I've been through many brands of radios. But none of them compare to the Stryker line of radios...If you're looking for top shelf performance, they are the only clear choice.
-
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.
CB Radios with SSB
- Thread starter N2PFS
- Start date
- Status
Odd as I have talked mobile simplex for a lot further distance.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
- Joined
- May 15, 2014
- Messages
- 84
Yes that is correct. I should have clarified that.
But to compare apples for apples, I do believe a 4W hand held CB, with a full length antenna, will perform better than a 2m hand held.
I remember back in the late 80's, I'd frequently talk to my father in the evening, as we both stood out in our driveways, about five miles apart, using hand held CBs.
I'm not into CB, but if either company ever comes up with a scanner for public service frequencies WHICH HAS THE FEATURES that this "President" radio has (like knobs instead of push buttons) and one-touch memory frequency (or talk group) access, they'd make a mint.
But, apparently, Uniden has decided to design their radios for radio "buffs" rather than people who actually use the radios as a tool, who monitor various frequencies in which they have to take some action on, like volunteer EMTs, firefighters, etc., without having to take your eyes off the road just to raise the volume or change channels.
Uniden's radios appear to be set up and designed for those who sit in a radio shack and spend the day looking for new frequencies (or talk groups) and agencies to just listen to, having no need to actually listen to what is being said and act accordingly.
But, apparently, Uniden has decided to design their radios for radio "buffs" rather than people who actually use the radios as a tool, who monitor various frequencies in which they have to take some action on, like volunteer EMTs, firefighters, etc., without having to take your eyes off the road just to raise the volume or change channels.
Uniden's radios appear to be set up and designed for those who sit in a radio shack and spend the day looking for new frequencies (or talk groups) and agencies to just listen to, having no need to actually listen to what is being said and act accordingly.
prcguy
Member
Generally no, the 2m handhelds will work better. I spent my childhood using CB walki-talkies and occasionally got maybe 15mi range from a hilltop between 2 walki-taklies.
On 2m I can usually talk 40mi simplex from inside my house in one direction with a hand held and rubber antenna and if I go outside on my raised deck 100mi hand held to hand held from my house down the coast to San Diego is not a problem. That shot is impossible between 2 CB walki-taklies.
prcguy
On 2m I can usually talk 40mi simplex from inside my house in one direction with a hand held and rubber antenna and if I go outside on my raised deck 100mi hand held to hand held from my house down the coast to San Diego is not a problem. That shot is impossible between 2 CB walki-taklies.
prcguy
FiveFilter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2016
- Messages
- 308
Prcguy, why is the 2m so much better than the 11m band?
Is it that the characteristics of higher frequencies just inherently allow it to reach farther out?
Or is it because the 2m radio has more power than the 4 Watt legal CB?
Or a combination of the two or something else?
Is it that the characteristics of higher frequencies just inherently allow it to reach farther out?
Or is it because the 2m radio has more power than the 4 Watt legal CB?
Or a combination of the two or something else?
Watt for watt, 11m will generally go further than 2m for a couple of reasons.
First, 11m antennas are physically larger. A 1/4-wave CB antenna is ~108" vs ~20" for 2m. A physically larger antenna will pick up proportionately more signal than a smaller antenna, as long as both are resonant.
Second, 11m will pass through foliage and nonmetallic structures with less loss than 2m. 11m will also refract around terrain features with less loss than 2m.
The difference is similar to the difference between 2m and 70cm--70cm is even worse at penetrating foliage and refracting around obstacles than 2m. The only time 11m is at a disadvantage to 2m is when atmospheric noise levels are higher in the 11m band than the 2m band.
First, 11m antennas are physically larger. A 1/4-wave CB antenna is ~108" vs ~20" for 2m. A physically larger antenna will pick up proportionately more signal than a smaller antenna, as long as both are resonant.
Second, 11m will pass through foliage and nonmetallic structures with less loss than 2m. 11m will also refract around terrain features with less loss than 2m.
The difference is similar to the difference between 2m and 70cm--70cm is even worse at penetrating foliage and refracting around obstacles than 2m. The only time 11m is at a disadvantage to 2m is when atmospheric noise levels are higher in the 11m band than the 2m band.
FiveFilter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2016
- Messages
- 308
Jonwienke, thanks for that. Very interesting information for me.
KC4RAF
Member
Have no idea where you all come up with the CB reaching farther than a 2 meter (excluding skip and power)? With my el-cheapo Baefeng hand held, ~4 watts or so, I can hit the repeater in Lake Wales, Florida (~20 miles) with a rubber duck antenna! I also have a CB hand held with legal 4 watts and RARELY hit Davenport, Florida which is about 4 air miles from me.
Don't get me wrong, CBs have their place; Great for road travel, etc. But for distance, you WILL NOT get farther or equal to 2 meters/70 cm transmission. Do a comparison with both hands held, CB and 2 meter at a distance of 10 miles.
Don't get me wrong, CBs have their place; Great for road travel, etc. But for distance, you WILL NOT get farther or equal to 2 meters/70 cm transmission. Do a comparison with both hands held, CB and 2 meter at a distance of 10 miles.
Last edited:
Your comparison is invalid, for the simple reason that the repeater is almost certainly on a taller tower than your CB contact, and that CB HT antennas are far less efficient than 2m HT antennas.
If you compare apples to-apples, where all antennas involved are 1/4-wave ground planes the same height above ground level, 11m will consistently beat 2m unless skip is running and 11m has a lot of interference.
Huh?
70cm refracts very well in urban enviorments. Especially when used with a quarter wave or even a half wave antenna.
prcguy
Member
The reason is mostly antenna size vs efficiency for 2m and some atmospheric noise disadvantages for CB plus some reflection and refraction advantages for 2m that were mentioned. There is actually a 14.6dB free space path loss advantage to CB over 2m where using identical power and 0dB gain antennas, CB would work better in space, but we are not in space and other factors are at play. Also, the size difference between 0dB gain antennas for CB and 2m is drastic.
A half wavelength on CB is about 18ft and a half wavelength on 2m is just a little over 3ft. When you shorten a CB antenna up considerably to say 3ft, its lost maybe 10 to 20dB efficiency compared to an 18ft antenna. A 3ft 2m antenna works quite well and an 18ft tall 2m antenna can approach 6dB gain over a 3.2ft long 2m dipole.
Since hand held radios were being discussed, a 5ft telescopic whip on a CB handheld with no ground plane has to be 20dB or more worse than feeding a full size 1/2 wavelength base antenna. But for 2m a 19" whip on the radio is not that far down from a 1/2 wave dipole, maybe a couple of dB at the most. You now have a huge advantage in antenna efficiency on 2m compared to CB when discussing typical antennas in use. Now play fair and use a 19" antenna on your CB walki-talki and see how far it goes. Or put a 5ft tall gain antenna on your 2m hand held and see how much more range you have.
I've done years of range testing with CB walki-taklis as a teenager and maybe 40 or more years of testing simplex hand held range on 2m and there is no comparison, 2m beats CB by a long shot when using typical hand held antennas.
prcguy
A half wavelength on CB is about 18ft and a half wavelength on 2m is just a little over 3ft. When you shorten a CB antenna up considerably to say 3ft, its lost maybe 10 to 20dB efficiency compared to an 18ft antenna. A 3ft 2m antenna works quite well and an 18ft tall 2m antenna can approach 6dB gain over a 3.2ft long 2m dipole.
Since hand held radios were being discussed, a 5ft telescopic whip on a CB handheld with no ground plane has to be 20dB or more worse than feeding a full size 1/2 wavelength base antenna. But for 2m a 19" whip on the radio is not that far down from a 1/2 wave dipole, maybe a couple of dB at the most. You now have a huge advantage in antenna efficiency on 2m compared to CB when discussing typical antennas in use. Now play fair and use a 19" antenna on your CB walki-talki and see how far it goes. Or put a 5ft tall gain antenna on your 2m hand held and see how much more range you have.
