Digital forcing us back to our analog roots?

Status
Not open for further replies.

battleflag

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2017
Messages
28
You can embrace change, or you can fight it. It's your choice.

I get what you're saying but I don't think I'm fighting the new technology, quite the opposite actually. I'm choosing not to participate in a cycle of spending loads of cash to chase a new technology using inferior equipment.

By the way, I also went back to using 35mm film cameras about a year ago and I'm really enjoying myself and producing better photographs than I did with a digital camera. Film makes you think about what you're doing, compose the shot, and then you have the fun of anticipating how the developed roll of film will turn out.

I guess I'm just getting old....
 

MTS2000des

5B2_BEE00 Czar
Joined
Jul 12, 2008
Messages
5,173
Location
Cobb County, GA Stadium Crime Zone
By the way, I also went back to using 35mm film cameras about a year ago and I'm really enjoying myself and producing better photographs than I did with a digital camera. Film makes you think about what you're doing, compose the shot, and then you have the fun of anticipating how the developed roll of film will turn out.

I get the same satisfaction of creating mix tapes on my Pioneer CT-F1000 and Yamaha K-1200U cassette decks. Work goes into producing QUALITY audio. I get a finished product that I created. In some cases, depending on the source recorded, a properly biased quality type II sounds better and richer than some compressed MP3.

The ONLY reason they went to digital is because they were BRIBED to do so

I've never taken a bribe in my life.

None the less, we went digital because our 25 year old Smartnet .89X system was:

1)-No longer supported by Motorola. MSF5000 base radios with a Digi-Tac comparator and old school Embassy audio switch. Nevermind the CEB cage cards are long NLA.

2)-Poor coverage. A system designed in 1990 can't support a 2017 population, the area has transformed. New building construction, changes in topography=new sites needed. See the above. Can't add sites to an antique system.

3)-More capacity needed with less frequencies. Going digital (TDMA specifically) was the only way to fly without spending millions on more RF channels (that we can't get because all the 800 pairs are spoken for in our footprint).

4)-Security. Like it or not, we encrypt. Because not everyone in the world needs to know the movement of personnel in our jail, or special operations and SWAT activity.

Those are just some of the reasons. I could go on about how our old consoles (Gold Elites) were also no longer supported, and we were pulling parts from spares to keep them running. That part about orphaned support.
 

ofd8001

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
7,891
Location
Louisville, KY
I spent some 39 years with our local fire department. Probably one of the biggest improvements I've seen was when we went from an analog repeated system to an 800 simulcast trunked P25 system.

The coverage improvement was a night and day difference. Plus there is a lot more versatility with the new system. I could go on and on with other things too.

As a scanner listener, it is a pain because simulcast is touchy.
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
13,416
Location
VA
I live in Portland, Oregon and most everyone I've talked to says the phase 2 systems here suffer from severe digital distortion so part of the reason behind my original post is that I can't see spending upwards of $500 for a phase 2 digital scanner when reception may be hampered from the outset.

You're confusing and conflating things here. Under some circumstances, scanners have difficulty handling the multipath distortion inherent to simulcast digital systems. But that is not true of the more complex radios that actual system users have--they can decode the signal just fine. Unication makes a receiver that can receive simulcast system signals without distortion, but it is even more expensive than the top-end digital trunking scanners, and can't scan multiple sytems.

Phase II is a separate issue from simulcast. It's an alternate digital modulation method. Some scanners can decode it, and others cannot.
 

bob550

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
2,070
Location
Albany County, NY
I would have to guess that commercial radio manufacturers don't design their equipment with the scanner listener in mind, nor do they really have to. Scanner design follows, as closely as possible, commercial radio technology. But, keep in mind that scanner manufacturers must do this while keeping the cost bearable by the consumer, whose pockets aren't as deep as the governments who buy the commercial radios. Plus, they must build radios that are capable of receiving a very wide range of frequencies. It is true that today's digital scanners are expensive, at least as compared to their more recent analog counterparts. But, reflecting on historical prices, they represent a tremendous bargain! Consider the RadioShack PRO-2006. That gem was launched in 1991 at $399.95, which with inflation, would retail for $725 today. By today's standards, the 2006 is a prehistoric paperweight. My Uniden 996xt runs rings around my PRO-2006, and cost roughly the same as the 2006 originally did 26 years ago!
 

