CQPSK and the PSR-500

[DewAddict]

So after reading the 926 posts in the "post release thread," some say the 500 is no better than the Pro-96 in decoding a CQPSK system such as Detroit, MI while others say it is better.

I am only 2 blocks from the city of Detroit on the Dearborn Border so I get good signal but the Pro-96 struggles with the decoding and I am using DSP 1.4 Anyone in the area that monitors Detroit on a PSR-500 that can record an audio file for those of us to compare to our current scanners?

I hate to spend $500 on the 500..lol...if its not any better.

Thanks

 

[rdale]

It's minimally better, so not worth the investment if that's all you want... The antenna and your location is MUCH more important.

 

[DewAddict]

Yes indeed...all I want is better Detroit reception....Thanks Rob for the info.

Happy Holidays..

Rob

 

[diskmonger]

The first thing I did when I got my PSR-500 was jump in the car and drive into downtown Detroit.

The PSR-500 does 'better' on the simulcast stuff, but it's not perfect. I would say it is better than what the PRO-96 does.

Also, you have to be inside the city to hear it.

 

[spooney]

This might sound crazy, but have you ever tried v1.2 firmware? I was having trouble with the other 1.3 & 1.4 updates. When I went to 1.2 my decoding problems went away.

 

[rdale]

Not on Detroit -- they made some major improvements for CQPSK uses with v1.3 which was tested extensively in Detroit specifically... 1.4 was just a minor bugfix.

 

[DewAddict]

I emailed GRE support to see if they would be including any further adjustments to the PSR-500 to "tweak" the reception of the CQPSK systems and although their reply didn't specifically answer my question, it was nice to get a reply very quickly. Although we may hope it will receive as good as a motorola radio on the system, it is after all.....just a scanner. Below is quoted from the email response I recieved.

"Hi Rob,

CPQSK is a very challenging signal to receive. Typically it is necessary to be inside of the primary service area of the system to get decent reception, and even then, reception can be difficult.

For what it is worth, I have received comments from several PSR-500 users that indicate the PSR-500 does work better on their CQPSK system than their PRO-96 or PRO-2096 does. One is in your backyard in Macomb.

However, as they say, "Your Mileage May Vary".

Best regards,

Jack
GRE Support Team
http://www.greamerica.com/support"

 

[ROCKnTIME]

My 2 Cents

I’m two miles outside of the city and with both radios side by side the PSR-500 not only decodes CQPSK better than the PRO-96 it’s also more sensitive. It’s nice to finally hear an entire conversation without breaking up or fading out every time. Yes more improvements could be made, however it’s the best to date.