Me too. The omniscient amongst the readership are welcome to PM me and let me know how I'm imagining the transmissions I hear.
M
Fed Freqs - Pittsburgh PA Area 8/2009 (G20 summit related?)
- Thread starter mtindor
- Start date
- Status
Me too. The omniscient amongst the readership are welcome to PM me and let me know how I'm imagining the transmissions I hear.
M
cfr301
Member
If you two would work on Collaborating as hard as you have questioning each other you might actually accomplish something. Try COMMUNICATING WITH each other instead of trading barbs, we'll all benefit from it in the long run.
That only works when both sides are willing. It's obvious that some people are going to over-react whenever any contradictory points of view are presented. Keep in mind that the same thing happened before I replied to the thread here, and promises were made that it would not be repeated.
All I did was suggest that some of the 150 MHz frequencies were images. I don't believe the Feds are using taxi frequencies for their P25 network (yes, they can use any frequency, but they won't when it interferes with established and licensed users), and I get blasted for it and called all-knowing. I never said I was, but I believe some of the frequencies posted are not accurate.
It seems to be an all or nothing mentality - either you accept that everything said is correct or you're calling everything wrong. It's impossible to reason with someone who has that mentality.
Whenever I hear something, I always consider images or mixing to be a possibility.
There is a paging frequency that I've been hearing for many months (411.7125) that I'm still trying to figure out if it's actually there or if it's mixing, or an image, or something else. I've pretty much ruled out images since I've heard it on receivers with different IFs. It appears to be coming from Allegheny County, as that's where it's the strongest.
All I was doing was questioning some of the frequencies so we CAN establish the credibility, but some people can't take that kind of critique. It's data from those types of sources that is the least reliable. I prefer data that is verified from several sources and disputed by few or none.
In this case when you have several people who didn't hear activity on some of the frequencies, I have to question if it was really there, or if there was some anomaly such as images or mixing that was making it appear to be there. Mixing with DTV signals has really made identifying mixes more difficult since there is no audible signal in the mix.
Again, I was only questioning things, and the reaction I received indicated to me that the source was not as critical of signals as I would have liked to have seen - insisting that I was wrong and they were right.
If you have several people telling you that you may be wrong, you should consider the possibility that you may be wrong rather than call them omniscient.
Oh, and Mike, how can you be 'imagining' them? I never said you were, but that's another sign of over-reaction - asking people why they said things they never said. Mixing and images make signals appear to be on frequencies other than they really are.
Joe M.
All I did was suggest that some of the 150 MHz frequencies were images. I don't believe the Feds are using taxi frequencies for their P25 network (yes, they can use any frequency, but they won't when it interferes with established and licensed users), and I get blasted for it and called all-knowing. I never said I was, but I believe some of the frequencies posted are not accurate.
It seems to be an all or nothing mentality - either you accept that everything said is correct or you're calling everything wrong. It's impossible to reason with someone who has that mentality.
Whenever I hear something, I always consider images or mixing to be a possibility.
There is a paging frequency that I've been hearing for many months (411.7125) that I'm still trying to figure out if it's actually there or if it's mixing, or an image, or something else. I've pretty much ruled out images since I've heard it on receivers with different IFs. It appears to be coming from Allegheny County, as that's where it's the strongest.
All I was doing was questioning some of the frequencies so we CAN establish the credibility, but some people can't take that kind of critique. It's data from those types of sources that is the least reliable. I prefer data that is verified from several sources and disputed by few or none.
In this case when you have several people who didn't hear activity on some of the frequencies, I have to question if it was really there, or if there was some anomaly such as images or mixing that was making it appear to be there. Mixing with DTV signals has really made identifying mixes more difficult since there is no audible signal in the mix.
Again, I was only questioning things, and the reaction I received indicated to me that the source was not as critical of signals as I would have liked to have seen - insisting that I was wrong and they were right.
If you have several people telling you that you may be wrong, you should consider the possibility that you may be wrong rather than call them omniscient.
Oh, and Mike, how can you be 'imagining' them? I never said you were, but that's another sign of over-reaction - asking people why they said things they never said. Mixing and images make signals appear to be on frequencies other than they really are.
Joe M.
My first [and most obvious] error was speculating that these were G20 specific. One has to keep in mind I'm not typically an enthusiast of the Federal spectrum. One also has to keep in mind that I questioned [i.e. ?] whether these were related to the G20 summit.
