Boulder SO patch on DTRS

[nathancarlson]

I am sure its just a patch, as I have not seen more than one radio ID, but have heard Boulder County Green Channel on DTRS Talkgroup 9100, listed as Boulder County Law 1. Its been affiliating with the Longmont Control Channel. It will be interesting to see if they do the same with Red 1, or if it is already being done. I like it because it sounds much better than the conventional channel does with the background noise/hum. I have learned that this noise is from the "voter" which basically helps pick which repeater the conventional radios will use. The field units chose the best sounding repeater from their location (North, Central, ect) but when they transmit, the voter will choose which repeater they transmit on. Boulder County has a very strong conventional system, and I don't think they will go to DTRS but its interesting that they are at least doing a patch (along with Red NW and Blue NW which have been in place for a long time).

 

[ecanderson]

Funny how so much depends upon your radio. The EQ on my BCD396XT tends to muddy the DTRS audio (lack of high end and too much low end), so I actually prefer to listen to Green on VHF where the sound is crisper, regardless of the hum. Ditto Longmont for crisper sound on VHF. I wish Uniden would provide some sort of digital 'tone control' for these things the same way they allow for +/- audio gain offset on a per item basis.

 

[greenthumb]

Boulder County's Motorola consoles are on DTRS so they have a lot of capabilities to interoperate with DTRS users and patch things from DTRS into VHF and also use metro net. Not a bad move when they're pretty much surrounded by neighboring agencies on DTRS.

 

[dw2872]

Funny how so much depends upon your radio. The EQ on my BCD396XT tends to muddy the DTRS audio (lack of high end and too much low end), so I actually prefer to listen to Green on VHF where the sound is crisper, regardless of the hum. Ditto Longmont for crisper sound on VHF. I wish Uniden would provide some sort of digital 'tone control' for these things the same way they allow for +/- audio gain offset on a per item basis.

I run my 396xt through my computer using ProScan and it sounds crisp and clear (and I can play the audio back on the fly and also see which radio ID goes with each audio transmission).

The muddy audio must just be that speaker.

 

[natedawg1604]

I'm now hearing Boulder Law 1 on Lookout. Very interesting.

 

[kjk681]

I like it because it sounds much better than the conventional channel does with the background noise/hum. I have learned that this noise is from the "voter" which basically helps pick which repeater the conventional radios will use. The field units chose the best sounding repeater from their location (North, Central, ect) but when they transmit, the voter will choose which repeater they transmit on. Boulder County has a very strong conventional system, and I don't think they will go to DTRS but its interesting that they are at least doing a patch (along with Red NW and Blue NW which have been in place for a long time).

The hum you hear is not from the voter. The voted audio you hear patched to DTRS is the same audio that is repeated on the conventional system. It is probably the CTCSS tone. They use 179.9 on Green Central, which is a higher frequency tone. Most scanners do not do a very good job filtering the CTCSS tones out, especially the higher frequency ones. The commercial radio gear does a good job filtering this, which is why the DTRS patch does not have this. I have also noticed that Green South has a hum that sounds like a bad microwave channel card.

I agree that they will not go to DTRS. The mountain coverage is not sufficient for them and would cost quite a bit to install the sites to get the coverage. Not to mention that DTRS is in financial trouble and there does not seem to be a clear path to sustainment.

 

[natedawg1604]

Boulder County's Motorola consoles are on DTRS so they have a lot of capabilities to interoperate with DTRS users and patch things from DTRS into VHF and also use metro net. Not a bad move when they're pretty much surrounded by neighboring agencies on DTRS.

How would TG Boulder Law 1 (TGID 9100) affiliate with any DTRS site(s) in the first place, if individual radio users in the field are not actually keying-up on this TG? Would this involve some type of "manual" or "forced" affiliation initiated from a dispatch console or central controller?

 

[ecanderson]

I run my 396xt through my computer using ProScan and it sounds crisp and clear (and I can play the audio back on the fly and also see which radio ID goes with each audio transmission).

The muddy audio must just be that speaker.

Nope. This is in mobile use, and both DTRS and VHF are being run through the car audio system. That makes a difference, too. The VHF is lacking in low end vs. the DTRS, which is just fine for comms. Of course, that's why there was an old rule of thumb that preferred female dispatchers as well.

 

[nathancarlson]

No matter what scanner or ham radio I monitor green on, I hear the hum. I have even heard it in patrol cars while on ride-a-longs with Boulder PD. I assumed it had to do with the simulcasting of the different sites in some way. I wonder if some units in the field like CSP or Longmont who have DTRS radios are monitoring Law 1 which is why its affiliating on the different sites. They do have a very good radio system in place and I am glad to see the patch.

 

[greenthumb]

How would TG Boulder Law 1 (TGID 9100) affiliate with any DTRS site(s) in the first place, if individual radio users in the field are not actually keying-up on this TG? Would this involve some type of "manual" or "forced" affiliation initiated from a dispatch console or central controller?

No - they don't configure any talk groups to have 'requested sites' on the DTRS system. There is a radio out there selected on that talk group and is making it appear on the site.

 

[chris_a_rodgers]

This is a testing phase for Erie and others law agencies to test 800 radios. Only plans that I'm aware about for now is for Green to be patched, not any other channels.

 

[natedawg1604]

No - they don't configure any talk groups to have 'requested sites' on the DTRS system. There is a radio out there selected on that talk group and is making it appear on the site.

Hmm, okay. This TG has been randomly appearing and leaving various DTR sites, as if the radio is moving. The Pro96Com affiliation log shows 2 Radio ID's for Boulder Law 1, but the actual channel grant log shows only one Radio ID.

 

[greenthumb]

That's what I would expect to see with a talk group patched to a conventional resource where the radios on the trunked side are just listening. The affiliations are from the radios selected on that talk group which are roaming around and just listening. The grants are using the console radio ID for that talk group on the Boulder County console and will be the same each time the talk group call originates from the conventional side of the patch.

 

[scanlist]

Several Erie PD units are on the DTRS side today with no signs of talk-in issues so far.

Erie does have a lot of talk-in "static" issues with portables on VHF along with Lafayette and Louisville. Could be interesting if these cities go DTR in the future.