by weather, e.g. our local Santa Ana weather conditions, thinking possibly atmospheric inversion layer situation and/or moisture-related attenuation (or lack of), may tend to make situation worse).

[ResQguy]

Montgomery County, MD is on SmartZone 3.x

Originally Posted by jkahn

Or it could be that some of us with P25 Simulcast system (Montgomery County, MD) find the 2.4 firmware does work better than 2.03. I get less robotic sounding audio than with 2.03.

FYI: I just went back to 2.03 for an hour, and decided that 2.4 was much improved decompression.

Paul: just keep doing what you do so well, you'll never make everybody happy anyway!!

[oscarg1971]

Thank you so much everybody! My HP1 had gone to crap with that update. Much better now! -Oscar

[rrtrunk1555]

rrtrunk1555 Update to last post: Tried the update from 2.03 to 2.04 couple weeks ago, experiment failed, had to revert after 1 day to make HP1 usable again. Reception in car when from OK to poor on digital transmissions (also noticed analog squelch tails went from a short burst to very long burst ~1+sec). At simulcast "transition areas" reception went from mostly readable to no-reception. Car has an NMO mounted Larsen Tri-band antenna. Our reference trunk system is San Diego Regional Communication System (smartnet II + P25 flex hybrid system). Also after update, in-building reception on stock rubber duck went from OK to no reception. Reverted back to 2.03 with the download link graciously provided by the member (see post and the download link nearer the top in this forum). Haven't checked Uniden site in last several weeks but recommend Uniden think about maybe pulling out the 2.04 firmware update out of the "update my scanner' Sentinel facility / revert it to last known good. And/or provide choices of firmware to download on a/the Uniden website vs. relying on 3rd party volunteer website to host recovery versions. e.g. "Current" vs "Last Stable" vs. "experimental" firmware. This should probably not be a secret for only those who know now to scour forums...Wonder how many folks are living with poorly functional HP1's but don't know it. Do no harm... but allow advanced folks to try and revert.

[LZ56]

Originally Posted by rrtrunk1555

.... recommend Uniden think about maybe pulling out the 2.04 firmware update out of the "update my scanner' Sentinel facility / revert it to last known good. And/or provide choices of firmware to download on a/the Uniden website vs. relying on 3rd party volunteer website to host recovery versions. e.g. "Current" vs "Last Stable" vs. "experimental" firmware. This should probably not be a secret for only those who know now to scour forums...Wonder how many folks are living with poorly functional HP1's but don't know it. Do no harm... but allow advanced folks to try and revert.

Despite Uniden's curious refusal to comment on or even acknowledge 2.04 problems, I'm sure an answer is soon forthcoming.
.
.
.

Yep, any day now ....
.
.
.
Wait for it ....
.
.
.
(cue chirping crickets)
.
.
.

[KC9NEG]

Originally Posted by W9NES

I have noticed a big improvent in the Metro Indianapolis/Marion County, Indiana for PROJECT SAFE-T. and other systems.

I can confirm with certainty that both 1.04 updates greatly reduced my ability to copy the Marion Co. (Indiana) P25 simulcast system on my feed scanner. I moved and did the first 1.04 update at the same time (not good!) and attributed the decreased performance to the new location. After chasing that ghost for awhile, I'm back to 1.03 (thanks, guys!) and things are much better.

[KC9NEG]

Correction: 1.xx should read 2.xx in the above post.

[KC9NEG]

Hey, guys...

I'm going to back down just a bit from what I said about 2.04.01 impairing performance here in Indianapolis... I've done extensive comparison of both 2.03.01 and 2.04.01 over the last few days. It seems that with marginal reception the older version may perform better (decode more comms), with the caveat that, in my instance, mobiles may be harder to listen to due to low audio level and a more "digital" (muffled, robotic) sound. With the newer version and a very well-tuned directional antenna, mobiles sound much better, but very strong comms (dispatchers) sometimes seem to distort (overload?). YMMV, of course, but that's what I'm hearing here and I'm sticking with 2.04.01 for the time being.

[KC9NEG]

...Eh, no dice after all with 2.04.01. Just too much breakup of stronger transmissions. Running 2.03.01 again (note: I'm using a directional antenna, as this was mentoned earlier in the context of lost performance with 2.04.01).