AlphaFive

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2011
Messages
808
Location
Jacksonville FLORIDA
Progress?

My listening post began in 1975. I have stumbled, bumbled, and learned how to use every new advancement that has come along. With each new advancement a little joy was sucked out of "listening". The workload increased in order to keep up. I can keep up, I do not enjoy "keeping up".
I feel like the purchase of my TRX 2 will likely be the last in a line of radio's that require the use of a computer to keep updated with weekly advancements. I am fully aware that my aversion to the constant use of a compatible computer is a sign of my older age, but that's just how things are. Due to this conclusion, I do believe that my next step in radio will be to say goodbye to scanners, which I have enjoyed for well over 40 years, and hello to a receiver. It will be a great change, but I am ready, and I look forward to it..........
 

vocoder

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
659
Location
Indiana
Many times the digital systems are not maintained, adjusted, or tested properly. That results in foul sounding RX. This happens often when digital systems are upgraded to a newer type or style.
 

mule1075

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Messages
3,956
Location
Washington Pennsylvania
Many times the digital systems are not maintained, adjusted, or tested properly. That results in foul sounding RX. This happens often when digital systems are upgraded to a newer type or style.
Um doubt that.If you could provide some sources I might be interested in the details.But I am skeptical that you can or will provide said sources.

Sent from my SM-S907VL using Tapatalk
 

vocoder

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
659
Location
Indiana
The techs have been heard on the different systems many times trying to fix garbled or digitized audio. Changing filters, etc. Especially after switching over to a new system.
 

wbswetnam

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,799
Location
DMR-istan
Also, keep in mind that some digital radio systems have features that we (the scanning public) never see. Some DMR systems allow for GPS location updating of the mobile units. The dispatcher does not have to ask "Unit 12, what is your 10-20?". She already knows because the console tells her where every unit is, in real time.
 

Project25_MASTR

Millennial Graying OBT Guy
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
4,164
Location
Texas
The techs have been heard on the different systems many times trying to fix garbled or digitized audio. Changing filters, etc. Especially after switching over to a new system.



That generally happens because the filtering wasn't checked or the customer didn't want to pay for it. Real story, another branch did an install for a customer (half-assed) and when the customer was complaining of range issues they were told to change to digital. Well the coverage was minutely better, or at least the system seemed more useable but after a few months, the system would not work at all. Problem, the other branch had put up a cheap Tram fiberglass antenna. Solution, install the DB404 the customer actually ordered with the system (and was sitting in its box, next to the repeater).

When changing over to a different system, it implies new filters, antennas, feedline, etc. Upgrading on the other hand is where you run into those issues a lot. Great example, Smartnet II to P25 Phase 1 (with Quantar based equipment). The systems were engineered for analog before it was really well known that P25 didn't perform as well as wideband analog (about a 10% loss in coverage). Phase 1 to Phase 2, the Quantars, filters, antenna system, etc is all coming out to be replaced with GTR8000s, new filters and antenna systems.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

vocoder

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2017
Messages
659
Location
Indiana
Upgrading from smartnet to p25 are exactly most of troubles occuring in Indiana. A few others occured when new equipment had been installed or replaced.
 

bob550

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
2,070
Location
Albany County, NY
Remember that most municipalities are dealing with procurement rules that stipulate that they accept the lowest qualified bidder. Then too, government entities have the public to ultimately answer to. That means that they'll also be looking for ways to economize and save money when making large purchases, like new radio systems. Both can have a negative impact on the quality of the work provided.
 

