SDS100/SDS200: Firmware Release 1.07.00-1.07.04 Main / 1.02.00 Sub

[werinshades]

I decided to try the 1.07.02/1.02 Sub firmware and took a little ride. Set the Global filter to Normal and went out this evening to my local analog departments. This has made a great improvements in 460/470/153/154/155 Mhz analog areas I was in. Started hearing distant departments again like my old trusty 396XT used to.

Put on a local large NXDN system in the UHF/UHF-T band and didn't miss one transmission. Since I live close to an airport, gave the old AM band a try...by far the greatest improvement. Also had on a CAP+ Trunking System and alot of One Channel DMR systems and performed flawlessly.

The only issue I am still having is the Illinois Starcom system which my primary site is the 770-775 Mhz band. I'm seeing high ERR rates and still getting choppy transmissions. I did not have this issue prior to any of the updates. It's usable but noticeable.

I don't want to revert back to older firmware and miss out on future firmware updates or feature enhancements. UPMan or Uniden Support, would you like those of us with this specific issue to submit debug files for yourself and the engineers to diagnose?

 

[firemantom26]

I went and upgraded the firmware tonight and I can say for sure that I do receive towers on Ohio MARCS and Belmont County Simulcast that I never decoded before. I am using the invert option.

 

[alienware]

Yesterday I upgraded the v1.07.00 Main&1.02.00 sub version, resulting in custom search (For example: band 88-108mhz,wfm,setp 10khz) Unable to search FM radio station! the previous version is able to search 7-8 radio stations (after searching for signals, can stop searching and play radio sound), I feeling sensitivity drops a lot, I close the HPF (select Global original and restart SDS100), clear the user data, after the reconfiguration is still the same? And then I resumed my old firmware the problem remained ... Is it wrong where I set it up? How can I restore my previous sensitivity and ask for help: (...

 

[AA6IO]

Filter improves RF overload problem here in Los Angeles basin greatly. CHP, civil air, low VHF, LASD on 480 were getting hammered by intermod previously. Seems much better with "filter setting" in place.

 

[opiekitty]

Filter improves RF overload problem here in Los Angeles basin greatly. CHP, civil air, low VHF, LASD on 480 were getting hammered by intermod previously. Seems much better with "filter setting" in place.

Hello, What filter settings is recommended for CHP? Civil Air etc? Or does it depend where the listener is located? I would like to learn more about how the filters work. any information helps us learn...Thank You

 

[n1chu]

Could someone shed some light on what this "Original" setting is? As opposed to the other settings in Sentinel?
Why is it not in Sentinel?
Does it mean the filter is not even utilized? And that prior to this FW it was not even used? But the filter was there??

Ugh, my head is spinning..

I can answer one of your three questions;

Update your Sentinel software. If upon boot up of the Sentinel program you don’t see SDS200 listed along with BCDx36HP and SDS100, you are running the previous version. At the top of this forum topic it lists the new 2.01.01 version for download. I installed it from the .exe file without first deleting the older version. I was afraid if I did that I might loose associated files. But Sentinel installed seamlessly for me.

 

[buddrousa]

If I were betting we had a filter that they made the adjustments to now we get to make the adjustments.

 

[W2SJW]

My 2¢ on this latest update:

I always back-up the previous FW from the Sentinel program data folder before downloading the latest (got into this habit when I was constantly testing beta FW on my old 436), so I said 'why not?' & did the update anyway.

I'm 2.5 miles from the closest NJSP & NJICS tower, and was doing the tests using my 3" 800 BNC antenna. The NJICS was giving me -79 to -82 in my basement office, and a solid -60 in the upstairs bedroom with no missed transmissions in either location. I switched over to the Morris County UHF P25 system while leaving the 800 antenna on as a major litmus test. Their system gave me -97 in the bedroom with no missed transmissions either.

I wanted to test 700 & 800 first after reading about the issues you guys were having here on similar systems (with the filter in 'Normal' mode). I'm going to do some extensive VHF testing today (both air & rail).

