There's no range difference as they propagate equally but you'll have better clarity than analog when on the outer reaches of the coverage area. The digital allows for better recovery of the voice in those areas.zerg901 said:
-
To anyone looking to acquire commercial radio programming software:
Please do not make requests for copies of radio programming software which is sold (or was sold) by the manufacturer for any monetary value. All requests will be deleted and a forum infraction issued. Making a request such as this is attempting to engage in software piracy and this forum cannot be involved or associated with this activity. The same goes for any private transaction via Private Message. Even if you attempt to engage in this activity in PM's we will still enforce the forum rules. Your PM's are not private and the administration has the right to read them if there's a hint to criminal activity.
If you are having trouble legally obtaining software please state so. We do not want any hurt feelings when your vague post is mistaken for a free request. It is YOUR responsibility to properly word your request.
To obtain Motorola software see the Sticky in the Motorola forum.
The various other vendors often permit their dealers to sell the software online (i.e., Kenwood). Please use Google or some other search engine to find a dealer that sells the software. Typically each series or individual radio requires its own software package. Often the Kenwood software is less than $100 so don't be a cheapskate; just purchase it.
For M/A Com/Harris/GE, etc: there are two software packages that program all current and past radios. One package is for conventional programming and the other for trunked programming. The trunked package is in upwards of $2,500. The conventional package is more reasonable though is still several hundred dollars. The benefit is you do not need multiple versions for each radio (unlike Motorola).
This is a large and very visible forum. We cannot jeopardize the ability to provide the RadioReference services by allowing this activity to occur. Please respect this.
Feds pushing Project 25
- Thread starter brey1234
- Start date
- Status
wayne_h said:
Exactly. Right on the mark.
FF-Medic !!!
10-42
N
N_Jay
Guest
wayne_h said:
All radio propagates the same, but the threshold for acceptable reception is lower, so the RANGE is further.
Useable range. Whatever! You sound just like a PITA engineer.N_Jay said:
N
N_Jay
Guest
wayne_h said:
And you sound like a PITA "want-a-be" engineer!:lol: :lol: :lol:
I need to start quoting more manuals and specifications before I can be classed as wannabe. :lol:N_Jay said:
<http://blog.tcomeng.com/index.php/2007/the-real-difference-between-digital-and-analog/>
http://blog.tcomeng.com/index.php/2007/the-real-difference-between-digital-and-analog/
This article might be informative. Peter Sz
http://blog.tcomeng.com/index.php/2007/the-real-difference-between-digital-and-analog/
This article might be informative. Peter Sz
N
N_Jay
Guest
zerg901 said:
Yes, No, Maybe!!
Have you ever done any coverage testing?
Are you familiar with the statistics involved?
If not, then there is no way to give you a meaningful answer.
Best guess right now is 1.5 dB over 25 kHz FM, and about 3 dB over 12.5 kHz.
D
DaveNF2G
Guest
N_Jay said:
Aha! The truth at last!!!
Whether digital or analog is "better" or has "greater range" depends on the individual characteristics of the location, power output, antenna height, brands and models of radios in use, operator skill, and so on.
N
N_Jay
Guest
DaveNF2G said:Aha! The truth at last!!!
Whether digital or analog is "better" or has "greater range" depends on the individual characteristics of the location, power output, antenna height, brands and models of radios in use, operator skill, and so on.
No!
Given all things being equal (Other comparisons are meaningless), the AMOUNT of greater range can only be described statistically.
Digital doesn't give you greater range. It gives you a higher quality signal within the footprint of the target system to include areas where analog is "noisy". Comparing SINAD and BER is not an exact science even though the IEEE tried their best in order to show the positives and negatives of each technology and to further document Acceptance Testing of Mixed Mode Systems.
One thing I did find in the early stages of the NEXTEL fiasco is that two XTS3000's operating in the same capture area of an iDEN site where an analog TG was severly interfered with, a digital TG steered to the same channel trunked worked without any issues. It was an unscientific test done on the fly prior to NEXTEL re-tuning the site but it sure showed us how well the BER worked in P25 vs the human ear in this situation.
One thing I did find in the early stages of the NEXTEL fiasco is that two XTS3000's operating in the same capture area of an iDEN site where an analog TG was severly interfered with, a digital TG steered to the same channel trunked worked without any issues. It was an unscientific test done on the fly prior to NEXTEL re-tuning the site but it sure showed us how well the BER worked in P25 vs the human ear in this situation.
N
N_Jay
Guest
OK, lets not get too far down then semantic argument.
For all intents and purposes, "range" is used to describe how far a USABLE signal goes (since in theory, the signal goes forever, it just keeps getting weaker until it is indistinguishable from the underlying noise).
Given that all other factors are the same, a P25 signal can be decoded into usable voice communications at a level where you can not demodulate analog FM into usable voice communications. Hence, It has greater RANGE.
As for comparing SINAD and BER, yes it is an exact science, but the results require well documented statistical analysis. Most people want "simple" answers and are therefore disappointed.
Note that I did not tell Zerg that "there way to get a meaningful answer."
I said; "there is no way to give you a meaningful answer."
For all intents and purposes, "range" is used to describe how far a USABLE signal goes (since in theory, the signal goes forever, it just keeps getting weaker until it is indistinguishable from the underlying noise).
Given that all other factors are the same, a P25 signal can be decoded into usable voice communications at a level where you can not demodulate analog FM into usable voice communications. Hence, It has greater RANGE.
As for comparing SINAD and BER, yes it is an exact science, but the results require well documented statistical analysis. Most people want "simple" answers and are therefore disappointed.
Note that I did not tell Zerg that "there way to get a meaningful answer."
I said; "there is no way to give you a meaningful answer."
Digital will give you at least equal to if not better usable range than analog. If it doesn't, something is engineered - or probably programmed in either the mobile or repeater - wrong.DaveNF2G said:
It's hard to answer because it also involves how the user interprets what he or she hears. That's a variable so you can't give an exact answer.
Does anyone have any documentation that shows digital radio systems have better range? Does anyone know of any digital systems that required fewer radio sites, or lower ERPs, because they were digital instead of analog? Peter sz
N
N_Jay
Guest
TSB-88B has some of the statistics.zerg901 said:
That is a little tougher. You would have to do two designs, and there is no good reason to do all the extra work.zerg901 said:
I'll try to make this as simple as possible.N_Jay said:
We're not complaining about their decisions.
N
N_Jay
Guest
16b said:
Oh my god, you found a typo!!*******!!
Where did the "digital is less expensive than analog" discussion go? Did I miss it? Looking at news articles about the cost of new digital trunking systems, the prices seem rather astronomical. And now there is talk of those systems having an expected life cycle perhaps 30% less than first expected (and budgeted by agencies). My opinion (and it's not worth anything except to me) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. (Translated: vendors are making mega-bucks off this, with no end in sight.) 'Tis the american way I guess.
Not a typo but rather the wrong word. A typo would be like "tehir", for example.
In the instant case, it is just wrong or maybe from the appendage of the name calling,
the result of ignorance. I've found in my many years that folks who resort to
name calling are usually those of lesser minds.
In the instant case, it is just wrong or maybe from the appendage of the name calling,
the result of ignorance. I've found in my many years that folks who resort to
name calling are usually those of lesser minds.
- Status
