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

[KA1RBI]

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 is off topic.

No, I don't work for Uniden. I actually couldn't care less what they do. If they offered me that job, I'd very likely refuse.

In order to properly answer the OP question it's necessary to do an analysis of what the problem is at the appropriate technical level of detail. UNIDEN NEEDS TO IMPLEMENT A DIFFERENTIAL QPSK DEMODULATOR. CQPSK MUST BE DEMODULATED ***AS QPSK***, NOT AS C4FM.

Anyone can claim they have the One True Revelation of the Real Reason why scanners suck at LSM.

For example, someone could claim that adding a dab of Cream Cheese to your antenna connector will fix all your LSM troubles.

However, in my view anyone claiming to have a fix for LSM had better have documentation to support that claim, including testimonials from actual users who have tried it.

Why are you singling out that documentation as off-topic, while leaving alone all of the FUD heretofore posted? Is that on-topic?

73

Max

p.s. Here's a snip from a PM I received the other day...

I really appreciate your words of wisdom on Radio Refence forums about why scanners do a terrible job with CQPSK. You state the truth and explain it clearly. I am a retired telecom engineer and have been involved with2-way service since 1962. The bottom line is you can't run a signal with AM components through a limiter/discriminator without distorting the data...

Here's another snip

I gave up on any posting on Radio Reference 2 years ago when I could no longer stand the mis-information from the self appointed "experts" on there.

 

[br0adband]

The tidbits about the patents expiring is quite interesting and should prove even more interesting in the near future considering so thanks for that info, Max. I wondered about such things in the recent past myself but never went that extra step of doing the research into the actual patent info and possible expiration effects i.e. no longer having limitations because of them with respect to the the implementation in scanner firmware.

I just wonder what's going to happen when all the relevant limiting patents and licensing expire... I wonder...

 

[KA1RBI]

I just wonder what's going to happen when all the relevant limiting patents and licensing expire... I wonder...

yep - and this may help to understand why a certain vocoder vendor has been pushing AMBE+2 so hard, in order to keep the merry-go-round going...

73

Max

 

[slicerwizard]

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.

Since an unfunded volunteer has figured it out, of course Uniden can as well. Max's work proves that it can be done easily (with the correct inexpensive hardware), and that puts us squarely on topic. He's even covered the IP issues. Nice try though. Keep moving those goalposts...

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.

Should've mentioned this earlier - that $20 hardware decodes complex digital TV signals; it's not just a dumb pipe shoving 6 MHz of TV spectrum through the USB port. Instead, it does most of the heavy lifting for the PC. That hardware could be reprogrammed to eat a puny 12 kHz LSM signal for breakfast and have plenty of power to spare. It could feed a PC or a scanner's microprocessor a nice clean ready to use 9600 or 12000 bps bitstream, so any point Voyager is desperately trying to make about "needs a faster micro" is completely false.

 

[Voyager]

Well, you've written "KSPS" and "SPS";

Those mean Kilo Samples Per Second and Samples Per Second respectively. Again, you are too smart to not know that, so I can only guess you are just joking. That's how most SDRs are spec'ed. Actually, they are usually on the order of MSPS (Mega Samples Per Second) but all of those relate to how often a microprocessor samples the spectrum. That is directly related to the bandwidth that can be processed and used.

Actually, the I think the K should be a lower case k, but please don't try to BS us into thinking that's why you didn't recognize it.

 

[Voyager]

Since an unfunded volunteer has figured it out, of course Uniden can as well. Max's work proves that it can be done easily (with the correct inexpensive hardware), and that puts us squarely on topic. He's even covered the IP issues. Nice try though. Keep moving those goalposts...

And you would have us believe his is ONLY a hardware solution? Or that he is using an ancient PC?

I agree the hardware cost is trivial. But, the bulk of the processing exists in SW which requires a sufficiently powerful PC. Why do you keep ignoring that? And please don't try to feed is the line that it's irrelevant because it's the most relevant part of the design. Processing exists in software.

BTW the only reason the goalposts look farther away is due to all the penalties you are incurring.

What we are both saying has gone completely unchanged.

 

[KA1RBI]

And you would have us believe his is ONLY a hardware solution?

Actually, yes, there are many different ways to do this, one of which is mostly in hardware [from circa 2010]:

A 455 KHz IF Downconverter for Digital Radio Reception

Or that he is using an ancient PC?

The PC that I was using at that time (an old IBM desktop) was ancient even in 2010!

73

Max

 

[br0adband]

While it's not really relevant, I've never seen people talk about "SPS" or samples per second - usually it's discussed as a measure of bandwidth as in 12 kHz which implies and is very well understood to mean 12,000 samples per second (note I use the most common nomenclature there - kHz - and not SPS or sps or something like it). When I saw "SPS" mentioned above even I did a double-take because I've never seen that used before when discussing a sample rate - it's always represented by kHz or MHz or even GHz in some situations (yes, there are uses for GHz based sampling rates believe it or not).

As for the software requiring a "powerful PC" that's not actually true, far from it - it requires a PC in general because the code is written to be executed on PC architecture but could be ported to other architectures rather easily I would imagine (ARM or whatever). I mean, I can do some pretty amazing things with a 1st generation Netbook with a single core Intel Atom processor and an RTL stick actually. It ain't the speediest thing ever but it works.

If the code is solid and efficient, any modern PC architecture process should be able to rip through it without any issues at all but that's the problem more often than not: solid efficient code needs outstanding developers to create it and there's a massive glut of developers in the software arena, just not a glut of outstanding ones.

 

[Voyager]

Look at any SDR specs. They are always spec'ed in SPS (usually MSPS), and sometimes ENOB (Effective Number Of Bits).

Here is some light reading on ENOB: http://www.analog.com/media/en/training-seminars/tutorials/MT-003.pdf

 

[br0adband]

Semantics, and I did note that it wasn't really relevant, geez.

 

[darunimal]

Then keep pressing the Menu button to back all the way out of the settings Menu until the scanner goes back to scanning.[/url]

Mike

Press Avoid once and your all the way out

 

[Citywide173]

Since an unfunded volunteer has figured it out, of course Uniden can as well. Max's work proves that it can be done easily (with the correct inexpensive hardware), and that puts us squarely on topic. He's even covered the IP issues. Nice try though. Keep moving those goalposts...

The answer was YES, one post into the topic. To be obtuse and assume that Uniden would do it for the actual cost of the hardware is asinine. $20 will translate to $100+ after the engineers, software developers and sales/marketing department get their hands into the mix. If you can provide me with a self contained PC/Dongle setup that I can carry on a belt clip that processes problem simulcast systems properly, I will concede you have a valid argument here. Until then, the work of volunteers, although promising, admirable and welcome is not relevant to the original question. My goalposts haven't moved, they are based on the question of the original post in this topic.

 

[slicerwizard]

Those mean Kilo Samples Per Second and Samples Per Second respectively. Again, you are too smart to not know that, so I can only guess you are just joking. That's how most SDRs are spec'ed. Actually, they are usually on the order of MSPS (Mega Samples Per Second) but all of those relate to how often a microprocessor samples the spectrum. That is directly related to the bandwidth that can be processed and used.

Actually, the I think the K should be a lower case k, but please don't try to BS us into thinking that's why you didn't recognize it.

You wrote 9600 SPS. So you meant 9600 samples per second. 9600 sps is a ludicrously low sampling rate. Take an audio recording of a ProVoice, P25 or DMR signal and resample it down to 9600 sps. Now decode that signal and recover the digital datastream. It ain't happening. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. You keep attempting to debate topics that are over your head.

And you would have us believe his is ONLY a hardware solution? Or that he is using an ancient PC?

I agree the hardware cost is trivial. But, the bulk of the processing exists in SW which requires a sufficiently powerful PC. Why do you keep ignoring that? And please don't try to feed is the line that it's irrelevant because it's the most relevant part of the design. Processing exists in software.

BTW the only reason the goalposts look farther away is due to all the penalties you are incurring.

What we are both saying has gone completely unchanged.

Max has done his work using a general purpose PC - for obvious reasons, but there is no requirement that the work be done by a general purpose microprocessor. You take "he did it this way" and attempt to twist it into "it must be done this way". Classic Voyager FUD.

The answer was YES, one post into the topic. To be obtuse and assume that Uniden would do it for the actual cost of the hardware is asinine.

Hm. No-one said they would. Another one of your strawmen.

$20 will translate to $100+ after the engineers, software developers and sales/marketing department get their hands into the mix.

So? Is that supposed to be a showstopper? No, it's just your strawman again. So Uniden charges for the improvement. Big deal.

 

[Citywide173]

You wrote 9600 SPS

Hm. No-one said they would. Another one of your strawmen.


So? Is that supposed to be a showstopper? No, it's just your strawman again. So Uniden charges for the improvement. Big deal.

It's off topic for the question that was asked to start the post. I would assume that you would tell someone who asked if they thought it was possible for Whistler to come out with a radio that could decode ProVoice to just get a dongle as well because it does the same thing for less money. The person was looking for an answer about a commercial product, not a cobbled together solution by an experimenter.

I am in no way saying that DV Dongles are not the cutting edge of the future of scanning, in fact, they are probably what will put Uniden and Whistler out of business if they don't wake up and start applying the many possibilities that they offer, but when a question is asked about a particular company and the potential for them to expand their offerings, extolling the benefits of scratch built items does not provide an answer.

 

[br0adband]

If you can provide me with a self contained PC/Dongle setup that I can carry on a belt clip that processes problem simulcast systems properly, I will concede you have a valid argument here.

Believe it or not, at this moment in time a smartphone running Ubuntu (the actual desktop class OS, not their mobile product, and yes there are smartphones that can and do run Ubuntu for hobbyists and developers) could theoretically have OP25 compiled for it with an RTL stick plugged in for OTG (On-The-Go) purposes and you'd end up with an almost complete fully simulcast capable and highly portable monitoring rig, minus the antenna of course but if you use a newer RTL stick with an SMA connector on it voila, it's completely possible and would fit in a single hand and not be much larger than most handheld scanners today, even the 436HP or something similar in size.

I had an idea for doing that very thing last year by using a decent smartphone along with an extended battery case - the kind of case that has an internal battery and the actual smartphone is inserted into the casing itself, makes it fairly thick and cumbersome but it does work. The difference here would be that the case is disassembled, the battery removed, and the space inside the casing is used to mount the RTL hardware (basically the tiny motherboard of an RTL stick) along with an antenna connector as well.

It would literally become a smartphone "scanner" in most every respect. I know there are a few projects out there that are attempting to use things like a Raspberry Pi along with some barebones display of some kind coupled with an RTL stick or other SDR device (HackRF in one project) to do something similar but, I think my idea would prove vastly more useful for simulcast purposes.

Still might have to see about making it a reality at some point, could even become something commercial given the hardware is out there, it just takes someone to put it all together.

 

[slicerwizard]

when a question is asked about a particular company and the potential for them to expand their offerings, extolling the benefits of scratch built items does not provide an answer.

Discussing the required technology that is currently missing from scanners and what it would cost to add it and what IP barriers are or are not in place is on point. Simple as that. Why does divulging this information get you and Voyager so on edge?

 

[br0adband]

I am in no way saying that DV Dongles are not the cutting edge of the future of scanning, in fact, they are probably what will put Uniden and Whistler out of business if they don't wake up and start applying the many possibilities that they offer, but when a question is asked about a particular company and the potential for them to expand their offerings, extolling the benefits of scratch built items does not provide an answer.

I think you're focusing too much on the hardware and not enough on the software side of things: the "cheap USB TV tuners" are just receivers, plain and simple, and there's nothing particularly spectacular about any of them, even the latest ones, or Airspy, or HackRF, or other hardware. The spectacular part comes into play with the software that makes the hardware actually get something done.

That's where the "secret sauce" is - and no, the dongles/sticks/whatever you wish to call them won't do much putting Uniden or Whistler out of business. Why? For the very same reasons that you and Voyager are going on about: they require computing power and that pesky software once more to make use of them and the majority of people, even some diehard scanner fans and users, simply don't wish to bother with that side of things.

I mean just today I saw UPMan make a post here at RR asking for assistance with using DSD+ and an RTL stick he just purchased for his own home computer/monitoring setup. To me that's absolutely astonishing that he, a professional electronics engineer and scanner hardware designer at Uniden (I think he'd be considered an engineer, if I'm wrong on that don't sue me), is apparently just now getting into using SDR with those "cheap USB TV tuners" and DSD+ for some DMR monitoring purposes. I would have suspected he would have been all over that type of stuff years ago but I suppose he didn't get "on board" until now.

