Anecdotally, sure. Since we're speaking anecdotally and spinning opinions into "fact"...I assert that many of those with that opinion are not actually users of the systems being discussed, but are enthusiasts listening with subpar consumer scanners and free software. The majority of public safety users I'm familiar with who operate on these P25 systems every day got used to the digital voice pretty quickly, and have no issue with the systems after the break in period. The lack of background noise in the transmission is another plus. But I'm sure this is falling on deaf ears, so whatever.
Broome County P25 Phase II TRS
- Thread starter GTR8000
- Start date
Unfortunately, for your assertion and opinion, not the case.
kc2klc
Member
Well, I wonder...I'm definitely having a tougher time making out the audio using my RTL-SDR, SDRTRunk and a PC - but perhaps if I had a $500 Uniden Trunk Tracking scanner, or better yet, an actual police radio - maybe the audio would be super clear (?)
EDIT: I must've posted simultaneously with GTR8000 - we seem to be thinking along similar lines.
EDIT: I must've posted simultaneously with GTR8000 - we seem to be thinking along similar lines.
I just returned from visiting family in Aurora, CO. Aurora has a P25 Phase II system similar to the new Broome County system. While eating lunch at a restaurant we sat near a group of Aurora police officers. I was able to hear several calls on their portable radios. The audio quality sounded very close to my RTL-SDR, OP25 system at home. A few transmissions were poor quality, but most were understandable.
I've listened to the Broome County system quite a bit over the past month and it takes a while to get used to it. As a volunteer firefighter in Broome County, I'll know soon enough how at sounds on an actual radio. We've been told that the quality of the audio has a lot to do with how you speak into the microphone and where you hold it while speaking.
I've listened to the Broome County system quite a bit over the past month and it takes a while to get used to it. As a volunteer firefighter in Broome County, I'll know soon enough how at sounds on an actual radio. We've been told that the quality of the audio has a lot to do with how you speak into the microphone and where you hold it while speaking.
You're wrong, and couldn't be any more wrong if you tried to. The "assertion" that GTR8000 made is factual, based on his first hand experience with these systems. He's worked on them, knows several others who have. I, too, have experience with both and can tell you, that the issues completely lie in the low end consumer lines. 100% fact. With all of that aside, just based on consumer scanner listening alone, the SDS series digital decode is night and day better than -any other scanner on the market- (Note I said scanner, not Unication.). That is also a fact.
So your opinion is just that , a non based "opinion". Period.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
The only true evaluation of a digital system's audio quality is on a subscriber radio and it will vary with how well the system was implemented vs inherent problems in the technology. So any assertion that digital vs analog is inherently bad is not based on facts.
YMMV with any SDR arrangement depending on software and hardware but it has the ability to decode properly. The SDS100 has the ability to decode properly but audio is degraded by a tinny sounding speaker that is equally bad on analog and digital. The SDS200 may not have that issue. Other scanners (not Unication) are inherently incapable of properly decoding P25 LSM so judging the technology by a device not designed to work with it is meaningless.
Yes, agreed. A lot of the time it sounds fine but many times it seems to pick up way too much background noise and if people aren't using/speaking "properly" it's very hard to hear, let alone understand what is being said.
I'm not wrong at all. He has his assertion and opinion that you happen to agree with.
It's my experience as a listener on many different scanners and a user on a county system, that's my opinion and many agree with it.
As I probably know the system you are talking about and I cannot speak for the subscriber radios on the system but I get 99.9999% audio from it on my 536HP and many RTL sticks just using their stock 4" antenna stuck atop the computer tower, inside the house and not near any windows. If things are tuned properly, which they have done with the Broome system extensively by the reading of this thread, they can be far more reliable than an analog system. I cannot vouch for what Cortland has done on their system as I feel they overspent and got undersold.
Very true.
The actual reception/signal/coverage is not the problem. My observations, experience and discussions with listeners and users alike are that of intelligibility. There are also many complaints of heavy background pickup/noise etc.
As for your last assertion I would not be surprised in the least.
The actual reception/signal/coverage is not the problem. My observations, experience and discussions with listeners and users alike are that of intelligibility. There are also many complaints of heavy background pickup/noise etc.
As for your last assertion I would not be surprised in the least.