I've done years of range testing with CB walki-taklis as a teenager and maybe 40 or more years of testing simplex hand held range on 2m and there is no comparison, 2m beats CB by a long shot when using typical hand held antennas.
prcguy
FiveFilter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2016
- Messages
- 308
Thanks for that, Prcguy. It's mostly an antenna size-and-efficiency question as they relate to wave length, which is particularly important to handhelds and the desire for their maximum portability.
The question of range potential v frequencies can be confusing because it involves the combination of ground-wave and sky-wave and the ability of some frequencies to bend with the earth's curvature and handle obstructions and utilize sky-wave skip propagation better and etc and etc.
I guess what it amounts to is, you pays your money and takes your choice. No matter what you choose, there are compromises. Otherwise, everybody would try to be on the same "perfect" frequency and the boat would sink.
Since I don't use handhelds anyway, what's best for them doesn't make any difference to my radio needs. I use radio communications only in my vehicles and where they go, and I can thus accommodate on a practical basis from three- to five-foot antennas for the CB band.
My vehicle radios get the job done for my requirements; i.e., to get (and give) road reports within 10 or so miles of me so I can avoid immediate traffic hazards and stoppages. For that, the CB band is as perfect as you can get, not only due to the CB characteristics but especially because only CB has the on-road drivers on a specific frequency to (sometimes) satisfy the need for immediate road reports.
And the debate goes on....
The question of range potential v frequencies can be confusing because it involves the combination of ground-wave and sky-wave and the ability of some frequencies to bend with the earth's curvature and handle obstructions and utilize sky-wave skip propagation better and etc and etc.
I guess what it amounts to is, you pays your money and takes your choice. No matter what you choose, there are compromises. Otherwise, everybody would try to be on the same "perfect" frequency and the boat would sink.
Since I don't use handhelds anyway, what's best for them doesn't make any difference to my radio needs. I use radio communications only in my vehicles and where they go, and I can thus accommodate on a practical basis from three- to five-foot antennas for the CB band.
My vehicle radios get the job done for my requirements; i.e., to get (and give) road reports within 10 or so miles of me so I can avoid immediate traffic hazards and stoppages. For that, the CB band is as perfect as you can get, not only due to the CB characteristics but especially because only CB has the on-road drivers on a specific frequency to (sometimes) satisfy the need for immediate road reports.
And the debate goes on....
No, it can pass through smaller holes than 2m or 11m, but it is absorbed to a greater degree passing through solid walls and foliage. And if there is a low hill in the way it pretty much gets blocked, where 11m and 2m will refract around the hill.
You're not refuting anything I said, which was that in an apples-to-apples comparison, (antennas of comparable gain and efficiency an equal distance above the ground, and equal TX power) that 11m would generally win except when atmospheric noise levels were high in the 11m band.
When you cripple 11m by using typical HT antennas that are physically a small fraction of their wavelength, then the advantage goes to 70cm or 2m. But when you use optimal antennas for all bands, 11m will generally win. The question is whether the physical size of an efficient 11m antenna is practical. For HT use, probably not, unless you connect the HT to an external antenna. On a vehicle, maybe, depending on whether you park in a garage or whatever. For a base station it's probably not an issue.
Yes, there are times when practical considerations limit the maximum usable size of an antenna, and using shorter wavelengths to get better efficiency out of a shorter antenna makes sense. But that doesn't change the fact that given equally efficient antennas, 11m will generally give you more distance per watt than 2m or 70cm.
prcguy
Member
Ok, equally efficient antennas is a key point and that does give CB an advantage. But forgetting about hand helds and looking at the real world, people use inefficient to grossly inefficient antennas on their vehicles for CB where most people run a gain type antenna on 2m. Most CBers have a 0dBd gain base antenna at best where most hams on 2m have between a 0dBd and 6dBd gain base antenna.