n1das

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
1,601
Location
Nashua, NH
I would have to guess that commercial radio manufacturers don't design their equipment with the scanner listener in mind, nor do they really have to. Scanner design follows, as closely as possible, commercial radio technology. But, keep in mind that scanner manufacturers must do this while keeping the cost bearable by the consumer, whose pockets aren't as deep as the governments who buy the commercial radios. Plus, they must build radios that are capable of receiving a very wide range of frequencies. It is true that today's digital scanners are expensive, at least as compared to their more recent analog counterparts. But, reflecting on historical prices, they represent a tremendous bargain! Consider the RadioShack PRO-2006. That gem was launched in 1991 at $399.95, which with inflation, would retail for $725 today. By today's standards, the 2006 is a prehistoric paperweight. My Uniden 996xt runs rings around my PRO-2006, and cost roughly the same as the 2006 originally did 26 years ago!

The PRO-2006 was one of the best scanners ever made during the "free radio listening" era. April 26, 1994 officially marked the end of the free radio listening era due to the 800MHz cell phone frequency censorship taking full effect on that day to help the cell phone industry continue to perpetuate their commercially serving lies about cell phone privacy. I still own a few scanners made during that period because I stocked up on them back then. They are more or less collecting dust now because I'm only using my scanners that have digital capability, trunk tracking, CTCSS/DCS decoding, and Close Call features, not to mention better receiver performance overall. Almost all public safety stuff around me is P25 digital now. I'm using DMR digital on the ham bands and on a friend's Part 90 business system. We previously used NXDN on the business stuff. I use VSELP digital on 900MHz w/FHSS and it's not monitorable on any scanner and unlikely that it ever will be. I wish digital operations were allowed on GMRS and MURS too but that won't happen.

Digital radio technologies have not caused me to want to go back to my analog scanning roots at all. It's done exactly the opposite! It's only a matter of time before I spring for a TRX-1 or a TRX-2 to listen to DMR stuff plus lots of other stuff too. :)
 
Last edited:

Project25_MASTR

Millennial Graying OBT Guy
Joined
Jun 16, 2013
Messages
4,164
Location
Texas
Remember that most municipalities are dealing with procurement rules that stipulate that they accept the lowest qualified bidder. Then too, government entities have the public to ultimately answer to. That means that they'll also be looking for ways to economize and save money when making large purchases, like new radio systems. Both can have a negative impact on the quality of the work provided.

I actually know several great examples of that…mainly between Motorola and Harris P25 systems.
 

jmp883

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
565
Location
Northern NJ
I don't believe that digital is forcing a move back to analog. Yes, there are some issues with the audio quality but I think that is more due to the receiving speaker than the transmitting radio. I have an HP-1 and I monitor several digital systems. All but one agency sounds just as good as they did when they were analog. The 'bad' sounding agency is still listenable, it's just different from what it was when it was analog.

Sometimes it may be best to wait to adopt the new technology, for a variety of reasons. For me, the biggest reason I wait is because prices are much higher when scanners employing the latest technology first hit the market. I remember when direct-entry scanners came out. They were so much more expensive than the crystal-controlled radios. After a few years the prices came down to what the crystal scanners cost. That's when I started upgrading my shack. When the analog trunking scanners became available I waited several years before I bought one, again because I couldn't afford one. Once the price came down I bought several mobiles and a portable. On the technology side of the analog trunk scanners I also seem to remember many similar complaints about the different audio and spotty reception of analog trunk systems vs. straight analog systems. Seems to me that everyone adapted and moved on and the technical issues were really non-issues. I must admit when the digital trunk scanners came out I did dive right in. I bought an HP-1 not long after they came out.
Because of the price I should have waited but I'm not complaining. As for the technical complaints I really don't have any.

Technology always moves forward. The scanning hobby, so far, has always followed. You can choose to stay current, but if you decide to not go digital I believe that there will always be interesting things to listen to that are analog.
 

Dude111

An Awesome Dude
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
446
battleflag said:
I'm wondering if anyone else feels this way.

