• 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.

Any iDAS users out there?

Status
Not open for further replies.

n1das

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
1,601
Location
Nashua, NH
You already know me. All I have to add is.. IDAS GPS works like a charm..!

IDAS GPS Location

I figured you'd chime in here. :)

I've got some UHF Kenwood NEXEDGE portables working on a friend's UHF iDAS repeater (conventional) in 6.25k mode. He has some NEXEDGE portables and some Icom iDAS portables and mobiles. He is leaning more toward the Icom iDAS radios instead of Kenwood NEXEDGE radios.

I was mainly wondering who else on RR is playing around / using Icom iDAS or Kenwood NEXEDGE radios.

From some of the comments I've received from people who have listened to my audio samples at http://nxdn.mygmrs.com, I've had a few tell me they love the digital and I've had a few tell me they'd rather stick with analog, especially under weak signal conditions. From testing my friend and I have done, we've found one area where digital blows away analog any day. It's when you are hearing someone thru a repeater in analog and they are weak and scratchy into the repeater and you are also hearing the repeater very weak and scratchy. You're listening to a weak and noisy signal that's rebroadcasting the audio from a weak and noisy signal received by the repeater. It's essentially NOISE x 2, making it much harder to make out the person's audio. Digital totally 100% cleans this up, thanks to the benefit of forward error correction you get thru the (digital) repeater. The audio is still crystal clear instead of Noise x 2. We did this test on a UHF Icom FR6000 repeater. It does mixed analog/digital modes, so we were doing the analog vs. digital test test thru the same repeater under the same signal conditions. The only change was analog vs. digital modes during the test. I gotta figure out how to record an audio sample of this test!

NXDN Rocks, whether it's Kenwood NEXEDGE or Icom iDAS!
 
Last edited:

pachanga22

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
112
I did that the other day. Far enuff from repeater that keying one portable analog and waving the other around in the air, it would crack squelch but that's all. Went to digital and we could talk.
 

N2DLX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
240
Location
Hamilton, NJ
I'd love to mess around with the Kenwoods but I'm locked into Icom gear. I've compiled a ton of information about these radios, including the serial data. Do the Kenwoods have PC Control data sent over the serial port (similar to CAT on Ham radios)? It'd be great if Kenwood and Icom radios are compatible on that level -- all my data would then also pertain to Kenwood.

I heard a rumor Kenwood is working on 800 MHz NXDN radios. I wish Icom would expand their products outside of VHF and UHF.. it would benefit them immensely, especially with the new F9011 series where 800 MHz systems are a bigger chunk of the market.
 

n1das

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
1,601
Location
Nashua, NH
The NXDN audio samples I've posted on Rich's site NXDN Information were done in simplex. The analog vs. digital difference under weak signal conditions is MUCH more dramatic when you are struggling to hear someone in analog that's just barely readable (i.e., very weak and scratchy) into a repeater and at the same time you are just barely hearing the repeater. Weak and scratchy on BOTH ends. Digital totally cleans it up!
 
Last edited:

n1das

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
1,601
Location
Nashua, NH
I'd love to mess around with the Kenwoods but I'm locked into Icom gear. I've compiled a ton of information about these radios, including the serial data. Do the Kenwoods have PC Control data sent over the serial port (similar to CAT on Ham radios)? It'd be great if Kenwood and Icom radios are compatible on that level -- all my data would then also pertain to Kenwood.

The Kenwoods DO have serial port capability. I haven't messed with it at all so I don't know if PC control data is also available. I agree w/u, it would be absolutely great if they were compatible in terms of PC control.

I also agree NXDN should be on more than just VHF and UHF and Icom should expand their product line.
 
Last edited:

rescuecomm

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
1,445
Location
Travelers Rest, SC
The information is interesting. It appears to indicate that one could split a 25 khz UHF channel into 5 channels if the coordinator would approve it? To be able to build out a county wide system using existing frequency allocations would be a bonus.

Bob
 
N

N_Jay

Guest
The information is interesting. It appears to indicate that one could split a 25 khz UHF channel into 5 channels if the coordinator would approve it? To be able to build out a county wide system using existing frequency allocations would be a bonus.

Bob

How do you figure?

6.25x4=25
 

n1das

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
1,601
Location
Nashua, NH
The information is interesting. It appears to indicate that one could split a 25 khz UHF channel into 5 channels if the coordinator would approve it? To be able to build out a county wide system using existing frequency allocations would be a bonus.

Bob

I think it would actually be 4 channels (4 6.25kHz spaced channels, totalling 25kHz). With NXDN digital, being able use existing freq allocations comes as a bonus on top of everything else. This is one of Icom's talking points in their FDMA vs. TDMA paper. In many cases, all that would need to change on existing licenses would be an emission designator or two.

Icom and Kenwood have a viable 6.25kHz solution TODAY that works with existing freq allocations. OTOH, Motorola does not. To Moto, 6.25kHz operation means using a 2-slot TDMA system operation on 12.5kHz spaced channels, claiming to offer "6.25kHz equivalent efficiency". Even when the 2nd timeslot is unused when a MotoTRBO repeater is on the air, the whole occupied bandwidth of a 12.5kHz-spaced channel is still used. IIRC, the FCC still hasn't bought into Motorola's approach as a 6.25kHz solution.

My choice: NXDN 6.25kHz digital, offered thru Icom as iDAS and Kenwood as NEXEDGE. They are compatible in conventional mode only. Trunking locks you into either Icom or Kenwood. With Motorola's MotoTRBO, you're already locked into Moto even for conventional operation, and it likely will have to be replaced in a few years when the FCC eventually picks a date to migrate to 6.25kHz technology. Icom and Kenwood's solution is already future-proof.
 
