-
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.
High Gain 800 Antenna for XTS 5000
- Thread starter BabaDude77
- Start date
EM-P90110-SF 1/2 wave wideband
We've only started using them on 7-8 radios, but they are a noticeable improvement over OEM.
They also seem to be better then the laird ones we used to buy, especially on 700.
thats what happens when your primary vendor disappears... you try new things.
We've only started using them on 7-8 radios, but they are a noticeable improvement over OEM.
They also seem to be better then the laird ones we used to buy, especially on 700.
thats what happens when your primary vendor disappears... you try new things.
Have you guys used the 1/4 wave? And what are the lengths? I ordered the OEM stubby , if it doesn’t work out I’ll give this a try maybe.
the half wave we use is a 3db gain at 5.7 inches, with a 698 to 870 coverage.
havent tried their quarter wave on 800, but i looked it up and its a 2db gain on the same bandwith and 4.3 inches.
havent tried their quarter wave on 800, but i looked it up and its a 2db gain on the same bandwith and 4.3 inches.
and if you get either, make sure you get -SF and not -SFK.
Motorola's jacks arent the same depth as most. Learned that lesson before.
Motorola's jacks arent the same depth as most. Learned that lesson before.
Anyone who quotes a portable antenna as having gain is immediately suspect.
Virtually all portable antennas have a loss factor relative to unity gain reference.
If you must have a stubby, just know that you are throwing away half the signal compared to a half wave.
Here is a direct comparison - two identical radios on the same trunked talkgroup. The radio with the stubby is out of range - the half wave isn't. Both antennas are OEM Motorola GPS combo.
Virtually all portable antennas have a loss factor relative to unity gain reference.
If you must have a stubby, just know that you are throwing away half the signal compared to a half wave.
Here is a direct comparison - two identical radios on the same trunked talkgroup. The radio with the stubby is out of range - the half wave isn't. Both antennas are OEM Motorola GPS combo.
Attachments
FFPM571
Member
Motorola whip... even a motorola stubby is a comprimise anyone who claims gain is snake oil
So after receiving the genuine OEM Motorola stubby in the mail and testing it for about half a day I have found a considerable increase in reception (over the 8$ Amazon stubby) on the local system but no difference in lack of reception on further off systems (which after listening to the discussion here seems to be what’s expected) I think my next purchase (prob after the holidays) I will look at that half wave 5 inch antenna madrabbit mentioned.
OEM antennas are a compromise. They have to balance low cost, center the bandwidth in the radio's usable range, and generally need to have average durability. OEM's business is the radio. The antenna is just one component of that radio, and not anywhere near the priority for R&D funds or design innovation.
Stubby antennas are even more of a compromise, unless they're engineered well for specific use, and most of the time those will have a significant tradeoff, like a very narrow bandwidth.
However, gain on 800mhz is neither rocket science or sorcery. I could get a 40cm piece of copper wire, bend it into a phallic shape, stick it in an analyzer, and show probably a 3 or 4 fold increase in reception... the issue is that there are a ton of crap products out there that over-promise, and people who have been burned with those products are reasonably opinionated against any similar claims.
Major brands whos primary business is antennas, have more of a reason to dedicate the effort, time, money, and intelligence into the specific product that they sell, so if a company like EM-Wave, Larsen, Laird says that they have testing and analysis showing their antennas have gain, then they have gain. -You wont see the same results in the field as they see in perfect lab conditions, BUT you will see a difference between their products and OEM products.
Stubby antennas are even more of a compromise, unless they're engineered well for specific use, and most of the time those will have a significant tradeoff, like a very narrow bandwidth.
However, gain on 800mhz is neither rocket science or sorcery. I could get a 40cm piece of copper wire, bend it into a phallic shape, stick it in an analyzer, and show probably a 3 or 4 fold increase in reception... the issue is that there are a ton of crap products out there that over-promise, and people who have been burned with those products are reasonably opinionated against any similar claims.
Major brands whos primary business is antennas, have more of a reason to dedicate the effort, time, money, and intelligence into the specific product that they sell, so if a company like EM-Wave, Larsen, Laird says that they have testing and analysis showing their antennas have gain, then they have gain. -You wont see the same results in the field as they see in perfect lab conditions, BUT you will see a difference between their products and OEM products.
petnrdx
Member
I hate to start a storm here, but I think this one time I have to.
OEM companies WANT their radios to perform better than anyone else's.
That has to include the antenna.
Why would they sell bad antennas to put on the brand new product they just sold you?
My contention is that one manufacturer's five inch long (just talking approximations here not precision) compared to another
manufacturer's five inch long half wave antenna can't exhibit significant gain. Significant in this case being say two dB or more.
We are up against laws of physics.
You are not going to be able to "hear" the difference of say a half a dB of gain. Not in the field on FM.
There is more variation than that from one radio in a production run versus the next.
Look at all the ads that say that one four bay dipole has 3 dB gain over another four bay dipole. BS.
And ESPECIALLY colinear or mobile antennas with huge gain differences. Not in the same physical length.
I my testing of OEM antennas against other aftermarket brands of "similar" design (1/2 against 1/2, or dipole against dipole)
the OEM was best every time.
My methodology has always been the radio in a fixed location, working thru a repeater or base at significant distance.
We did some testing using open field, to mobile from HT.
It's the same old marketing schemes to me.
YOU can't get something from nothing.
I also made it my practice to not buy anything that was compared to gain over isotropic.
Always felt that any good (more honest) seller / manufacturer would use dBd.
Now even the good manufacturers are comparing dBi.
It seems people are selling the hype because more are buying the hype.
I have always had the best performance with the antenna that the guy made for the radio.
YMMV.
OEM companies WANT their radios to perform better than anyone else's.
That has to include the antenna.
Why would they sell bad antennas to put on the brand new product they just sold you?
My contention is that one manufacturer's five inch long (just talking approximations here not precision) compared to another
manufacturer's five inch long half wave antenna can't exhibit significant gain. Significant in this case being say two dB or more.
We are up against laws of physics.
You are not going to be able to "hear" the difference of say a half a dB of gain. Not in the field on FM.
There is more variation than that from one radio in a production run versus the next.
Look at all the ads that say that one four bay dipole has 3 dB gain over another four bay dipole. BS.
And ESPECIALLY colinear or mobile antennas with huge gain differences. Not in the same physical length.
I my testing of OEM antennas against other aftermarket brands of "similar" design (1/2 against 1/2, or dipole against dipole)
the OEM was best every time.
My methodology has always been the radio in a fixed location, working thru a repeater or base at significant distance.
We did some testing using open field, to mobile from HT.
It's the same old marketing schemes to me.
YOU can't get something from nothing.
I also made it my practice to not buy anything that was compared to gain over isotropic.
Always felt that any good (more honest) seller / manufacturer would use dBd.
Now even the good manufacturers are comparing dBi.
It seems people are selling the hype because more are buying the hype.
I have always had the best performance with the antenna that the guy made for the radio.
YMMV.
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
I would tend to agree. OEM antennas are designed by the OEM to make the overall product perform to it's published specifications. While many OEM antennas are indeed made by other major antenna manufacturers such as Laird, Larsen/Pulse, AntennEx, etc, they are built to the OEM's specific needs to include things like antenna matching networks in the subscriber radio itself (important with multiband radios), RF exposure tests for FCC OET certification, and things like UL IS ratings.
OEM antennas are usually most expensive too. Case in point, OEM APX8000 all band (VHF/U1/U2/7/8 GPS) antenna is just under a C-note.
mmckenna
I ♥ Ø
Exactly.
Issue usually isn't the manufacturer. It's the user or "youtubes radio tech" that decides if they can thread a different antenna on the radio, it must be OK.
A long time ago I was working at a place that had some older radios that had BNC connector'd antennas on their radios. Someone must have lost an antenna, because one was just a piece of 75Ω coax with a BNC connector on the end. Coax wasn't stripped, just a few inches of cut off coax. It worked over the distance needed, so no one complained.
Thanks to Amazon and e-Bay, there are no shortage of crappy knock off counterfeit antennas that people stuff on their radios.
petnrdx
Member
Is that all?
I would expect them to be more than that.
I would also expect it to only work really well for one band...
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
Used to be over a c-note, but I think MSI is sourcing them from other vendors, IIRC the first ones were made by Centurion and the later ones are either Browning or some other third party. There is a lot going on in one, they have a matching network PCB in the base and two elements, one helical and one fixed. Someone had a teardown of one of the forums.
Before I retired, I rarely had trouble getting auto tune with an 8800SX to whip an XTS into shape on the first try. I did occasionally run across one that was so far out of whack I had to do a rough alignment using the traditional manual procedure, after which the auto tune whipped it into shape just fine.
I did recommend that our customers avoid the stubby antennas due to the considerable reduction in signal. Later when they came whining about poor coverage with the stubby antennas I recommended against, I gave them the “I told you so” speech.
Last edited:
Any half wave is 0dBd or 2.14dBi gain at best and usually less. Mfrs lie a lot to sell antennas.
Similar threads
