RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Scanners and Receivers Forums > Uniden Forums > Uniden Thread Archives

Uniden Thread Archives A depository of archived threads from the original Uniden forum.

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2013, 10:04 AM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 22
Default FT1D - the new digital

Can anyone speak on Uniden's 396XT / 996XT ability to receive the new digital modulation that will be produced by the Yeasu FT1D, when it becomes available to the public? For those not familiar with the FT1D, it boasts the same modulation as P25 digital (C4FM / FDMA). The problem appears to be that (According to 1 user) the timing is different from the P25 protocol. According to a 2nd user, the order of the data in the stream is different from the P25 protocol. Would those scanners be able to figure that out and decode the transmission?

As a side note (that I should probably know since i have the radios and the scanners), will the two scanners listed above decode Icom's "D-Star" digital protocol?


Thanks again,

Jt
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2013, 10:21 AM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 11,438
Default

1) Probably not. The scanner decodes P25, not "something like P25"

2) No.
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2013, 10:22 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the 'patch
Posts: 2,377
Default

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)

No to all questions. Although the YAEsu uses C4FM it is not the same as P25. If you search for the other threads on the radio you will see that the radios are not compatible with ANY other digital radio on the market. D-Star uses GMSK which is completely different than C4FM.
__________________
Interoperatablity is not a technology it is an attitude!!!
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2013, 10:39 AM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 22
Default FT1D

In regards to the FT1D, it the difference is as described (very few people in the US have touched the US version of this radio) and the difference is a timing routine (BAD flashbacks to programming X9000's!), then couldn't a firmware update address this? If the difference is that the data bits are in a different order in the data stream, the same solution applies? Perhaps the question would be one of consumer demand, which may be low : (

The poor design associated with this great idea for a radio is that there is no infrastructure in place and no incentive to put it there. Compare this radio (with currently no other users, perhaps a few in the future, no repeaters for a portable radio, and a lack of compatibility with anything other than FM) with any of the P25 radios, or a D-Star radio (which even D-Star has limited resources, but great capabilities), why would anyone chose the FT1D, except to have every radio possible.

Even P25 has had very poor implementation in the USA. Canada seems to be the gold standard for making use of P25's capabilities. D-Star has even greater capabilities, particularly when combined with APRS, than P25 and yet we are seeing less infrastructure, presumably due to less usage.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2013, 11:19 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 1,935
Default

havmedic26 wrote above:

"Even P25 has had very poor implementation in the USA."

You're kidding, right? As I sit here I am surrounded by multiple PS agencies, as well as Federal agencies, who are at this moment using 700 mHz and 800 mHz trunked P25 systems, as well as at least five local ham repeaters that employ P25 technology. I don't want to sound harsh, but I must ask where did you come up with the idea that P25 has had what you call "poor implementation" in the USA.
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2013, 11:39 AM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lansing, MI
Posts: 11,438
Default

Nationally DSTAR is MUCH more prevalent than P25 for ham uses...
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 01-16-2013, 3:09 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the 'patch
Posts: 2,377
Default

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; CPU OS 6_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/536.26 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0 Mobile/10A523 Safari/8536.25)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdale
Nationally DSTAR is MUCH more prevalent than P25 for ham uses...
Agreed. There is VERY little amatuer P25 in Canada. And even less TRBO, while there is a fair amount of D-Star. My club as the complete D-Star stack, but I have never gotten an interest in it. I would rather see DMR here. More manufacturers and I like the ease if linking, something MUCH more difficult to do with P25.
__________________
Interoperatablity is not a technology it is an attitude!!!
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions