RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Scanners, Receivers and Related Equipment Forums > General Scanning Discussion


General Scanning Discussion - For general questions not specific to a model of scanner or general discussion of use of a scanner. Manufacturer specific posts should be directed to the appropriate forums below and location specific posts should go in the appropriate regional forum..

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:14 AM
darunimal
Guest
   
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinC View Post
The "important" stuff .... LSM
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinC View Post
improvements.. so ... over and over will do ... good ..... ..
It's probably the most important question to be asked, and yet to be answered, it's valid until it's dealt with by the manufactures, just because you don't have it occur, doesn't mean it's any less valid, I now know you are NOT currently experiencing the situation. What isn't valid is: suggesting the "non-scanner solutions" to "consumer scanner purchasers". While the solution to Scanners Users is in fact a Scanner Manufactures responsibility to fix the LSM issue, in fact: TV's deal with a relative similar problem, but the solutions already inside that product, and it is funny how most of their consumers never use it (meaning they never use their TV connected to an Antenna). We, consumer scanner purchasers, are not R&D and never should be thought of as such. We have helped form a very large community here on RadioReference (with a lot of thanks to Lindsay Blanton and many more) from many smaller enclave communities, to support our listening habits and now we support 2 scanner manufactures and we support them fixing LSM and all the future endeavors, we are literally the architects of future scanners and the manufactures are the engineers that bring those things to reality.

Consumers are not the same as beta-testers, consumers are also not R&D, and the implications of they are is a complete misrepresentation of purchaser, users, owners; maybe this is due to the fact of: for 50 years of it being done this way, but it by no means should it be considered the normal way forward, as consumer grade electronics in todays' era could take not only a PHD in Electrical engineering but also Mathematics & Computer coding and many more specialty's. There has been many to experiments and many offer advice, but the problem has yet to be solved, and the cost is a guess, without a cost benefit analyses being done, no one truly knows.

The DVSI vocoder is where a good amount of received signal is delineated and dealt with. Now, maybe the scanner manufactures has either received poor code or poor support from DVSI of, "how better to implement" "it's own chipset", that same chipset line is in use by Motorola’s, and other manufactures such as Harris and Unication. Both Whistler and Uniden could do themselves a favor and contact DVSI for support, as well as, buy to their hearts content: APX's and TV's (with tuners), G4s & G5s and other professional portables & mobiles, at least to better understand: how numerous other manufactures have dealt with multipathing signals (or users could donate theirs to Uniden and Whistler). I only mention TV's because it also a semi-wide band receiver that has to deal with Multipath quadrature signaling with the difficult 4 phase high bit count, interpretation & decode of the longer dwell periods than the previously utilized FM signaling but yet the DVSI is supposed to be able to decode C4FM from CQPSK signals without problems or hiccups. Filtering is another part in these scanners, not only does it have to be linear for some bands, but also has to cascading for others and also only part IQ, and soon enough analog monitoring may need only some of the filtering some of the time or may need to be completely abandoned in future scanner releases (yea I said it).

These are products with Radio Reference and it's Data Base as major support, which entails not to incongruously apply ‘importance’ to a consumers (members) request on the forum, that is for the scanner manufactures to create in THEIR office, THEIR list of importance. Just the illusion of impropriety is never a good thing and precautions should be taken to never allow that to happen, but cutting, coping, and pasting and relegating threads to the Rant section is just one of those things that leads to this (for a forum that can't even fix example: Model alpha-numeric misspellings like BC496HP (and then the OP begins to talk about Favorites and 3 comments come in about correct model no.)). LSM isn't my problem or your problem to FIX, its the manufactures. How this got all twisted around as: unimportant or less important, buy a SDR, buy an APX, send an email, don't talk about in post (status), deleting post and the such, is complete and utter insanity, and by the way, just possibly what the manufacturers could wish us, as a community, would do, and this objective shouldn't be furthered by A's or M's, members should be allowed to comment either way, of course minus the flaming and spamming. If people would like to Publicly announce on RadioReference in Make and/or Model specific threads, their displeasure with how LSM is or is going to be dealt with by either UNIDEN and/or WHISTLER, it's mileage could certainly out weight what 1 Private email could carry. Constructive comments could be productive, but, no where on here (RR), are unproductive responses "censored and deleted" (as unnecessary. I mean, sometime I wish they were, but I understand why they aren't, I also wish some people didn't quote 5 paragraph posts and would just put post numbers and/or combine all 3 of their 3 reply's, into 1 reply, but no one cleans those up).

The question about LSM will continue to be prudent because as newer Phase I and Phase II systems continue to come online, more and more jurisdictions may well begin to use the proprietary Motorola Solution: LSM, but is also right on line with how nearly all "Simulcast" sites are to be utilized in the near future, so improving LSM reception and decode-ability, will also have the added benefit of improving all digital simulcast sytems with or without a user experiencing distortion in ‘non-LSM’ sites. Multipathing and ghosting didn't start yesterday and shouldn't be thought of as such, but it’s no longer an echo (analog), it's a complete loss (half of the time) of voice decode-ability (digital) don't you guys understand that, I'm sure if you could receive your system but could only understand every other word or phrase, you'd better understand the implication on future scanner use. The following is an example " i... this.... little .... posts ... r ... r .... quoted ..... others, .... they .....n't be ..... out of .......t." This shouldn't be thought the same as "stop the encryption complaining" because in actuality it's the total and complete opposite on every level (yea, I know it shares listening & decode but that's where it ends) and moderators should consider that.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:35 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Denver-Metro
Posts: 1,871
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darunimal View Post
....

Both Whistler and Uniden could do themselves a favor and contact DVSI for support, as well as, buy to their hearts content: APX's and TV's (with tuners), G4s & G5s and other professional portables & mobiles, at least to better understand: how numerous other manufactures have dealt with multipathing signals (or users could donate theirs to Uniden and Whistler).
...
Amen and Amen. As I understand it, Astro was first introducted by Motorola in 1991.
__________________
"Huhh?? Of COURSE I don't have enough radios, shouldn't that be obvious??! My vehicle has lots of space to put more radios, I certainly do NOT have enough!"
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2016, 12:51 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the 'patch
Posts: 4,526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darunimal View Post
...What isn't valid is: suggesting the "non-scanner solutions" to "consumer scanner purchasers".
Actually it IS valid. If the current scanners do not receive CQPSK and its variants properly, then the only alternative is to go buy a product that DOES decode those waveforms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darunimal View Post
While the solution to Scanners Users is in fact a Scanner Manufactures responsibility to fix the LSM .

No it is not. The manufacturers designed the scanners to do 'x' but not 'y' how is it their responsibility to make their scanners do 'y'?

If Uniden or Whistler does not want to make a scanner decode anything but C4FM they do not have to.

They also do not have to make an existing scanner, that decodes C4FM just fine, but not LSM or any other wave form for that matter, decode those other wave forms.

If one of those manufacturers makes a scanner that properly handles LSM, or other waveforms current scanners do not, sell those scanners and then buy the new(future) one that does.
__________________
Interoperatablity is not a technology, it is an attitude!!!
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2016, 5:29 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,878
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmack550 View Post
+1 on that. WE are supposed to be designing Uniden and Whistler scanners??? That's frankly BS.
Certainly, scanner manufacturers are responsible for their designs. I did not say otherwise in my earlier posts.

Maybe restating my point will add clarity. In my opinion,
Complaining here instead of contacting the manufacturer and trying to help solve the problem, is like sitting in the middle of a food court in a shopping mall, and complaining to the person at the next table (or worse yet, yelling it repeatedly so all in the food court can hear) that the "Mexican-style eatery" doesn't offer "Chinese-style cuisine", or that the "Mexican-style eatery" does not use hot enough peppers, because...
1) if you want "Chinese-style cuisine" then go to the "Chinese-style eatery", and
2) if you want the "Mexican-style eatery" to offer something different, then go talk directly to that manager, and be prepared to hear an answer similar to one of these:

a) "thanks for your suggestion, we will keep it in-mind for future reference,
and oh, just to let you know, we don't hear every food-court conversation while we are working here; we hear only the ones we might happen to hear when we are on-break eating lunch in the food court. The customers at our counter drown-out the din of the food-court conversation, even if someone yells."

b) "we are a "Mexican-style eatery" not a "Chinese-style eatery". Go to that eatery for that cuisine."
c) "we use proven recipes and don't think hotter peppers will be useful to most people"
d) "are you going to help find an affordable source for these peppers and develop a new recipe, or are you only going to keep complaining"
e) "we want to tell you that we are already investigating that option and hope to offer something like that in the future, but, we cannot tell you this because we don't know whether you are undercover working for our competitors and trying to take our place at the food court."

After this conversation, the customer can either wait, assist, or buy elsewhere.

Even if the customer gathers other agreeing customers in the middle of the food court, to discuss the desired changes, it won't do any good until someone decides, or they as a group decide, to quit complaining in the food court and go have a serious conversation directly with the manager.

---
Quote:
Originally Posted by slicerwizard View Post
Paul Opitz participated in at least one thread where the mechanics of LSM reception was discussed, so no need to "reach out" to them.
Thank you for this clarification. Repeatedly contacting the manufacturers directly is still a better option, in my opinion, than hoping that they see a particular thread, or particular posts within a larger thread, here.


---
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayn1n32008 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by darunimal View Post
While the solution to Scanners Users is in fact a Scanner Manufactures responsibility to fix the LSM
No it is not. The manufacturers designed the scanners to do 'x' but not 'y' how is it their responsibility to make their scanners do 'y'?

If Uniden or Whistler does not want to make a scanner decode anything but C4FM they do not have to.

They also do not have to make an existing scanner, that decodes C4FM just fine, but not LSM or any other wave form for that matter, decode those other wave forms.

If one of those manufacturers makes a scanner that properly handles LSM, or other waveforms current scanners do not, sell those scanners and then buy the new(future) one that does.
I agree.


---
Thank you to all who are discussing the technical side of the LSM problem; I am learning from your discussion.

In an effort to help this thread stay focused on the technical aspects of the LSM-problem, I am stepping to the sidelines regarding the "complaining here vs contacting the manufacturers directly" topic.

Best Regards,
__________________
73 QDP
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2016, 9:41 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 4,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darunimal View Post
The DVSI vocoder is where a good amount of received signal is delineated and dealt with.
Citation required. And since when do vocoders deal with control channel signaling or traffic channel link control data? How does a vocoder help a scanner decide "yes, this is talkgroup 123; start synthesizing audio"?
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2016, 11:09 AM
Member
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Boston, Ma
Posts: 2,009
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slicerwizard View Post
Citation required. And since when do vocoders deal with control channel signaling or traffic channel link control data? How does a vocoder help a scanner decide "yes, this is talkgroup 123; start synthesizing audio"?
Hello,

The vocoder does handle processing of the voice data. The receiver just collects ,formats, and sends the data to the vocoder. The vocoder does some error detection and correction on the voice data. However, the receiver still has to properly decode the data in the first place as the different digital modulation formats encode the voice data differently.

Sometimes the error correction in the vocoder helps cover up problems with the receiver decoding. The DMR and NXDN specifications specify an intersymbol interference filter. I have noticed that weak signal performance suffers if this filter is disabled in dsd. The DVSI USB3000 codec performs slightly better than mbelib with the filter disabled as mbelib does not fully implement all the error correction.

73 Eric
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2016, 8:24 PM
mtindor's Avatar
OH/WV DB Admin
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Carroll Co OH / EN90LN
Posts: 6,166
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricCottrell View Post
Hello,

So he has been working on this for 5+ years? Not a short time period in my book. He likely leverage some past code in writing a demodulator for OP25.

The next generation scanner could be starting development, but we will not know until it is near to release in 18 to 24 months.

73 Eric
You do realize that when you address KA1RBI you are addressing Max, don't you ?

Mike
__________________
Mike / AA8IA
PSR800/PRO197/BCD436HP/BCD536HP

If I PM you about a submission, please reply promptly or your submission may be rejected.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2016, 9:17 PM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
   
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RayAir View Post
I find it easier to custom make my own "scanners" rather than rely on consumer grade scanner manufacturing companies.

Better audio quality. More capabilities. And no issue with LSM.
Your right about that!. Nothing beats my Moto's, no LSM issues and fantastic audio. I can monitor one site that is only a 2 site simulcast and they are separated far apart so my scanner can receive only just 1 of them so no real issues. But for everything else it's the pro stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2016, 10:04 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 4,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtindor View Post
You do realize that when you address KA1RBI you are addressing Max, don't you ?

Mike
Oh, that KA1RBI...

Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2016, 10:11 PM
Nasby's Avatar
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,980
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jwilson2013 View Post
Your right about that!. Nothing beats my Moto's, no LSM issues and fantastic audio. I can monitor one site that is only a 2 site simulcast and they are separated far apart so my scanner can receive only just 1 of them so no real issues. But for everything else it's the pro stuff.
Must be nice. But some of us have a house payment, kids, etc. and can't afford a $2k radio just to monitor the local police dept.

That's why we're hopeful for a reasonably priced scanner to handle these issues.
Reply With Quote
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 05-24-2016, 11:59 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 389
Default

Quote:
So he has been working on this for 5+ years? Not a short time period in my book.
The bulk of the LSM work was finished in 2010 (as mentioned on my web site). Naturally a few tweaks and enhancements have been included since then. For instance one of these (relocating the differential phase detector inside the PLL) was to beef up the handling of PPM error/drift in RTL SDR USB receivers.

One of the root causes of why LSM can't be passed cleanly through an FM demodulator/discriminator is due to what I've called the "LSM secret sauce" which is present only in /\/\ LSM systems, not in others such as Harris WCQPSK P25 systems. LSM secret sauce is patented (US Pat 6,061,574). Here is one of the key excerpts

Quote:
...wherein the modulator is arranged to change the output amplitude in synchronism with a symbol transmitted from the transmitter, such that the output amplitude of a central portion of the symbol does not change, while the output amplitude of non-central portions of the symbol do change...
I know from direct observation that this is in use on a local /\/\ P25 LSM system. Long ago, I created some web pages with more info about this at LSM Gallery and LSM Gallery - Page 2

Another quote from the patent
Quote:
wherein the modulator is arranged to change the output amplitude according to a pseudorandom sequence having a predetermined number of states during a transmission of the code block.
which I added more just because it's really quite interesting and less because of what it may or may not have to do say about scanners and LSM.

The LSM problem with scanners can be summarized as this: the output of an FM demodulator is undefined when there is no signal present at the input. That is, when both the in phase (I) and quadrature (Q) components (of the RF/IF signal) are both zero, the signal magnitude is therefore also zero, and thus the FM demod output is undefined. This condition is most evident in Fig 13(A) at the first of the two pages mentioned above...

73

Max
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2016, 12:24 AM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 389
Default

It is also interesting to note one of the likely consequences of LSM secret sauce... As changes to the amplitude are optimized adaptively in the network, it will be done for the benefit of the subscriber radios, not for you as a third party listening on the call. Not enough is known to say for sure, but it does seem safe to say that not all calls in an LSM system receive the identical transmission treatment....

Max
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2016, 12:35 AM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Denver-Metro
Posts: 1,871
Default

So, do scanner companies hire engineers straight out of college, who never worked in a radio shop and never used a Harris/Moto/EF Johnson P-25 radio in their life? If folks like Max finished his simulcast project in 2010 without being on anyone's payroll, how is it possible that professional engineers working full time on these things STILL haven't figured it out five years later? If these professional engineers never used a commercial radio in their life, that would also explain why every scanner on the market has crappy audio (and we're only talking about SPEECH, a very small amount of spectrum as compared to music).
__________________
"Huhh?? Of COURSE I don't have enough radios, shouldn't that be obvious??! My vehicle has lots of space to put more radios, I certainly do NOT have enough!"

Last edited by natedawg1604; 05-25-2016 at 12:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2016, 1:11 AM
seth21w's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Somewhere monitoring the air.
Posts: 581
Default

I need some examples of your lsm systems as mine is spalding county ga harris p2 lsm just look how akward it is no alternate cc no regular cc just primary. Are all lsm systems this way? If you suffer lsm post a link to the problem system. I will make a scanner!
__________________
Uniden BCD436HP BCD536HP Whistler WS1098 Tytera MD390G RTL SDR
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2016, 1:20 AM
seth21w's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Somewhere monitoring the air.
Posts: 581
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KA1RBI View Post
The bulk of the LSM work was finished in 2010 (as mentioned on my web site). Naturally a few tweaks and enhancements have been included since then. For instance one of these (relocating the differential phase detector inside the PLL) was to beef up the handling of PPM error/drift in RTL SDR USB receivers.

One of the root causes of why LSM can't be passed cleanly through an FM demodulator/discriminator is due to what I've called the "LSM secret sauce" which is present only in /\/\ LSM systems, not in others such as Harris WCQPSK P25 systems. LSM secret sauce is patented (US Pat 6,061,574). Here is one of the key excerpts



I know from direct observation that this is in use on a local /\/\ P25 LSM system. Long ago, I created some web pages with more info about this at LSM Gallery and LSM Gallery - Page 2

Another quote from the patent


which I added more just because it's really quite interesting and less because of what it may or may not have to do say about scanners and LSM.

The LSM problem with scanners can be summarized as this: the output of an FM demodulator is undefined when there is no signal present at the input. That is, when both the in phase (I) and quadrature (Q) components (of the RF/IF signal) are both zero, the signal magnitude is therefore also zero, and thus the FM demod output is undefined. This condition is most evident in Fig 13(A) at the first of the two pages mentioned above...

73

Max
Very interesting reads ka1rbi
__________________
Uniden BCD436HP BCD536HP Whistler WS1098 Tytera MD390G RTL SDR
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2016, 7:15 AM
Spitfire8520's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seth21w View Post
I need some examples of your lsm systems as mine is spalding county ga harris p2 lsm just look how akward it is no alternate cc no regular cc just primary. Are all lsm systems this way? If you suffer lsm post a link to the problem system. I will make a scanner!
Primary control channels are a design decision made by the manufacturer. Most systems built by Harris tend to rotate control channels, where as systems built by Motorola tend to have a set primary and alternate control channels. The one Cassidian (now Airbus DS Communications) system I know of also rotates their control channel.

It is important to note that LSM specifically refers to Motorola's simulcast modulation. As mentioned previously, Harris uses WCQPSK for their simulcast modulation. It would appear that many people have adopted "LSM" as the universal name for all simulcast modulation due to Motorola having the largest share in the market and subsequently building a majority of simulcast sites.

If you take the above into account, then the correct reply to your question is that most sites using LSM will have well defined primary and alternate control channels since it is the Motorola way of doing things. Otherwise, control channels for simulcast sites in general will largely depend on the manufacturer of the system and site.
__________________
Mile-High Spitfire
RadioShack Pro-106 RadioShack Pro-652 RTL-SDR
MNN-250

Last edited by Spitfire8520; 05-25-2016 at 8:53 AM.. Reason: Error correction.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2016, 8:35 AM
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
   
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nasby View Post
Must be nice. But some of us have a house payment, kids, etc. and can't afford a $2k radio just to monitor the local police dept.

That's why we're hopeful for a reasonably priced scanner to handle these issues.
Purchased them on Ebay for a reasonable price, not much more than a scanner. Luckily all of them worked well, had a local radio shop due an alignment and all is good. Dropping a few extra few bucks for a radio that I use other than listening to the local PD and fire. These are no replacement for scanners as they are limited on features but when you live in an area with simulcast horrors you have no choice. The only drawback for me was purchasing the programming software from Motorola.
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2016, 10:17 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the 'patch
Posts: 4,526
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by seth21w View Post
I need some examples of your lsm systems as mine is spalding county ga harris p2 lsm just look how akward it is no alternate cc no regular cc just primary. Are all lsm systems this way? If you suffer lsm post a link to the problem system. I will make a scanner!

Harris P25 systems can use any channel on a site as a control channel. Motorola only uses up to 4 of the site channels as control channels.
__________________
Interoperatablity is not a technology, it is an attitude!!!
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2016, 10:20 AM
seth21w's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Somewhere monitoring the air.
Posts: 581
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spitfire8520 View Post
Primary control channels are a design decision made by the manufacturer. Most systems built by Harris tend to rotate control channels, where as systems built by Motorola tend to have a set primary and alternate control channels. The one Cassidian (now Airbus DS Communications) system I know of also rotates their control channel.

It is important to note that LSM specifically refers to Motorola's simulcast modulation. As mentioned previously, Harris uses WCQPSK for their simulcast modulation. It would appear that many people have adopted "LSM" as the universal name for all simulcast modulation due to Motorola having the largest share in the market and subsequently building a majority of simulcast sites.

If you take the above into account, then the correct reply to your question is that most sites using LSM will have well defined primary and alternate control channels since it is the Motorola way of doing things. Otherwise, control channels for simulcast sites in general will largely depend on the manufacturer of the system and site.
That is what i thought and to that fact i can tell you harris is particularly hard to monitor in phase2 compared to moto.
__________________
Uniden BCD436HP BCD536HP Whistler WS1098 Tytera MD390G RTL SDR
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 05-25-2016, 2:44 PM
Signal-Zero's Avatar
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Fortified Bunker
Posts: 2,269
Default

Harris is particularly hard to listen to in Phase I....Miami-Dade County is a prime example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
"We celebrate our independence from the Government, not our dependence on it."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
uniden, upman

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 10:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions