K9WG
Member
Does the MOTOTRBO radios work on an analog system? Reason I ask is that I know of a company that just aquired new (MOTOTRBO) handhelds but as far as I know still use an analog system.
-
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.
MOTOTRBO - Analog?
- Thread starter K9WG
- Start date
- Status
AYoung2600
Member
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2.2; en-us; VM670 Build/FRG83G) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
Yes they will work on analog. My fire department uses the xpr series radios and we are on analog.
Yes they will work on analog. My fire department uses the xpr series radios and we are on analog.
Last edited:
K9WG
Member
Thanks for the information.
JRayfield
Member
Yes. In fact, they're about the best-performing analog radios that I've ever seen (in over 33 years in this industry). I consistently hear reports from users that they have experienced an increase in range, on analog, when switching from just about any other brand/model of radio, to the XPR-series of radios.
John Rayfield, Jr. CETma
John Rayfield, Jr. CETma
KE5TLF
Member
The vast majority (if not all) of the new digital radios also work in analog mode.
Last edited:
If you're wondering about trunking, they will work on Smartnet trunking quite well also.
Larry
Larry
JRayfield
Member
And with the right firmware, they can work on LTR and/or Passport trunking, too.
John Rayfield, Jr. CETma
John Rayfield, Jr. CETma
Is this a firmware thing? I see nothing in the cps for my XPR6550 about any sort of trunking besides the capacity plus
JRayfield
Member
With the option board, and firmware in it, the radio can operate in either Smartnet/Smartzone mode, or it can operate in Connect Plus trunking mode.
It still does analog, no matter what digital mode it's set up for.
John Rayfield, Jr. CETma
It still does analog, no matter what digital mode it's set up for.
John Rayfield, Jr. CETma
MTS2000des
5B2_BEE00 Czar
aw come on John. My backs' getting wet and it stopped raining two hours ago.
Are they good? they are about average. I've had a VHF XPR side by side with a TK-2180, a used, worn out beat up 2180 at that, and the 2180 unmuted on a weak signal (about 30 miles off) repeater and it was full quieting. XPR didn't unmute unless you hit the MON key, and then it was noisy scratchy or the DSP filled in with "fake static".
My analog Saber II from 1990 runs circles around ANY modern digital radio for sensitivity and selectivity. My XTS5000 stays quiet where the Saber analog unmutes to clean signal on fringe signals.
Yes, both radios are operating within specifications, but the older radios like the Saber analogs or MX300's radios run circles around most newer DSP controlled radios. The DSP in Astro 25 radios inserts "fake" static when an analog signal falls below about a 6db SINAD threshold. Some may argue that such isn't a usable signal, but I'd rather have a noisy signal and let my brain (which has far superior DSP than any little single core chip in a radio) do the decoding.
This wasn't the case with earlier radios without the added bloat of DSP. Sometimes less is more.
and don't get me started on battery life. An MX330-S would go a week between charges with the big battery on it. 30mah standby current is something modern radios full of logic boards and DSP can only dream to achieve.
JRayfield
Member
I should have qualified my statement better. I did not mean to be comparing the XPR series of radios to anything as old as an MX300-series or Saber III. So you 'got me' on that one.
As to battery life, sure, old radios ran much longer, usually, than any of the newer radios. The current drain was much lower. I wasn't comparing the XPR-series to anything like that. Battery life on an XPR portable is good, but it's not what we used to get on 'old' portables.
As to comparing the XPR radios to any current-model radios, I'm repeating what I've heard from numerous users of these radios, some which did not purchase them from my company. All of these reports that we've heard about the XPR-series radios have been unsolicited and have been 'outstanding'. Your experience with the XPR-series portables are not 'normal, based on what I've been told by other end-users of these radios. And I'm not talking about just 1 end-user, I'm talking about many end-users (for example, multiple users with multiple radios in an entire county).
And I wasn't talking about the Astro25 series of radios, either. Just the XPR. Your experience with the Astro25 series portables doesn't surprise me, although I haven' heard any feedback from users of XTS-series radios versus other radios. That tells me something right there, though - that they aren't 'outstanding' in performance. And your experience with the XTS portable also matches what I've heard as to how P25 radios work in digital mode, where the signal drops out in digital mode, but the same signal, off of the same repeater, in analog mode (running mixed mode in the repeater) can be heard - noisy, but still can be copied.
