• 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.

Is it just me...

Status
Not open for further replies.

ChitheadDeSo

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
47
Location
Louisiana
Or does it seem like midland is trying to capitalize on the GMRS only market a little. I am not complaining with all the new mobiles that they are putting out. They all seem decent. Especially the MXT275 and the MXT400. I wonder when they are going to release an all in one repeater system, That would be nice, instead of having to try and find a used one. But anyway, I was wondering if anyone has used one of the already released MicroMobile units. I like the Idea of the 275 being all in the Mic, but I am not sure about there performance. (and its not supposed to be released till next year)
 

Project25_MASTR

Millennial Graying OBT Guy
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
4,164
Location
Texas
The MXT275 is a typical hand held control head. Microphone/control head combo with the RF brick at the other end. Not like those jinky Midland CB's that looked similar. Form factor reminds me of the GME CM60.
 

jim202

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2002
Messages
2,729
Location
New Orleans region
Or does it seem like midland is trying to capitalize on the GMRS only market a little. I am not complaining with all the new mobiles that they are putting out. They all seem decent. Especially the MXT275 and the MXT400. I wonder when they are going to release an all in one repeater system, That would be nice, instead of having to try and find a used one. But anyway, I was wondering if anyone has used one of the already released MicroMobile units. I like the Idea of the 275 being all in the Mic, but I am not sure about there performance. (and its not supposed to be released till next year)

Based on working in this field for a very long time working on radios and repairing the internals over the years, explain to me just how you can stuff all the needed components into just the mic. That is going to be one bad *** large mic to hold everything.

Even using surface mount components, it still takes a finite amount of space to hold everything. You can only squeeze so much into a small space and still have a functional radio. You get it too small and now you have to compromise on the actual function of the radio. The most important part of the radio is the receiver. To get a good receiver you need good selectivity. Good selectivity doesn't come in a small package.

Your other problem is transmitter power. Any amount of transmit power is going to generate heat. Getting rid of heat requires a heat sink. Heat sinks take up space. So again we are looking at something that won't be the size of a pack of cigarettes

Now don't forget about a speaker. It takes some space even for a small speaker. Have we mentioned that a speaker large enough to be able to understand a conversation is going to take some space.

Given all the limitations of space that is needed for a communications receiver to work and then throw in the space needed by a transmitter, small doesn't fit into a mic to have it all work. Maybe a kids toy, but nothing I would want to use. Especially if you expect to get more than maybe 100 foot distance between your wonder mics.

Did we even mention the power source to power this wonder mic? If you don't plug it into the dash power source, space for the batteries will be as large or greater than the radio portion itself.
 

ChitheadDeSo

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
47
Location
Louisiana
So I had bad wording on that, I was talking about the capability to change channels, volume, tones, etc. etc. being in the mic. The RF brick at the other end could then be mounted in a more convenient place. Seeing as though my truck doesn't have to many good mounting location i liked the idea of being able to have a little more freedom with the mounting of the radio. Such as in the center console with an extra external speaker added, then just having the mic come out of said center console but still being able to control the radio without having to dig into the center console, or something similar. I understand the limitations of this radio based on the size but I thought the idea was cool. Plus it is one of the few new mobile radio units that are being produced. That are legal to use with GMRS.
 

N4GIX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
2,124
Location
Hot Springs, AR
I wonder when they are going to release an all in one repeater system, That would be nice, instead of having to try and find a used one.

You can buy new GMRS repeaters now. I have had a Bridgecom on-line now for over eighteen months... :D

And yes, it is Part 97 certified.
 

ChitheadDeSo

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
47
Location
Louisiana
Do you have a duplexor with it? If so, did you order their package deal? How do you like it? sorry for all the questions still just looking at all the options to try and set up the best for my area (of course at a somewhat reasonable price)
 

N4GIX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
2,124
Location
Hot Springs, AR
Do you have a duplexor with it? If so, did you order their package deal? How do you like it? sorry for all the questions still just looking at all the options to try and set up the best for my area (of course at a somewhat reasonable price)

Yes, I bought it with a tuned duplexer. I've had excellent service with it and the setup is fast and easy, and meets my needs. My antenna is roof mounted, with 1/2" heliax and roughly 42' height. HT coverage is roughly 8 miles, mobile coverage of around 16 miles.

Be aware though that the antenna system is the single most critical part of the system, and can actually cost as much as -- if not more -- than the repeater itself.

A friend of mine recently got his repeater installed on a 150' tower and his total cost was somewhere around $3,500 for the antenna (21' 8-bay dipole), 1/2" heliax, connectors, surge protector, ground bonding, and tower climber's time. In contrast, his repeater was around $1300...