One thing I did notice & I know is has nothing to do with the new RF filter is that the ambient volume level now seems lower. I found '6' comfortable for use in the house, and now I have to put it to '7' after this FW...

 

[TailGator911]

I am running some comparison tests of my own this morning with the filter settings on my SDS100 against my 536HP and I am wondering if someone could explain the differences in the options. I am using a window-mounted HG antenna for the SDS100 and a Diamond discone on the roof tower for my 536hP, both hitting on the Nutter Center towers approx. 5mi away transmitting on the Ohio MARCS-IP simulcast P25 Phase1 system and they are both breaking neck and neck so far, and I am on the 'invert' setting right now. I am hearing vhf airport traffic just fine on both radios. When set to 'global' I was not able to hear the vhf airport towers on my SDS100. In fact, on the 'inverted' setting I think the vhf reception on my SDS100 has slightly improved, as I am hearing delivery clearance chatter that I have not heard before at the airport, and hospital coms (vhf) 6-7 mi away from Soin Hospital. Just curious what the differences are between the 4 settings. Auto and normal I did not detect one better than the other. So far, I am liking 'inverted' better than the other settings.

JD
kf4anc

 

[trentbob]

UPDATE... if you read the whole thread you know I am one of the ones who updated to 1.7 minutes after it was released. After reading the description I pretty well understood it. Not being particularly thrilled with this radio as it was not picking up my local simulcast system well with many missed transmissions and poor performance I was eager to see if this update helped.

Starting with global setting on normal which means the filter is on everything. I started testing, if there was a worsening in performance on a system I would go into the site and change the filter to inverted or original to see if either brought an improvement. If it was a conventional Channel I would do the same by going into Department then to the filter and doing the same thing. Basically if normal improved performance I did nothing, if inverted didn't help either I put it on the option of original meaning I turned the global filter off on that particular site of that system or on that conventional Channel leaving performance as it was before.

I'm leaving the choice of Auto out of this for now because that samples both automatically during a search or scan drastically slowing down operations. Let's just work with normal, inverted or original. We start with normal on global and go into individual sites of systems or Dept of conventional channels to change individual filter application in accordance to Performance.

RESULTS... fantastic update. Finally... So as the thread went on the few people on started talking about the options and upman came on and said he was going to remove the original option in a future update. Simultaneously the few people on the thread asked for him not to do that. Of course it was done pretty quickly after that so the new update no longer has the option of "original" meaning if you put Global setting on normal you only have the option of inverting the filter if both normal and inverted weaken performance on a particular system or Channel you're stuck with it unless you roll back and don't have the benefit of the normal and inverted filter on the particular systems it has dramatically improved.

I will stay on 1.7 as it is an excellent update and has dramatically improved the overall performance of the radio. If it doesn't work for you on anyting or ruins overall performance then just put global on original and it's like you never updated at all. You can also just roll it back. Hope this helps.

 

[racin06]

I just updated the firmware and tested on a local P25 Phase I simulcast system. Prior to the update, the signal bar was erratic from 3 to 5 bars with an erratic RSSI from -80 to -110. After this firmware update, the signal bar is at a consistent 5 bars and RSSI is at -60 to -63. This is a noticeable improvement AND this is without making any changes to the filter settings. I'm wondering if I should try experimenting with the filter settings, but I'm afraid to mess with the improved performance! I also don't have the option to set the filters to "original." Decisions, decisions.

 

[CNW8835]

I've got one of the initial run SDS100s, and maybe I've been lucky, because so far I've been happy with it. I've not noticed any problems as it seems to pick up all the same analog VHF and UHF stuff as my 396XT. I installed the 1.07.02 and sub 1.02.00 upgrades yesterday evening, and so far I think all seems well. With the new filter settings left to their defaults, it continues to receive analog VHF and UHF signals, LSM P25 systems on 800mhz, and VHF, as well as DMR stuff on UHF here in the Madison, WI area with no apparent trouble.

Additionally, the new filtering of this update seems to have significantly improved its ability to reject interference. At the moment, I have the SDS100 and 396XT with Diamond RH77CAs sitting near my computer, WiFi, and other electronics. This is, as you would imagine, a fairly noisy RF environment. Previously both would encounter buzzing interference on many frequencies, but now the SDS scans along quietly, only finding legitimate transmissions while the 396 continues to buzz. To be clear, I also normally operate these scanners on the other end of the house, away from this noise, but I thought the apparent improvement was interesting.

 

[buddrousa]

Bob thanks for the update I am also glad you are starting to have good luck with a scanner GOD knows you tried them all.
I have update to the 1.07.02 sub 1.02.02 I also am still receiving the TACN sites the same as before after making no filter adjustments and am seeing better results on P25, DMR, NXDN and Analog compared to my 536's with the same Fav's ect.

 

[trentbob]

Bob thanks for the update I am also glad you are starting to have good luck with a scanner GOD knows you tried them all.
I have update to the 1.07.02 sub 1.02.02 I also am still receiving the TACN sites the same as before after making no filter adjustments and am seeing better results on P25, DMR, NXDN and Analog compared to my 536's with the same Fav's ect.

Hey Bud how are you, you are right I tried everything and ended up with, as you know, the alternatives working best. My initial impression on the Bucks County simulcast system that has one simulcast site and multiple Towers where this radio has not worked well nor has any other scanner so that the serious listeners revert to the alternatives is Bucks County is improved. LESS missed Transmissions. It works with a 2 second system hold time instead of the 255 that made the scanner useless for anything else.

There are a few systems and channels that normal or invert compromise performance so I placed them on original and solved that problem. It's good to be able to customize every system and conventional Channel.

You may want to consider rolling back to 1.7. 0 if you encounter any systems or channels that are worsened or compromised by either normal or inverted filter. I feel it is imperative to be able to disengage the new filter if necessary on a particular system or conventional Channel.

By the way what works for the Bucks County simulcast system is the inverted filter and I am testing it now using my Motorola as a control. It looks promising but I won't know till I go mobile.

 

[Ubbe]

Unable to search FM radio station!

Check that the Broadcast Screen option are not on. It's minmum 100Khz step size search and FMB mode in FM broadcast band.

/Ubbe

 

[jdolina]

Did some testing with the 3 settings Original, Normal and Invert using direct entry on frequencies and control channels for problem systems as well as good systems in my area. I am very happy with the SDS100 performance vs other radios.

A quick summary for those not wanting to read: It seems like it would be great to have some version of the 3 settings.

700-800mhz seemed to perform the best with Original
460mhz Normal
422mhz Original
152mhz Original/Invert about the same.

I did use global normal for sometime while scanning and then original and couldn't really tell a difference in traffic received. Invert did reduce traffic.

The antenna is mag mount (nothing special) on top of a 2 drawer file cabinet which sits on another 2 drawer for height

I am sure the results vary based on system signal at a location and interference.

700mhz systems

P25 Phase II about 17 miles from me that was before the SDS100 only listenable with the 436 on manual/8 and the antenna placed daily with analyze. This then degraded reception for other systems the 436 was programmed for like the one below

Original RSSI -87 - -90 5 solid bars
Normal RSSI -95 - -100 bars fluctuate 4-5
Invert RSSI -96 - -102 bars fluctuate 3-4

P25 Phase I simulcast with the nearest tower about 7 miles and others about 12 from me. Again same as above on the 436

Original -76 - -83 5 full bars
Normal -91 - -92 5 full
Invert -89 - -92 5 full bars

P25 Phase I about 7 miles this was a good system that is received with no antenna positioning or special settings on any radios

Original -90 - -91 5 bars
Normal -96 4 bars
Invert -96 4 bars

800mhz

P25 Phase I simulcast with all towers about 17 - 20 miles away. Always difficult to impossible pickup unless conditions were perfect. SDS100 from day 1 was OK picking up traffic from the site

Original RSSI -110 - -114 1 bar to 2
Normal RSSI -118 - -119 no bars
Invert RSSI -119 on/off no bars

460mhz
DMR con+ about 20+ miles away always required correct antenna placement to receive on other radios

Original -112 - 115 1 -3 bars
Normal -109 - -110 2 bars
Invert -117 - -119 0 -1 bars

422mhz con+ about 17miles away typically I could receive this with no problems

Original -93 5 bars
Normal -102 - -103 3 bars
Invert -100 3 bars

152mhz DMR BS system with no receive problems

Original -85 - -86 5 bars
Normal -93 - 94 5 bars
Invert -84 - -85 5 bars

 

[u2brent]

Could someone shed some light on what this "Original" setting is? As opposed to the other settings in Sentinel?
Why is it not in Sentinel?
Does it mean the filter is not even utilized? And that prior to this FW it was not even used? But the filter was there??

Ugh, my head is spinning..

I can answer one of your three questions;

Update your Sentinel software. If upon boot up of the Sentinel program you don’t see SDS200 listed along with BCDx36HP and SDS100, you are running the previous version. At the top of this forum topic it lists the new 2.01.01 version for download. I installed it from the .exe file without first deleting the older version. I was afraid if I did that I might loose associated files. But Sentinel installed seamlessly for me.

Um, I don't think that even answered one question, and Are we on the same planet?
What do you think I did? Did you know I've been following this from #1 Post? But Thanks.

Apologies,, got up on the wrong side of the bed today..

 

[werinshades]

These are some great reports...some better than others but that's a good thing. It would appear another firmware upgrade will be in order and hopefully a Sentinel upgrade too. The filter does work well on analog systems, which I'm sure it was geared towards. Unfortunately it appears Simulcast systems suffered a bit. I have confidence it will be resolved.

My last report on this: upgraded last night to 1.07.02 and I did some evaluating. This morning returned to 1.07.00 and am using the Original setting on my Simulcast systems. For the 7 months I've owned this scanner, it never "dropped" a transmission as it was going on...this morning it did. The ERR shot up into the 100+ range and that was it.

As it was previously mentioned, the ideal solution will make the filter "selective" but yet we can still benefit from the firmware upgrades. Thanks for all the good reporting..I appreciate it.

 

[mtindor]

I had really hoped that somebody would have pointed out the obvious. These settings are very unique to the location (and its vicinity to RF interference / strong signals in and out of band, etc). If you happen to live in a rural county with no strong transmitters close by you on the bands you want to listen to (and no cell towers breathing down your neck), you might not notice any improvement with any setting.

If you find a setting works great for a trunked system, a band (VHF / UHF / 700-800), etc in one location, that filter setting likely is not going to apply as you "go mobile" and move to other areas. No matter where you go, there is probably going to be some RF interference on some band that could be helped by adjusting a filtering setting. But as soon as you go to a new location, the environment is totally different and may require a different setting.

So, it makes perfect sense that one person says "setting to Invert on my local 800 mhz system" makes a world of difference, and then another person says "I used Invert and it made things worse". It isn't because Uniden sucks. It isn't because one person's SDS100 is junk. It's simply because the filter setting (per location, per band, per system) will likely need to be different depending upon what type of RF interference is around.

All one can deduce is that modifying the filter setting can be beneficial for many people in many very specific instances, but that modifying the filter setting may not have a positive result in all cases -- and nobody should expect it to. I'm sure there are many people who have extremely little RF interference to worry about, and thus would not see any improvement when using the newer firmware vs the older firmware.

 

[ScanYak]

My concern about the latest firmware update is not that it doesn't make things better but for me it makes it worse. I'm not using mine for very many trunk systems, most is for conventional analog. (yes, I understand this is not the best scanner for analog) My problem is with the implementation of the filter addon I have cross bleed over to other frequencies I'm scanning, that I have not had in the past. How would that happen you ask? they have similar CTCSS tones or none. Makes for messy listening. Thank goodness I can still revert to "original"