I take it as a good sign, however.

 

[Voyager]

Why does divulging this information get you and Voyager so on edge?

Because your $20 solution is vaporware without the hardware to run it. The cost of the hardware must be taken into account for an answer that is not a half-truth.

All we want is an admission that PCs are not free and are required to run one of the $20 dongles. (at least that's all I want - I suspect Ed may accept the same)

Now, why do you keep denying that is the case? It's not as if Uniden could add a port for a $20 dongle for a $20 solution.

@ br0ad:

And I don't equate a product manager as an engineer. Regardless, anything new is often not easily mastered. I knew GE software fine. Then we took on Motorola. The skills to use Motorola SW were completely different than those needed for GE SW even though the two were doing the exact same thing (programming radios). The terms were different, the function keys were different, the screens were different - there was more different than the same. It took time to learn the new SW.

I'm sure UPMan is quite competent in Uniden scanners. That does not translate to knowing SDR software.

Look at DSD+ vs FMP. Written by the same person yet knowing one well does not make you an expert in the other - as my recent posts prove. I know well how to manage memories in SDR# and DSD+. I had no idea of the file format for FMPA memories.

Let's assume someone has always used Windows. Take that person and sit them in front of a MAC or a Linux box and I'm quite certain they will be dumbfounded.

 

[br0adband]

Again, it's not about the hardware (at least how I see it): it's about the software used as the programming for the hardware that already exists. Whether it's an RTL stick motherboard with a simple wideband tuner on it or something more complex from Uniden/Whistler along with supporting circuitry, all of it is useless without the software.

Right now if there were no patent BS and IP right BS and none of that and everything was possible (it already is but the patents and IP crap are stopping things obviously) Uniden or Whistler could probably release a scanner tomorrow with full support for all the things we'd all like to have: full simulcast capability without issues, every digital format currently in use supported and as new ones are standardized they can be added with simple firmware upgrades (aka more software), and so on.

As for the PC thing, most people that have PCs of any kind, type, brand, speed, whatever, don't typically consider them a cost against future technology purchases that utilize the already purchased computer hardware to add more functionality. If you'd think of a PC as just part of a foundation it might be easier to comprehend but then again so far there's no evidence to support anyone grasping it I suppose.

I've got a somewhat nice laptop that I got for a steal of a price (craigslist) and I'm happy with it but I don't go around saying "I got some RTL sticks for $20 and I can do more with these two sticks than any scanner on the market today at any price..."

I don't say "I got some RTL sticks for $20 + the $125 I paid for my laptop + the power bill last month to keep the laptop running + the cost of my Internet service so I can make this post about this crap we're babbling on about..." etc etc.

The focus isn't focused, basically. Yes that does make sense but I doubt anyone but me will get it.

As for the Windows thing well, I'm the wrong person there because I've been using Microsoft products since long before "Windows" ever existed, and Apple computers, and I used Linux back when Linus first released it and a full year before Slackware 1.0 came into being, but that's just me.

Learning never stops...

 

[Voyager]

Agreed, but all SW needs hardware to run. The dongle is not a stand-alone device.

I agree that the basic hardware may be all that is required in the front end, and that cost is trivial (I said exactly that in post 46). What is not known is that the current processor in the scanner would be able to handle the processing involved. Would it require a higher cost processor? Additional circuitry?

There are a LOT of semi-modern computers that will not run an SDR plus DSD+ well. I would be willing to bet those have more processing power than the x36 scanner.

Therefore, saying $20 in parts will fix the Uniden scanners lacks credibility. It has nothing to do with the electric bill or the internet service. It has everything to do with the cost to make that $20 in parts WORK.

Since the wizmeister is such a super genius, I'm sure he can post a Youtube video showing the dongle interfaced to a 536 that has perfect decode on every system in every location :wink: (something even Motorola cannot achieve BTW).

Oh, and this hypothetical Windows person is not you, bb. But, think back to when you first used a new OS. How proficient were you on it?

Heck, I'm getting tired of M$ moving around the location of settings in each new Windows release!