N

N_Jay

Guest
It would be nice if there was a compatible set of FDMA and TDMA technologies.

While two 6.25 kHz channels looks more flexible, it is almost impossible to place them at the same site, or even at nearby sites, so if you want to load a site, TDMA is better. If you want site to site flexibility or simplex efficiency then FDMA is better.

Each company like to present the benefits of their solution and the deficits of the other. Both have both!
 

N2DLX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Messages
240
Location
Hamilton, NJ
It would be nice if there was a compatible set of FDMA and TDMA technologies.

While two 6.25 kHz channels looks more flexible, it is almost impossible to place them at the same site, or even at nearby sites, so if you want to load a site, TDMA is better. If you want site to site flexibility or simplex efficiency then FDMA is better.

Each company like to present the benefits of their solution and the deficits of the other. Both have both!

But the idea of FDMA @ 6.25 kHz is that you can be assigned channels from anywhere in the band. You can have one channel at 450 MHz and one at 470 MHz. With TDMA, you *HAVE* to be able to get a 12.5 kHz channel whether you end up using the full capacity or not.

In congested areas like NYC, 12.5 kHz channels are a little tricky to find. On the other hand, you can easily find 6.25 kHz channels scattered around. The fact that they aren't consecutive frequencies makes absolutely no difference to a FDMA system. While TDMA meets the "requirements" of the narrowbanding, it doesn't give the benefits of narrowbanding. Everyone has to occupy 6.25 kHz (and only 6.25) per channel for the benefits to be seen.
 

pachanga22

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
112
The problem with adjacent 6.25s is combining them. TXRX can do it certainly, but it is going to cost both your wallet and your output power. The insertion loss will be extreme. And you'd have to run some serious notch filters on the receivers if it is an inbuilding site with real high rx input levels or you'll crush the adjacent receivers. Too bad nobody makes extremely selective receiver front ends anymore like the old Mastr IIs. :(
 
N

N_Jay

Guest
Many people moving to these narrowband systems have existing channels, so when they split them they are adjacent.

at 6.25 kHz the TX loss would be ridiculous, and there are no filters good enough.

And even a hand tuned mastr II would not be tight enough for 6.25 adjacent.
 

Radio76

Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
1
Location
MESA
With 0 Kc combiners available you can put 6.25's end to end with about 6-7 dB of loss
 

rescuecomm

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
1,445
Location
Travelers Rest, SC
I was thinking about having the sites 3-4 miles apart. One in the northern part of the county, one in the middle at the 911 site, one at our existing site, and one in the southern part of the county. This would give almost complete UHF WT coverage using existing spectrum if techically feasable.

Bob
 

pachanga22

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
112
Many people moving to these narrowband systems have existing channels, so when they split them they are adjacent.

at 6.25 kHz the TX loss would be ridiculous, and there are no filters good enough.

And even a hand tuned mastr II would not be tight enough for 6.25 adjacent.
True, but it's one of the tightest front ends I ever saw.

Ya know, I keep hearing and reading about people "splitting" their 25KC channels, and that's not the way I understand it works. As I understand it, the channel centers are staying the same. Because you have a 25KC license doen't mean you are licensed on the channel centers of any 6.25 channel centers within that 25KC. When someone renews a 25KC license, it comes back 12.5 on the same center, you don't get 2 12.5 channels back for your 25...Am I missing something? I haven't heard of anyone being licensed to 4 6.25 centers within a 25KC license.
 
N

N_Jay

Guest
True, but it's one of the tightest front ends I ever saw.

Ya know, I keep hearing and reading about people "splitting" their 25KC channels, and that's not the way I understand it works. As I understand it, the channel centers are staying the same. Because you have a 25KC license doen't mean you are licensed on the channel centers of any 6.25 channel centers within that 25KC. When someone renews a 25KC license, it comes back 12.5 on the same center, you don't get 2 12.5 channels back for your 25...Am I missing something? I haven't heard of anyone being licensed to 4 6.25 centers within a 25KC license.

Yes, you are missing the idea of splitting your channel by narrow-banding on your center and requesting new allocations on the channels you freed up.

The center issue does cause a problem, as even at 6.25 you only get three usable channels, not 4.

You could request a waver to go to new centers and try to get 4 channels, but you would need to show tech engineering work to convince the FCC that your edges won't cause interference.

Additionally, much of this becomes much more difficult with shared channels and overlapping allocations (VHF).

That is why you use experts when licensing.
 

pachanga22

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Banned
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
112
I actually know of, and advised against, some folks just programming repeaters on what they deem the 6.25 centers on "their" 25KC channel. I'm sure they'll cry foul if the FCC catches up to them and makes that license THEIRS. :D
 

ElroyJetson

I AM NOT YOUR TECH SUPPPORT.
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 8, 2002
Messages
3,687
Location
DO NOT ASK ME FOR HELP PROGRAMMING YOUR RADIO. NO.
I'm currently in the initial stage of designing an iDAS single site trunking system for a very interested customer.

Having had many Kenwood and Icom radios cross my tech bench over the past several years, my considered opinion is that Icom makes a better radio. With roughly equal numbers of Kenwood and Icom radios coming in for PM and service, I'm seeing essentially no warranty service issues on the Icoms but I've seen several Kenwood warranty service issues. New radios that fail in the field, very quickly. I don't see new Icoms coming back unless they've been beaten to death. Run over by a bus. Drowned.

Elroy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top