Another problem that sways things toward 2m is antenna height above ground and the influence on the main lobe of the antenna. Even at the first half wavelength above ground the antenna pattern is pushed upward and you loose an amount of gain at the horizon. This can be a couple of dB or several dB loss at the horizon. The second half wavelength (full wavelength) is better and the higher you go the more the antenna pattern will approach that of free space, which should have the main lobe directed at the horizon.
A half wavelength at CB is 18ft and most people probably have their CB antenna between that and 25ft off the ground. 36ft is a full wavelength and less people can get their CB antenna up that high. So most base station and especially mobile CB antennas have a pattern skewed upward and whatever their antenna gain is rated at is actually much less due to the simple fact they can't get it high enough.
A 2m antenna at 18ft is already 2.8 wavelengths above ground and 25ft high its about 4 wavelengths above ground and that has much less influence on pushing the pattern upward. At 25ft off the ground a 2m base antenna will work very close to its free space spec where a CB antenna will have lost probably several dB of gain.
There went several paragraphs blabbing about upward antenna pattern shift vs height and the loss at CB for typical heights is at least 1dB per paragraph and the gain for 2m would be a similar ratio.
In my experience its rare to get more range on CB than 2m over the countless contacts I've made on both bands and that's because of all the little things that add up to reduce the range of CB like lower antenna gain and efficiency and the opposite for 2m. Then consider a CB is limited to 4w and most 2m base or mobile rigs are 20 to 50w range.
I think if you were to take a survey of people who operate both 2m and CB, mobile and base you will find the consensus is people are getting more distance on 2m with whatever equipment they have over CB. A perfect lab experiment would show otherwise but real world on this is different.
prcguy
Another problem that sways things toward 2m is antenna height above ground and the influence on the main lobe of the antenna. Even at the first half wavelength above ground the antenna pattern is pushed upward and you loose an amount of gain at the horizon. This can be a couple of dB or several dB loss at the horizon. The second half wavelength (full wavelength) is better and the higher you go the more the antenna pattern will approach that of free space, which should have the main lobe directed at the horizon.
A half wavelength at CB is 18ft and most people probably have their CB antenna between that and 25ft off the ground. 36ft is a full wavelength and less people can get their CB antenna up that high. So most base station and especially mobile CB antennas have a pattern skewed upward and whatever their antenna gain is rated at is actually much less due to the simple fact they can't get it high enough.
A 2m antenna at 18ft is already 2.8 wavelengths above ground and 25ft high its about 4 wavelengths above ground and that has much less influence on pushing the pattern upward. At 25ft off the ground a 2m base antenna will work very close to its free space spec where a CB antenna will have lost probably several dB of gain.
There went several paragraphs blabbing about upward antenna pattern shift vs height and the loss at CB for typical heights is at least 1dB per paragraph and the gain for 2m would be a similar ratio.
In my experience its rare to get more range on CB than 2m over the countless contacts I've made on both bands and that's because of all the little things that add up to reduce the range of CB like lower antenna gain and efficiency and the opposite for 2m. Then consider a CB is limited to 4w and most 2m base or mobile rigs are 20 to 50w range.
I think if you were to take a survey of people who operate both 2m and CB, mobile and base you will find the consensus is people are getting more distance on 2m with whatever equipment they have over CB. A perfect lab experiment would show otherwise but real world on this is different.
prcguy
What about knife edge?
And depend on the Country directional Antenna are not allowed on CB.
I use a galaxy 99v2 that has ssb. I like it a lot but my experience is low. I think having a good tech to go over it and tun it is maybe as important as selecting a good radio and a good tech can tell you which radios currently have good build quality and which ones don't. Also lots of techs are sonic screwdriver types, get one that's into ham and does more than just cb, they probably have more advanced knowledge in radios and how to precision tune them, not just peak the power output. I've encountered both types in my short journey so far.
- Status
Similar threads