...on the other hand, his HT coverage is around 15 miles, and mobile coverage of around 42 miles. :wink:
 

Project25_MASTR

Millennial Graying OBT Guy
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
4,164
Location
Texas
Based on working in this field for a very long time working on radios and repairing the internals over the years, explain to me just how you can stuff all the needed components into just the mic. That is going to be one bad *** large mic to hold everything.

Even using surface mount components, it still takes a finite amount of space to hold everything. You can only squeeze so much into a small space and still have a functional radio. You get it too small and now you have to compromise on the actual function of the radio. The most important part of the radio is the receiver. To get a good receiver you need good selectivity. Good selectivity doesn't come in a small package.

Your other problem is transmitter power. Any amount of transmit power is going to generate heat. Getting rid of heat requires a heat sink. Heat sinks take up space. So again we are looking at something that won't be the size of a pack of cigarettes

Now don't forget about a speaker. It takes some space even for a small speaker. Have we mentioned that a speaker large enough to be able to understand a conversation is going to take some space.

Given all the limitations of space that is needed for a communications receiver to work and then throw in the space needed by a transmitter, small doesn't fit into a mic to have it all work. Maybe a kids toy, but nothing I would want to use. Especially if you expect to get more than maybe 100 foot distance between your wonder mics.

Did we even mention the power source to power this wonder mic? If you don't plug it into the dash power source, space for the batteries will be as large or greater than the radio portion itself.

I guess you've never dealt with any of the HHCH's offered by Motorola, Icom, and Kenwood that have been available for the last 20+ years now. It's just a control head, all it is. The RF brick is at the other end of the microphone cable. Depending on use, they either have built in speakers (like GME's CM60 micro mobile) or use external speakers. Please see picture below.

So I had bad wording on that, I was talking about the capability to change channels, volume, tones, etc. etc. being in the mic. The RF brick at the other end could then be mounted in a more convenient place. Seeing as though my truck doesn't have to many good mounting location i liked the idea of being able to have a little more freedom with the mounting of the radio. Such as in the center console with an extra external speaker added, then just having the mic come out of said center console but still being able to control the radio without having to dig into the center console, or something similar. I understand the limitations of this radio based on the size but I thought the idea was cool. Plus it is one of the few new mobile radio units that are being produced. That are legal to use with GMRS.

I've seen a lot of federal and undercover installs utilize HHCH's. I had one in my pickup hooked up to my 110W Astro Spectra Plus for awhile before upgrading to an XTL5000 w/ W9 (which is soon to become an O5). Brick was (and the new XTL brick is) mounted under the back seat. I found the Panavise InDash mount fitted with a Magnetic Mic hanger utilizing an HHCH is a great combination. In fact, if I can get it functional again, the W3 Astro Spectra Plus will be going into my XJ (period correct and all) and will utilize the Panavise InDash and Magnetic Mic hanger.

vSfJ2RS.jpg
 
Last edited:

mmckenna

I ♥ Ø
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
23,617
Location
Hiding in a coffee shop.
So I had bad wording on that, I was talking about the capability to change channels, volume, tones, etc. etc. being in the mic. The RF brick at the other end could then be mounted in a more convenient place. Seeing as though my truck doesn't have to many good mounting location i liked the idea of being able to have a little more freedom with the mounting of the radio. Such as in the center console with an extra external speaker added, then just having the mic come out of said center console but still being able to control the radio without having to dig into the center console, or something similar. I understand the limitations of this radio based on the size but I thought the idea was cool. Plus it is one of the few new mobile radio units that are being produced. That are legal to use with GMRS.

Most/all of this is possible when you move away from the consumer level radios. HHCH (Hand Held Control Heads) are something that most major radio manufacturers offer. Both Kenwood and Motorola have them for their higher tier radios.
But they are not cheap.

Would a remote head radio work? In other words, the RF deck hidden away, a small control head on the dash, and a microphone in your hand? That's easily do-able with commercial radios, some with Part 95 certifications, too.
 

ChitheadDeSo

Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2016
Messages
47
Location
Louisiana
Yes, I bought it with a tuned duplexer. I've had excellent service with it and the setup is fast and easy, and meets my needs. My antenna is roof mounted, with 1/2" heliax and roughly 42' height. HT coverage is roughly 8 miles, mobile coverage of around 16 miles.

Be aware though that the antenna system is the single most critical part of the system, and can actually cost as much as -- if not more -- than the repeater itself.

A friend of mine recently got his repeater installed on a 150' tower and his total cost was somewhere around $3,500 for the antenna (21' 8-bay dipole), 1/2" heliax, connectors, surge protector, ground bonding, and tower climber's time. In contrast, his repeater was around $1300...

...on the other hand, his HT coverage is around 15 miles, and mobile coverage of around 42 miles. :wink:

Awesome that's what I was looking for. Geeze thats insane, but I guess you gotta pay to play. I am hoping to get my repeater on top of a hotel in the area that the roof is 220' above grade and its in one of the higher elevated parts of the city. With some of the basic distance calculators. The antenna I was looking at a little with the repeater power set at 25 would supposedly give me somewhere around the 27-30 mile mark. of course that's with perfect conditions. I'm just hoping to have enough area to cover my house and family and close friends in the area which the farthest house from the hotel is 26 miles by crows flight.

MCore I like that set up, that's almost Identical to my truck (I have the 2014 Silverado) so I like the way it is all out of the way on your floorboard in front of the middle seat.

mmckenna I have not seen those, I just got an email from Midland that had the 275 in it, so that was the first one that I looked at. Price wise and all it just seemed like a good radio, I know that Kenwood and Motorola are a whole lot better but their price tags seem to go up quite a bit also... But I will definitely have to look into them now that you say they have them.
 

Project25_MASTR

Millennial Graying OBT Guy
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
4,164
Location
Texas
Most/all of this is possible when you move away from the consumer level radios. HHCH (Hand Held Control Heads) are something that most major radio manufacturers offer. Both Kenwood and Motorola have them for their higher tier radios.
But they are not cheap.

Would a remote head radio work? In other words, the RF deck hidden away, a small control head on the dash, and a microphone in your hand? That's easily do-able with commercial radios, some with Part 95 certifications, too.

Going over that little Midland, it isn't like their HT with a permanent battery eliminator CB radio. It's a true HHCH with remote RF brick.
 
V

VGSMC_8520

Guest
I like the mini mobile units Midland is putting out, but there's one reason I wouldn't buy one: they don't do split tones.
 

Motoballa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
403
I like the mini mobile units Midland is putting out, but there's one reason I wouldn't buy one: they don't do split tones.

Yep! I bought mine and returned it, not realizing it didn't do that.. The repeater I talk on a daily has split DCS tones.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
6,859
Or does it seem like midland is trying to capitalize on the GMRS only market a little. I am not complaining with all the new mobiles that they are putting out. They all seem decent. Especially the MXT275 and the MXT400. I wonder when they are going to release an all in one repeater system, That would be nice, instead of having to try and find a used one. But anyway, I was wondering if anyone has used one of the already released MicroMobile units. I like the Idea of the 275 being all in the Mic, but I am not sure about there performance. (and its not supposed to be released till next year)

The Midland Mobiles looked very attractive to me until I checked the FCC certification grant for them. They are narrow band only radios (11K3F3E). The GMRS service is wideband (16K0F3E) This means you are throwing away 3 dB of coverage and voice quality when using these radios because the radio deviation is only +/- 2.5 KHz not +/- 5.0 KHz. . Performance suffers even more, like 6 dB if you use them with other wide band radios.

Unless Midland addresses this and makes radios that truly meet full GMRS specifications, I won't be buying them. I hope they DON'T make repeaters because there will be a mishmash of narrow and wide radios trying to work through them.

The manufacturers are slowly trying to squeeze the life out of GMRS by only certifying mediocre radios for Part 95. Midland and Motorola sell fine new Part 90 radios that could be used GMRS wideband if they were dual certified for Part 95, but they don't.

I would suggest shopping around for radios that meet all the specifications for Part 95.

It is easy, obtain the FCC ID from the radio and look up the number on the FCC database. Find the "Grant" and if it does not have a line that says Part 95 and 16K0F3E, don't buy it.

The cheap Chinese radios are even worse.
 
Last edited:

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
6,859
You can buy new GMRS repeaters now. I have had a Bridgecom on-line now for over eighteen months... :D

And yes, it is Part 97 certified.


Do you mean Part 95 certified? If so, can you share the FCC ID number? I spent hours scouring the FCC and Bridgecom sites for BCR-40U to no avail. Is the repeater two mobile radios inside? If so what model?
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
13,416
Location
VA
Narrowband is not a bad thing. It prevents or reduces interference to and from FRS users on the adjacent interstitial channels. If the FRS channels are active in your area, then the reduction in adjacent channel crosstalk is well worth the reduction in nominal S/N ratio.
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
6,859
Narrowband is not a bad thing. It prevents or reduces interference to and from FRS users on the adjacent interstitial channels. If the FRS channels are active in your area, then the reduction in adjacent channel crosstalk is well worth the reduction in nominal S/N ratio.