I started my scanner hobby about 40 years ago with a Radio Shack Pro 12 4 channel VHF crystal scanner and have progressed through many models up to my current 800 analog trunk tracker scanners. My county public safety system has now gone digital which creates some barriers for me; the cost of digital scanners is prohibitive and even if I could buy one, it seems that they all have difficulties properly receiving and tracking digital systems.
Yes its garbage... Digital sounds horrible and some of these agencies should remain ANALOGUE for more reliable communication!!
 

Airdorn

Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2008
Messages
481
Location
Cordova, TN
Huh?

My digital scanner receives multiple digital trunked systems around me with no problems. The audio quality is crystal clear, analog can't touch it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 

madrabbitt

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
743
Location
NM
Here in NM, my city of Albuquerque is on the aged EDACS/ProVoice system and no plans on replacing it. Most counties around me are on analog, fortunately.

Now that it's fire season, I consistently here the mutual aid calls for wild fires between the counties, but GUESS WHAT? Our county/city FD's cannot even communicate with the counties next door.

What I cannot understand, is our state police switching to a 700 mhz P25 conventional system, in a vast mountainous desert state with far and few between. 700/800 mhz for city, sure just fine, but for a huge empty desert? C'mon. In the Albuquerque area, there is already many instances of broken comms and digital issues.

The national forests and state parks have already started switching to P25 conventional, all with the same effect It's a sad waste of money for these agencies and people will eventually suffer because of it.

1. Its ignorance and stupidity at the local level. Not a lack of equipment, funding, or even issues at the departmental level. I've worked enough cluster****s with AFD/BCSO and surrounding agencies to be very versed in what the issue is. As soon as the cities (abq,sf and lc) started going 800 trunked, the state reminded them that its a requirement to keep VHF equipment on board for interop. 10 years later, two of those three cities still have VHF equipment on board their emergency vehicles. Guess which two cities DONT have that kind of coordination issue on multi jurisdictional incidents.

2. Because one statewide system is forward looking. There are a SIGNIFICANT amount of issues with the existing VHF systems, 75% worth are specific to the ABQ metro. The VHF system also has significant gaps, which is why they went to sat comm for a while. Yes, there are issues. Its a TEST PHASE. This is where they get to figure out what the problems ARE, prior to a complete statewide rollout and deployment.
In addition, there was basically a "use it or lose it" deadline with 700mhz spectrum direct from the federal government. NM even had to file a waiver and extension because they werent using it and was about to lose it.

3. The reasons the feds are going to P25 conventional, starting with fire, and eventually trickling down to non fire, is because of the abilities that P25 offers. Its a well proven technology, if you have the infrastructure to use it. Traffic is clearer, it reduces the talkover that happens all the time on the way the forest and land management systems are setup, it allows for better prioritization, better dispatching, and better management. Having spent an assignment at a center thats testing it out, I can say for certain that the quality of comms were better on the P25 then on the analog. And i literally mean exact same parameters. User would try and call in on analog, poor quality. They would switch to digital and clear as day. They didnt move. As far as they were concerned, they switched channels in the radio. On the dispatch side, it sounded the same to me, just clearer.
 

NowhereMan66

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
75
Location
Tiltonsville, OH
Well, if you come to the Pittsburgh area, plenty of analogue to listen to. The Pittsburgh Police and Fire still use their 1969 UHF 453 Mc system to this very day. From what research I did, it was designed in 1967 and fully implemented around late 1969 or so. I guess this is one instance where a 1967 system still works well in a 2017 world. I guess you can't stop all progress but there are time where wonder if everyone going digital was wise and even the cynic in me also thinks of things like bribes and so on. I guess like Diogenes of Sinope with the lighted lamp, I'm looking for an honest man (or answer). Yeah, I'm saving up for digital scanner myself, I know I can't fight it, might as well update and join and pay the piper. It's a pain in the butt but if you love the hobby, that's what you gotta do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top