I had originally made that speculation based upon the fact that I'm so close to Pittsburgh, significantly far from any other major metro area where I would likely be hearing such strong signals, and the G20 summit was coming up where one could anticipate hearing increased Federal activity. I didn't take into account that the interoperability issues that would make significant federal repeater use nonfeasible for the event.
Since for the past week I have not heard any traffic on any of the frequencies I originally posted [except an occasional transmission on a single frequency], I have no way of going back to attempt to vet them.
I'm going to assume the two you primarily dispute are:
153.2225 NAC 167 P25
157.6425 NAC 167 P25
If this is correct, I'm within you on that. I can't say I've heard 153.2225 more than the single day that I originally heard it (and probably only heard it once or twice in short succession). At that time I was hearing a lot of frequencies broadcasting the audio, and so it is possible that it was an image from another frequency. 153.2225 is in my scanner, and I'll certainly attempt to determine if traffic on it is legit when I hear it again. In the meantime, scratch it from the list and chalk it up to a figment of my [or my scanners'] imagination if you wish.
As for 157.6425, I am aware of the fact that it is in spectrum normally used by taxis, etc. I know this raises huge doubt. However, prior to me ever noting transmissions on this frequency that were occurring simultaneously on a ton of other frequencies, I was hearing transmissions on this frequency only (and then alter on, on a couple 150.xxxx frequencies).
See: 150.5625 / 157.6425 (NAC 167) - P25 (clear and encrypted)
So I've been monitoring 157.6425 for much longer than any others that I listed and am at least convinced for my own benefit that it is a legit transmitter output since many of the transmissions I was hearing on it in the beginning were not to be heard anywhere else on VHF. I was hearing various players staking out a bar in Pittsburgh on this one.
You've at least indicated that you believe some of the 160 Mhz frequencies are accurate by virtue of you verifying them yourself or somebody else having verified them in the past. Is that correct? If so, exactly what frequencies out of those I have listed have you recently monitored and can verify that indeed traffic was heard on them?
So, if you're only disputing the 153 Mhz frequency and the 157 Mhz frequency, I have explained how I believe the 157 freq is legit but the 153 Mhz could certainly be an image or intermod (although, i'd tend to think an image since I was getting decodable P25 on it and wouldn't expect to be able to have a solid P25 signal from two external transmitters mixed together).
for the 150 Mhz frequencies, i'm confident of 150.5625. It's one of the handful of frequencies that I originally listed which I also programmed into a handheld using the stock antenna and still could identify a clear P25 signal (it was an analog scanner, but nevertheless I was confident that the signal was pure). I discussed 150.5625 on these forums, posted in March on my site, and maybe even tossed it up for review over at the TRAMAlist.
Contrary to what you may think, I don't have a problem collaborating. I do have a problem with being one of one who has reported these findings recently in the Pittsburgh listening area and then not having gotten anybody else to chime in with any sort of clarification / verification - instead all I get are people who apparently know significantly more than me suggesting that many of my findings are merely images.
I tossed them out there hoping that somebody else could verify specific frequencies... but nobody has come out and said that they heard anything on any of those frequencies directly in the timeframe when I was hearing all of it. Some posted that from other records they have from the past, or from information they see on other sites, certain frequencies are in use by agency X in city Y. But nobody has attempted to "collaborate" with me -- They've only attempted to negate my findings. If somebody truly wants to "collaborate", then somebody has to plug them all in and then post when they hear something on one or more of them to provide verification of those frequencies that can be verified.
Mike
I had originally made that speculation based upon the fact that I'm so close to Pittsburgh, significantly far from any other major metro area where I would likely be hearing such strong signals, and the G20 summit was coming up where one could anticipate hearing increased Federal activity. I didn't take into account that the interoperability issues that would make significant federal repeater use nonfeasible for the event.
Since for the past week I have not heard any traffic on any of the frequencies I originally posted [except an occasional transmission on a single frequency], I have no way of going back to attempt to vet them.
I'm going to assume the two you primarily dispute are:
153.2225 NAC 167 P25
157.6425 NAC 167 P25
If this is correct, I'm within you on that. I can't say I've heard 153.2225 more than the single day that I originally heard it (and probably only heard it once or twice in short succession). At that time I was hearing a lot of frequencies broadcasting the audio, and so it is possible that it was an image from another frequency. 153.2225 is in my scanner, and I'll certainly attempt to determine if traffic on it is legit when I hear it again. In the meantime, scratch it from the list and chalk it up to a figment of my [or my scanners'] imagination if you wish.
As for 157.6425, I am aware of the fact that it is in spectrum normally used by taxis, etc. I know this raises huge doubt. However, prior to me ever noting transmissions on this frequency that were occurring simultaneously on a ton of other frequencies, I was hearing transmissions on this frequency only (and then alter on, on a couple 150.xxxx frequencies).
See: 150.5625 / 157.6425 (NAC 167) - P25 (clear and encrypted)
So I've been monitoring 157.6425 for much longer than any others that I listed and am at least convinced for my own benefit that it is a legit transmitter output since many of the transmissions I was hearing on it in the beginning were not to be heard anywhere else on VHF. I was hearing various players staking out a bar in Pittsburgh on this one.
You've at least indicated that you believe some of the 160 Mhz frequencies are accurate by virtue of you verifying them yourself or somebody else having verified them in the past. Is that correct? If so, exactly what frequencies out of those I have listed have you recently monitored and can verify that indeed traffic was heard on them?
So, if you're only disputing the 153 Mhz frequency and the 157 Mhz frequency, I have explained how I believe the 157 freq is legit but the 153 Mhz could certainly be an image or intermod (although, i'd tend to think an image since I was getting decodable P25 on it and wouldn't expect to be able to have a solid P25 signal from two external transmitters mixed together).
for the 150 Mhz frequencies, i'm confident of 150.5625. It's one of the handful of frequencies that I originally listed which I also programmed into a handheld using the stock antenna and still could identify a clear P25 signal (it was an analog scanner, but nevertheless I was confident that the signal was pure). I discussed 150.5625 on these forums, posted in March on my site, and maybe even tossed it up for review over at the TRAMAlist.
Contrary to what you may think, I don't have a problem collaborating. I do have a problem with being one of one who has reported these findings recently in the Pittsburgh listening area and then not having gotten anybody else to chime in with any sort of clarification / verification - instead all I get are people who apparently know significantly more than me suggesting that many of my findings are merely images.
I tossed them out there hoping that somebody else could verify specific frequencies... but nobody has come out and said that they heard anything on any of those frequencies directly in the timeframe when I was hearing all of it. Some posted that from other records they have from the past, or from information they see on other sites, certain frequencies are in use by agency X in city Y. But nobody has attempted to "collaborate" with me -- They've only attempted to negate my findings. If somebody truly wants to "collaborate", then somebody has to plug them all in and then post when they hear something on one or more of them to provide verification of those frequencies that can be verified.
Mike
If I'm wrong [and I could be, partially, but certainly not across the board], please specifically outline each and every frequency that I listed which you think is in error. Just making the statement that you think some are images does me no good. If I knew what you [or anyone else] has verified as being in use in the past few months and if I knew exactly which ones you [or anyone else] were doubting, then I may be able to agree or disagree more fully with your assessments.
I agree. I'm not oblivious to either. Having been a scanner enthusiast off and on for 25 years does not guarantee that I'm well versed on images and mixing. Having been an amateur radio operator for almost 20 years doesn't guarantee I know what I'm doing either. But jeesh, have a little faith. Just like not everybody is a master at it, not everybody is totally clueless. I've understood at the very least the fundamentals of images, mixing, intermod, frontend overload, and all sorts of things for some time now. Am I an RF engineer? No. Can I also explain exactly _why_ things are happening? Not always. But I certainly try to make good judgements on my discoveries, and I certainly feel that when called to do so I am able to draw reliable conclusions based upon my observations.
My biggest failure is that sometimes, in my eagerness to share what i hear with others, I don't necessarily do the needed footwork to rule out everything before I post. I hear something new, post about it quickly before necessarily going through all of the measures to ensure i'm hearing what I'm hearing on the frequency I appear to be hearing it. So, sometimes you may see me post things that could be in error. That's where some verification from other sources sure makes life a lot easier.
Mike
Any chance we can get back to the regular topic?
I started the topic - Why am I not allowed to defend myself? Wow.
At any rate, I think the topic is dead now for obvious reasons (G20 is gone, the frequencies I posted in this topic were never used during the G20 to my knowledge).
Mike
At any rate, I think the topic is dead now for obvious reasons (G20 is gone, the frequencies I posted in this topic were never used during the G20 to my knowledge).
Mike
Because it's not exactly fair to the rest of us who are interested in the topic. You may be the OP but it doesn't mean you can take over the thread and do what you want with it. Sorry you take it the wrong way.
Even though the event is over people could have compiled information and are taking time to parse it. Tangent arguments like in this thread could turn someone off from posting their information.
- Status