Well, I will take issue that narrowband "is not a bad thing". FRS is intermittent interference but the narrowband coverage penalty is a very real and permanent thing. GMRS is a high performance service.

There was never any mandate to narrow band GMRS nor would it accomplish anything. The reason Midland is producing CRAPPY GMRS radios is because they can simply design an FRS radio and program GMRS frequencies into it. They use FRS receiver filters and don't bother with putting both narrow and wide filters in the radio to save money. The consumer is unaware and they can get away with it.

I am making it my task to educate the masses. Tilting at wind mills, but in short time the market will be flooded with crap.

See these maps. The green is "good" coverage"

Wideband 25 KHz analog FM Coverage:

http://www.leikhim.com/attachments/Image/image020.gif

Narrowband 12.5 KHz analog FM Coverage:

http://www.leikhim.com/attachments/Image/image022.gif

The "maths".

http://www.leikhim.com/page13.php

The GMRS community should be pushing the FCC for a rule amendment to cross certify certain Part 90 radios for operation in Part 95 GMRS.
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
13,416
Location
VA
I cited an example of something narrowband accomplishes--reduced adjacent channel interference. Also, pretty much every bubble pack radio ever made is narrowband only, on the gmrs and frs channels. It's not just Midland. You are about a decade too late to prevent the market from being flooded with "crap".
 

Project25_MASTR

Millennial Graying OBT Guy
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
4,164
Location
Texas
Well, I will take issue that narrowband "is not a bad thing". FRS is intermittent interference but the narrowband coverage penalty is a very real and permanent thing. GMRS is a high performance service.

There was never any mandate to narrow band GMRS nor would it accomplish anything. The reason Midland is producing CRAPPY GMRS radios is because they can simply design an FRS radio and program GMRS frequencies into it. They use FRS receiver filters and don't bother with putting both narrow and wide filters in the radio to save money. The consumer is unaware and they can get away with it.

I am making it my task to educate the masses. Tilting at wind mills, but in short time the market will be flooded with crap.

See these maps. The green is "good" coverage"

Wideband 25 KHz analog FM Coverage:

http://www.leikhim.com/attachments/Image/image020.gif

Narrowband 12.5 KHz analog FM Coverage:

http://www.leikhim.com/attachments/Image/image022.gif

The "maths".

LEIKHIM AND ASSOCIATES LLC - VHF-UHF Narrowbanding

The GMRS community should be pushing the FCC for a rule amendment to cross certify certain Part 90 radios for operation in Part 95 GMRS.

I was working on a paper concerning that. Found similar results but I was comparing modulation indexes (P25 versus 5 kHz was a 1 dB difference for example).
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
6,859
I was working on a paper concerning that. Found similar results but I was comparing modulation indexes (P25 versus 5 kHz was a 1 dB difference for example).

I haven't explored the effect of modulation indexes.

TSB-88 uses Delivered Audio Quality (Example DAQ 3.4) to describe what was in the "analog past" called Circuit Merit. NIST and Vendors went to a lot of effort to catalog the different modulations at different signal levels with respect to subjective listening tests. TSB-88 is pretty much the bible, and what ever inaccuracies it may have, it has turned out to be an industry standard, which is very good, because before this document was published, the major radio vendors, consultants, and customers all had a different opinion on how to design and test a land mobile radio system.

This is all worked out from TSB-88 B, version D if I recall, has same table more modulation types.

For 12.5 KHz P25 vs 25 KHz FM, you pick up 3.6 dB advantage of the "inferred noise floor" (1) and 2.3 dB advantage for the DAQ/CPC. If you compare with analog 12.5 KHz FM, P25 is improved another 3 dB.

(1) The "inferred noise floor" is a term Bernie Olsen came up with when I requested clarification of the first draft of TSB-88 where receiver noise figure was the sensitivity metric. LMR radio specifications never publish a noise figure. So Bernie's solution is to use the 12 dB SINAD CPC as a benchmark above the noise floor. So you deduct the SINAD value and that is the noise floor, then add the CPC value for the appropriate modulation.

The receiver values I use are for "guaranteed" specs for common radios. In practice, receiver sensitivity is normally better than spec. But YMMV.

I haven't looked to see if Phase 2 modulation impacts any of this, hopefully not because Phase 2 systems are being built with same RF layout as Phase 1.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top