I have been listening for a few weeks and I think it sounds 10x better than the analog signal and yes it does get a little bit to get used too but overall a major improvement and I’ve found I get signal basically everywhere across the county and even into PA and down into halfway into Tioga
I've been monitoring the Broome P25 system since the initial use by the Parks Dept and have been impressed by the audio quality and system coverage since day one. Reception is crystal clear in my office in a large brick and steel building where the analog reception is at best fair to none. DPW transmission from crews in remote areas during recent storms have been crystal clear. Use of the radios has been professional and appropriate by users ranging from teenage lifeguards to BC Transit bus drivers to snowplow drivers to Endicott PD. I've heard technicians in remote areas near the county line documenting the addresses of properties where coverage dropped off so they issues can be remediated. Digital does sound different from analog, but each transmission is at the same volume without choppiness, without electrical engine noise, and without static. Broome has so many hills and valleys that most local FM radio stations must have multiple transmitters and frequencies to reach the majority of the population. The new P25 Phase 2 system will finally allow county wide transmissions without dispatchers having to manually transmit on different transmitters.
rufust
Member
P25 rookie looking for an opinion here.I monitor with a BC992P2 and an unknown brand mag mount antenna on a metal roof. When I update from RR on the P25 system I seem to get less activity.Is there anything I can do to the scanner or will I have to update?
Regarding the sound quality discussion please take note that there are some issues on the Broome system that we are working through. One issue is that we are experiencing interference on a few of our channels that is very intermittent. Most of that interference is being caused by our legacy systems that as soon as we are able will be taken off the air as agencies migrate to the new system. With this interference you may notice one transmission that sounds great but the very next one is not so great - even from the same radio. This is especially noticeable when the transmitter is a portable.
Another issue is the quality of audio on the sheriff talk group. That talk group is currently connected to the legacy VHF conventional system via a console patch. 95% of the radio transmissions on that talk group are from conventional VHF radios coming into the comparator from any of 9 different receivers. The audio travels via microwave from a tower site where the comparator is located to the console, is patched to the P25 talk group and rebroadcasted. The legacy system has components that are anywhere from a few years old to more than 30 years old. Once all the law enforcement users of the sheriff system are migrated to P25, that patch will be disabled. The rest of county law enforcement is not scheduled to transition to P25 until late spring 2023 at the earliest.
Another issue is the quality of audio on the sheriff talk group. That talk group is currently connected to the legacy VHF conventional system via a console patch. 95% of the radio transmissions on that talk group are from conventional VHF radios coming into the comparator from any of 9 different receivers. The audio travels via microwave from a tower site where the comparator is located to the console, is patched to the P25 talk group and rebroadcasted. The legacy system has components that are anywhere from a few years old to more than 30 years old. Once all the law enforcement users of the sheriff system are migrated to P25, that patch will be disabled. The rest of county law enforcement is not scheduled to transition to P25 until late spring 2023 at the earliest.
All things considered, I've found the audio quality to be quite good. It's always been clear that most of the Sheriff talkgroup comms are a patch as they all have the same unit ID#. The patched transmissions aren't the same quality as those of digital radios, but I monitor the patched talkgroup rather than the VHF channel for the Sheriff on my handheld because my location in Vestal is shadowed from Ingraham Hill causing a very weak VHF signal in some areas of my house. Thanks for the update!
kc2klc
Member
If you have the money, the time, the inclination and the ability, a discone antenna on the roof would probably perform WAY better than that magna-mount. I use an MFJ model that's available from GigaParts for $86 + shipping (MFJ VHF DISCONE ANT, 25-1300 MHz, SO-239 - MFJ-1868).
rufust
Member
That will be my next project once I get past weather and grounding issues.Just wanted to make sure the scanner should be capable.
If you are interested in general monitoring vs just the P25 system then go for it. But, be advised it could significantly degrade P25 simulcast reception on that scanner by increasing the simulcast distortion from receiving multiple sites. "Less is more" with that scanner not designed to properly handle P25 simulcast and the ability to easily move the antenna to find good reception helps. Even finding a good spot may change from time to time. You may find just a "rubber duck" on the scanner works better than the outside antenna for the P25 system.
Re your change in what you hear after an update, make sure the update did not change previously programmed data or settings. I am not familiar with the various 992 software to tell you what to look for.
kc2klc
Member
The decision to go with a low-gain antenna (like a rubber duck) or relatively higher gain (like the discone) depends on where you live. In the valley, and/or near one of the towers? Rubber duck will be fine. Out in the countryside a fair distance from any of the towers (my situation), getting a decent antenna on the roof may be highly beneficial. I see that your scanner does not have an RF Gain control - so (again, depending on you location) K2HZ's concerns may be valid. (Many of us are using software-defined radios, which often have a gain control that can be dialed back to avoid off-frequency signals from overloading our receivers.)
You are mixing two different issues - SDRs are not subject to simulcast distortion and have no Issues with P25 LSM but they are subject to overload and desense causing interference from other systems. So, attenuation will eliminate interference from "off frequency" signals.
The 992 was not designed to handle out of phase P25 LSM signals from multiple sites in the system so it will have reception problems that can only be mitigated by living very close to or only in range of one site. Attenuation does not help unless the interfering signals are much weaker than the primary signal. Bottom line is the 992 will only properly receive P25 simulcast if your location and antenna is not in range of multiple sites.
Similar threads
