Could Uniden Ever Design A Scanner To Properly Decode Trunked Simulcast Systems?

[KA1RBI]

how much did you pay for the computer? Even if it's used for other things, it was still an out of pocket expense that is necessary to make the dongles work. <snip>

Isn't a computer necessary also to make the scanner itself work (i.e., programming software such as sentinel etc.)? What's the procedure for transferring database entries (from this web site) into the scanner's working memory banks?

Max

 

[Citywide173]

Isn't a computer necessary also to make the scanner itself work (i.e., programming software such as sentinel etc.)? What's the procedure for transferring database entries (from this web site) into the scanner's working memory banks?

Max

You can program the scanner by hand. True, a computer makes it easier, but is not necessary.

 

[KA1RBI]

You can program the scanner by hand.

You can? according to How to Manually Enter Frequencies into a Uniden HomePatrol Police Scanner (which says the source of the info comes directly from Uniden):

Entries that are being entered into the HomePatrol through the Quick Frequency method, aren't being stored into the device <1>, and the moment you try to save another frequency, the previous entered frequency is removed from the device <2>.

Is this true?

 

[Citywide173]

That is the Quick Frequency Entry. It is for just that, entering a frequency quickly.

Here are the directions for entering Systems, Departments, Sites and Frequencies/TGs

Easier to Read BCD436/536HP Digital Scanner Manual

 

[JASII]

Could Uniden Ever Design A Scanner To Properly Decode Trunked Simulcast Systems?

.....It will require scanner makers to stop doing things the way things have always been done...

More than that - I hope it will help scanner consumers to start asking for the right things (IF-DSP) and manufacturers to respond... If / when they do, I might become a customer again...

Max,

It is great to see that you have done your homework on this. Approximately how much more would it cost to add this? Would it add $100 to the MSRP of a scanner?

Jim

 

[jcardani]

I mentioned this a few years ago but I believe an add on solution may be able to be built. I envisioned a small add on modem board that would take the scanner's 450 or 455 KHz IF as input , down convert the signal, separate I & Q, demodulate the LSM CQPSK with a Pi/4 DQPSK demodulator chip, re-modulate it with a C4FM chip to baseband audio, and finally output that signal back to the scanner before the radio's micro controller. This would basically replace the scanner's existing FM discriminator with the upgraded remodulated one. It can even be switchable.

CML micro manufacturers chips that can be used for this function. This may even be able to be done with a very fast micro controller since the code used for OP25 is open source. I'm sure a talented electrical engineer would be able to design such a device.

 

[slicerwizard]

I love how some promote the $20 solution, but it's only $20 if the PC was free. Odds are the PC is much more powerful than the x36 processor.

I love how Joe M. doesn't know what he's talking about.

Still, a PC is processing the data at a much higher rate than a scanner. I understand what you are saying. I'm saying that's only half of the solution if you go that route.

So now you're arguing that a scanner needs a much less powerful processor - lower data rate equals lower processing load. You're arguing against yourself.

The point Voyager was trying to make that seems to be missed is how much did you pay for the computer? Even if it's used for other things, it was still an out of pocket expense that is necessary to make the dongles work. Is a person really saving $300-400 when you factor that in?

So we're all posting on RR using our phones? No-one has a PC? No PC gamers here? I suppose LTR Analyzer, TRUNK88, Unitrunker, DSD+, OP25, etc. also cost $400 apiece.

I hope the above will help to debunk the myth that LSM would require monstrous engineering or hardware costs.

No, it does not. It cannot. It is imperative that Joe M./Voyager absolve Uniden of any and all failings. To do so, he must derogate your message.

FUD must prevail.

Consumers must fear the dollar cost of a proper I/Q scanner. Why build something that most won't be able to afford?

Elevate the uncertainty of higher processor loads and reduced battery life. Will such a scanner even be practical?

Raise doubt over the veracity of Max's message. Surely he's not well versed in the art of consumer electronics - what's he overlooking?

 

[SCPD]

My Uniden BC996XLT tries but the simulcast distortion is so bad where I live, even my Motorola radios suffer from it once and a while. Even with a yagi there are two towers that are not separated enough to null one of them out. In some areas like mine a scanner that handles the simulcast issues may not help enough.

 

[Voyager]

There is an issue, but it only affects SOME LSM systems.

That alone is an indication that there is more to it than being an LSM issue.

If it really were a systemic LSM issue, ALL LSM systems would be affected.

Not saying the PC solution isn't better - just that the original premise is flawed.

 

[Voyager]

I love how Joe M. doesn't know what he's talking about.

So you are saying PCs are now FREE? Maybe around your area they are. Not around mine.

Or are you saying scanners have more powerful processors than PCs?

Either way, you are severely lacking in credibility, and I am quite certain about both statements being completely correct which means I DO know what I'm talking about.

Actually, you MUST be joking because I know you are smarter than that. Sorry I missed your sense of humor. Good one!

So now you're arguing that a scanner needs a much less powerful processor - lower data rate equals lower processing load. You're arguing against yourself.

Read it again. I'm arguing that PCs have more powerful processors than scanners have. I will add the caveat of a modern PC - not some 8086 you may have.

As such, they can process signals much faster and better than a scanner can. So it should be no surprise they can decode better.

It is imperative that Voyager absolve Uniden of any and all failings.

Again, GOOD one! It's Uniden's fault that PCs have more powerful processors than they scanner, and they must be chastised and blamed for that. You're more funny than Adam Sandler tonight!

 

[kb8rvp]

Could Uniden Ever Design A Scanner To Properly Decode Trunked Simulcast Systems?

As I just posted in another section my BCD536HP works great:
What I have noticed with my BCD536HP is depending on the firmware version I have to change the P25 Threshold Mode either to manual or auto. If you want to give it a try press menu then scroll to Manage Favorites then select one of your Favorites lists. Then select Review/Edit System and pick the system that your tower frequencies are in and scroll to P25 Threshold Mode and change it from Auto to Manual and press the E/Yes button to save. Then keep pressing the Menu button to back all the way out of the settings Menu until the scanner goes back to scanning. See if this helps. With the scanner set to manual you can also try a different P25 Threshold Level. By default 8 is selected but you can try changing that too, it's going to be the option just below the P25 Threshold Mode... And by the way you have to do this for each favorites list that you want to change... The older firmware that's working for me on simulcast is 1.01.05 using the auto setting. It can be downloaded from this site: Index of /files/firmwares/536

Mike

 

[Citywide173]

So we're all posting on RR using our phones? No-one has a PC? No PC gamers here? I suppose LTR Analyzer, TRUNK88, Unitrunker, DSD+, OP25, etc. also cost $400 apiece.

I didn't say that. I said: Even if it's used for other things, it was still an out of pocket expense that is necessary to make the dongles work. If you have a source for free PC's, please share it.

 

[cg]

One of the flaws with arguing that the correct solutions are in these programs is that many of them get around patent infringement by being free experimental software. Limit yourself to inventing new ways of doing decoding and I bet there would be far fewer solutions.
I doubt he can answer but if you asked UPman if he could completely ignore patents and licensing, what a scanner would be like, I would guess that many issues would be addressed and at a much lower price.

chris

 

[KA1RBI]

Approximately how much more would it cost to add this? Would it add $100 to the MSRP of a scanner?

The final MSRP would likely be determined by the marketroids, not the engineers.

IMHO it's very doubtful that the cost of the Bill Of Materials, that is, the component parts would increase by more than, say, $20 (exclusive of fees to the parasites, such as for licenses and patents)*...

However there would also be a one-time, up-front piece of R&D that would need to be amortized, and that part is impossible to answer from the outside.

It is kind of pathetic that neither of the major scanner vendors have done (in the 5-6 years that LSM has been out) what one unpaid volunteer developer, working in his space time, has contributed (at no charge)...

73

Max

p.s. don't recall reading many posts from slicerwizard that haven't brought a smile to my face

*some people will believe any FUD - they might even get you to believe that you need to take out a license now to do such elementary DSP functions as DQPSK

 

[KA1RBI]

One of the flaws with arguing that the correct solutions are in these programs is that many of them get around patent infringement by being free experimental software.

some people will believe any FUD - they might even get you to believe that you need to take out a license now to do such elementary DSP functions as DQPSK

73

Max

 

[slicerwizard]

I didn't say that. I said: Even if it's used for other things, it was still an out of pocket expense that is necessary to make the dongles work. If you have a source for free PC's, please share it.

This thread is about "solving" the LSM problem. Max has created a solution that uses $20 dongles. The *point* is that this solution uses a $20 dongle to provide all of the RF hardware. I doesn't take expensive hardware to handle LSM.

Saying "Oh, but you need a $400 PC to make it work." is a classic strawman. Max doesn't claim that $20 provides everything required. He claims (quite correctly) that fancy hardware is not required. Every solution has more hardware beyond the RF section - a scanner has a microprocessor, memory, keypad, display, power circuits and a dongle has a PC, a PC that most of us already have, so when he talks about it being a $20 solution, for most of us, it is. He doesn't claim it's a "$20 all in" solution, so where are the $20 Uniden LSM-capable digital scanners...

In an attempt to weaken Max's simple message, Voyager throws in the claim that dongles = high data rates = high end processor required. Sure, the dongles are designed for high data rates (about 6 Msps) because they have to handle wide digital TV signals. But they are also quite capable of sampling small chunks of spectrum, say, 100 kHz or less, for example and presenting only that spectrum to a processor. Now we're down to 100 ksps or less, not the 2+ Msps that Voyager would have you believe a processor will have to deal with. Now we're getting down to data rates that scanners already deal with. Any scanner-based LSM solution would have inexpensive dedicated hardware dealing with tuning, filtering, downsampling, etc. before passing the torch to a general purpose microprocessor - just like they do now. So much for that bit of FUD.

And Max has already covered the fact that existing scanners already have the necessary licensing in place. There are no patent holders to pay for the privilege of processing amplitude modulated phase shifted signals.

 

[Voyager]

Max doesn't claim that $20 provides everything required. He claims (quite correctly) that fancy hardware is not required.

True about the hardware. Now, why are you objecting to replies that point out that the $20 does not provide a complete solution?

But they are also quite capable of sampling small chunks of spectrum, say, 100 kHz or less, for example and presenting only that spectrum to a processor. Now we're down to 100 ksps or less, not the 2+ Msps that Voyager would have you believe a processor will have to deal with.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about 2 MSPS.

But, even 100 KSPS is much more than 9600 SPS.

Are you saying that the processor in the scanner can handle 100 KSPS? If not, you just proved my point.

 

[slicerwizard]

True about the hardware. Now, why are you objecting to replies that point out that the $20 does not provide a complete solution?

Because it's irrelevant. Since no-one claimed that $20 and nothing else provided a full solution, pointing out that $20 doesn't provide a full solution is nothing more than a transparent strawman.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about 2 MSPS.

But, even 100 KSPS is much more than 9600 SPS.

Are you saying that the processor in the scanner can handle 100 KSPS? If not, you just proved my point.

Well, you've written "KSPS" and "SPS"; I don't know what those are supposed to mean. Since you wrote "9600 SPS", I'm guessing you mean "symbols per second"? The only scanner-relevant digital protocol that uses 9600 symbols per second is ProVoice. We were talking about P25 LSM, but whatever. So that would make your "100 KSPS" 100,000 symbols per second. What protocol uses that? And why would a dongle be feeding symbols to a processor? Dongles don't deal with symbols. It feels like you're tossing out jibber jabber FUD.

 

[KA1RBI]

One of the flaws with arguing that the correct solutions are in these programs is that many of them get around patent infringement by being free experimental software.

Those who spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) around patents and infringement have one common trait that gives them away every time: they *never* mention actual patent numbers.

I thought it might be interesting to take a brief look at a few key patents.

First we have the primary LSM patent (5,541,953) which EXPIRED in 2015. The "LSM secret sauce" patent (6,061,574) is still in effect but covers exclusively transmitters. FYI, you can build LSM receivers without "infringing" on either of these patents. The basic LSM receiver is simply a Differential QPSK implementation - covered in basic textbooks studied by first-semester undergraduates in digital communications.

Next we have this interesting quote from the GRE PSR-800 manual

The IMBE™ voice coding Technology embodied in this product is protected by intellectual property rights including patent rights, copyrights and trade secrets of Digital Voice Systems, Inc. This voice coding Technology is licensed solely for use within this Communications Equipment. The user of this Technology is explicitly prohibited from attempting to decompile, reverse engineer, or disassemble the Object Code, or in any other way convert the Object Code into a human readable form. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,870,405 and 5,517,511

5,517,511 is EXPIRED. 5,870,405 will expire NEXT MONTH.

Doubt that we'll ever hear UPMan raising the specter of patents as an excuse to hide behind (as the reason for the substandard performance) though, as that would amount to a tacit admission that their current offerings are not compatible with the systems they are advertised as supporting...

73

Max

caveat: IANAL

 

[Citywide173]

This thread is about "solving" the LSM problem. Max has created a solution that uses $20 dongles. The *point* is that this solution uses a $20 dongle to provide all of the RF hardware. I doesn't take expensive hardware to handle LSM.

Actually, the thread is titled: "Could Uniden Ever Design A Scanner To Properly Decode Trunked Simulcast Systems?"

Unless Max works for Uniden and is actively introducing his solution to their products, it, and you, are off topic.