John Rayfield, Jr. CETma
As to battery life, sure, old radios ran much longer, usually, than any of the newer radios. The current drain was much lower. I wasn't comparing the XPR-series to anything like that. Battery life on an XPR portable is good, but it's not what we used to get on 'old' portables.
As to comparing the XPR radios to any current-model radios, I'm repeating what I've heard from numerous users of these radios, some which did not purchase them from my company. All of these reports that we've heard about the XPR-series radios have been unsolicited and have been 'outstanding'. Your experience with the XPR-series portables are not 'normal, based on what I've been told by other end-users of these radios. And I'm not talking about just 1 end-user, I'm talking about many end-users (for example, multiple users with multiple radios in an entire county).
And I wasn't talking about the Astro25 series of radios, either. Just the XPR. Your experience with the Astro25 series portables doesn't surprise me, although I haven' heard any feedback from users of XTS-series radios versus other radios. That tells me something right there, though - that they aren't 'outstanding' in performance. And your experience with the XTS portable also matches what I've heard as to how P25 radios work in digital mode, where the signal drops out in digital mode, but the same signal, off of the same repeater, in analog mode (running mixed mode in the repeater) can be heard - noisy, but still can be copied.
John Rayfield, Jr. CETma
902
Member
I was just going through a batch of maybe 40 used VHF HT1000 and MT2000 radios that a friend bought used for an outdoors simplex activity. There's a lot of variability in each of these radios, and I've found that some of them break squelch at 0.15, but most of them will break squelch between 0.25 and 0.4 uV, which would exclude most weaker signals. Out of the batch, I only found one that was "deaf" and several that needed a frond-end realignment. After setting a few epots to optimum levels measured on the IFR, they are all performing pretty much the same, and have much looser squelching thresholds (everything's got CTCSS decode, anyway).
On one hand, I'm surprised that these were set so high. If they were in urban settings and used through repeater systems, or in buildings with computer noise, maybe that is an advantage. On the other hand, I can see this as a sales strategy, as well. If you can't communicate directly, you "need" a repeater, or you "need" more infrastructure to get you from here to there. After all, "our stuff" is crystal clear and no one wants to hear those nasty scratchies (thanks to the squelch adjustment). My experience with XTS and XTL stuff has been similar. They all seem to be set very tight out of the factory. For what reason, I don't know.
The unspoken element here has been optimization by a two-way technician. The performance specs on most of the new stuff are every bit as good as the old stuff on paper. An old boss of mine used to say "RF is RF." As long as they're both transmitting at the same power and deviation, and receiving at the same levels, one radio should sound a lot like another over the air. It's all in the alignment and optimization. But radiomen are a dying breed. Municipal radio shops are getting reorganized into IT departments and most IT managers (who couldn't tell an RF emitter from a toaster oven) look at a radio like it's a set-and-forget black box.
For what it's worth, I've heard (from people other than John :wink that XPRs are good quality radios, but I'd bet it could perform to par in analog against an MX with an installed preamp module with some programming tweaks.
For battery life, nothing beats an HT220! The one I had was my lifeline when I was on a volunteer fire department way back when. The 600 mAh battery was charged every week and could handle the toughest night. We need Li-Ion batteries to run all the microprocessor junk that was added on. I draw the parallel from old radios to new with cars - look under the hood of a '62 Impala and a modern car. Basic car with a basic engine = basic radio. Modern car with all sorts of sphincters and hoses and a computer, too = modern radio all tricked out with features you have to deliberately disable and dumb down to let the average non-radiohead to use. All of that mostly-disabled stuff consumes power.
On one hand, I'm surprised that these were set so high. If they were in urban settings and used through repeater systems, or in buildings with computer noise, maybe that is an advantage. On the other hand, I can see this as a sales strategy, as well. If you can't communicate directly, you "need" a repeater, or you "need" more infrastructure to get you from here to there. After all, "our stuff" is crystal clear and no one wants to hear those nasty scratchies (thanks to the squelch adjustment). My experience with XTS and XTL stuff has been similar. They all seem to be set very tight out of the factory. For what reason, I don't know.
The unspoken element here has been optimization by a two-way technician. The performance specs on most of the new stuff are every bit as good as the old stuff on paper. An old boss of mine used to say "RF is RF." As long as they're both transmitting at the same power and deviation, and receiving at the same levels, one radio should sound a lot like another over the air. It's all in the alignment and optimization. But radiomen are a dying breed. Municipal radio shops are getting reorganized into IT departments and most IT managers (who couldn't tell an RF emitter from a toaster oven) look at a radio like it's a set-and-forget black box.
For what it's worth, I've heard (from people other than John :wink
that XPRs are good quality radios, but I'd bet it could perform to par in analog against an MX with an installed preamp module with some programming tweaks.For battery life, nothing beats an HT220! The one I had was my lifeline when I was on a volunteer fire department way back when. The 600 mAh battery was charged every week and could handle the toughest night. We need Li-Ion batteries to run all the microprocessor junk that was added on. I draw the parallel from old radios to new with cars - look under the hood of a '62 Impala and a modern car. Basic car with a basic engine = basic radio. Modern car with all sorts of sphincters and hoses and a computer, too = modern radio all tricked out with features you have to deliberately disable and dumb down to let the average non-radiohead to use. All of that mostly-disabled stuff consumes power.
JRayfield
Member
Good comments, '902'.
One thing that I would mention, though, that I've seen. I wouldn't necessarily agree that "RF is RF".
I've seen some transmitters that just appeared to have better 'range' than others. And I've seen the opposite. Yet, the 'underperforming' transmitters showed just as much power output, deviation level, etc. as the other transmitters. For example, I used to have some GE Master II repeaters (UHF) and they just did not have the transmit range that other brands/models of UHF repeaters, with the same specs, had. I'm seeing the opposite with the XPR-series mobiles. They seem to have better transmit range than other similar-power models (even other Motorola radios), based on feedback from users. I've attributed this to the spectral 'purity' of the transmitted signal, although that's just a 'theory' right now. I've never 'proved it'.
With portables, there can definitely be a big difference between different brands/models, in terms of transmit range. Consistently, I've heard reports from users of ICOM portables that they did not get near as much transmit range as compared to other brands/models of portables (such as Kenwood, Motorola, and Vertex) (and I'm an ICOM dealer, so no one can accuse me of 'talking against the competition <G>). Yet, these ICOM portables will all check out just fine 'on the bench', with full power output and good deviation into a service monitor. The difference here can be the match between the power amplifier and the antenna - in effect, the 'radiation efficienty' of the radio.
I've noticed what you have, that the manufacturers often set the squelch threshold at a pretty high level. I like to see nothing higher than .2 uv, although most receivers will easily provide a 'readable' signal at a slightly lower level than that, maybe as low as .15 uv in some cases, as you indicated. So I tend to take the operating conditions into account (again, as you suggest) in setting the squelch threshold.
John Rayfield, Jr. CETma
One thing that I would mention, though, that I've seen. I wouldn't necessarily agree that "RF is RF".
I've seen some transmitters that just appeared to have better 'range' than others. And I've seen the opposite. Yet, the 'underperforming' transmitters showed just as much power output, deviation level, etc. as the other transmitters. For example, I used to have some GE Master II repeaters (UHF) and they just did not have the transmit range that other brands/models of UHF repeaters, with the same specs, had. I'm seeing the opposite with the XPR-series mobiles. They seem to have better transmit range than other similar-power models (even other Motorola radios), based on feedback from users. I've attributed this to the spectral 'purity' of the transmitted signal, although that's just a 'theory' right now. I've never 'proved it'.
With portables, there can definitely be a big difference between different brands/models, in terms of transmit range. Consistently, I've heard reports from users of ICOM portables that they did not get near as much transmit range as compared to other brands/models of portables (such as Kenwood, Motorola, and Vertex) (and I'm an ICOM dealer, so no one can accuse me of 'talking against the competition <G>). Yet, these ICOM portables will all check out just fine 'on the bench', with full power output and good deviation into a service monitor. The difference here can be the match between the power amplifier and the antenna - in effect, the 'radiation efficienty' of the radio.
I've noticed what you have, that the manufacturers often set the squelch threshold at a pretty high level. I like to see nothing higher than .2 uv, although most receivers will easily provide a 'readable' signal at a slightly lower level than that, maybe as low as .15 uv in some cases, as you indicated. So I tend to take the operating conditions into account (again, as you suggest) in setting the squelch threshold.
John Rayfield, Jr. CETma
- Status
Similar threads
BCD325P2/BCD996P2:
DMR Programming help