• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Dsp 1.3: Reports Only

Status
Not open for further replies.

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,356
Location
Lansing, MI
We've got a thread here for info on the update - how about putting reports (pro/con) here? Remember this primarily is out as a major improvement on CQPSK (simulcast) P25 systems, but other P25 reception should be improved as well. No need to complain about the lack of rebanding or problems you are having with a distant NOAA Weather Radio station or asking for Wideband FM reception ;>
 

Joseph11

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
2,312
It appears they fixed problems with DPL on VHF in this release. I had a friend put his PRO-96 on a VHF frequency with a DPL and the DPL did not cut out.
 

detroit780

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
574
Location
Michigan
Dsp 1.3

Rob,

I upgraded last night and tried Detroit from work this morning in Farmington Hills. Although the signal strength is not the best here the radio doesn't break up nearly as often as before and when it does it isn't nearly as bad as before. It sure seems like the scanner decode rate will be very high with a good signal. A very noticable improvement so far. I'll drive into Genesee county by the weekend and see what it does on that multi site system. It does appear to decode properly with a much lower signal than before.

Les
 

kc7vtr

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
39
I upgraded last night and listened to Phoenix PD for awhile. Can't say that I noticed any improvement. I seem to get the same number of partially or completely garbled transmissions as before the upgrade.
 

InlandAZ

Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
633
Location
Chandler AZ
kc7vtr said:
I upgraded last night and listened to Phoenix PD for awhile. Can't say that I noticed any improvement. I seem to get the same number of partially or completely garbled transmissions as before the upgrade.
Ditto - and I still can't hear Mesa...
 

DewAddict

Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
15
Location
SE, Michigan
I performed the upgrade and can now receive Detroit without transmissions cutting out. I am pleased with the upgrade. As far as scanner reception I still need a good antenna to receive a strong enough signal but this has been the case since the launch of the system and the way the antenna propagation works within the city.

Rob
 

wa8pyr

Technischer Guru
Lead Database Admin
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
4,338
Location
Ohio
Big improvement on the Delaware County, Ohio P25 simulcast system from my location 20 miles away and using a telescoping antenna on the Pro96.

Tom WA8PYR
 

John_M

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
1,486
Location
Rochester, N.Y.
I still have to get a dedicated 800mhz mobile antenna for my apartment. The 800mhz antenna from RS barely brings in the signal and i'll have to say that with the upgrade I am hearing more transmissions. If I walk outside the reception improves dramatically. I am monitoring a MOT Type II P25 anolog mixed sytem.
 

902

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 7, 2003
Messages
2,390
Location
Downsouthsomewhere
I loaded my Pro-96 and 2096 both this morning. I've been listening most of the day, but haven't been able to tell any difference with my wide pulse ASTRO (Wide C4FM) system. I don't notice any difference in analog. I have a simulcast CQPSK 800 MHz system somewhat near me. I'll try listening in there. I suspect that's where most of the improvement will be.
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,356
Location
Lansing, MI
There will be no difference in analog. There will be a small (if any) difference in Wide C4FM. If you check the other threads - you'll see this is an update primarily for CQPSK.
 

commscanaus

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
492
Location
Melbourne VK
OK- I decided to do the upgrade not really knowing what (if any) improvements it would make.
I monitor a Smartzone Astro system in the 420Mhz band.
With the upgrade I have noticed that the decode on poor signals is better- less garbling and droputs. One particular site is subject to desensing from a nearby analogue trunked system, which resulted in some voice channels being unitelligible. After the upgrade, I am able to hear the system much better with no garbling or motor boating noticable.
The PRO96 is now vastly superior to the 396T, which has warbly and underwater sounding audio even on close sites. The DSP in the PRO96 is obviously doing a better job.
In the shack the PRO96 gets the most use, but the 396T is the portable choice- if only Uniden would come up with an upgrade now.

Thanks GRE for standing by your products and making available the improvements!

Commscanaus
 

SEMTTP

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,023
Location
Ypsilanti Michigan
rdale said:
Digital simulcast. Type "CQPSK" into the search box above.

It stands for :

Compatible Differential Offset Quadrature Phase Shift Keying

Also remember that GOOGLE is your friend and if you just type "CQPSK" or "CQPSK Modulation" you will get many many hits and more than enough information to answer your question.
 

FPOWLD

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
175
Location
Westland, MI
I have a PRO96 with CPU version 1.4. Do I have to up date my radio with this update?

Thanks
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,356
Location
Lansing, MI
Never forced to upgrade, but if you want all the features of this update you have to. No such thing as a 'self-updating' radio quite yet ;>
 

scanjunkie

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
1,355
Location
Montgomery County, PA
Digital reception has always been great in my area. However, some of the more distant weaker signals are coming in much better and overall digital quality seems to be even better than it was. (I didn't think that was possible...GRE digital decoding is already amazing!)
 

SEMTTP

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2002
Messages
1,023
Location
Ypsilanti Michigan
FPOWLD said:
I have a PRO96 with CPU version 1.4. Do I have to up date my radio with this update?

Thanks
You need to check what the DSP version is, not the CPU version. CPU version is not field upgradable, only the DSP is upgradable.
 

TJMeredith

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Messages
56
Location
Fredericksburg, Virginia
Painless upgrade

Many thanks to Radio Shack for the painless upgrade screen...checked the COM port, followed the instructions and the updates were perfectly loaded on my Pro 2096 and Pro 96. As Emeril would say on the food network,,,,,both scanners are happy....

Cheers to all..............
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top