Narrow FM/Wide FM Question

[LoveMoto]

Until tonight I always thought NFM or WFM was a transmit-only setting and how you had your radio set would not impact how you received a narrow or wideband signal. But tonight I read somewhere that WFM radio would receive a NFM signal in an inferior way to a radio also set for NFM and that a NFM radio would receive a WFM signal in a distorted way. True?

 

[mmckenna]

If your receiver is set to narrow, a wide band signal will sound distorted.
If your receiver is set to wide, a narrow band signal will sound quiet.

You do want your receiver set correctly.

 

[K6GBW]

This is exactly the frustration with some of the older Midland MXT radios. They set the high power GMRS channels for narrow band when, according to the FCC's band plan, they are wide band. As a result wide band and narrow band radios trying to work together gets frustrating. The newer versions of Midlands radios have corrected this.

Still not sure why the FCC does things like this as it creates confusion for everyone. They did it again on the MURS channels with the two 154 MHz channels being wideband. I think both GMRS and MURS would be better off if they just made them all narrow band and be done with it.

 

[W8UU]

Still not sure why the FCC does things like this as it creates confusion for everyone. They did it again on the MURS channels with the two 154 MHz channels being wideband. I think both GMRS and MURS would be better off if they just made them all narrow band and be done with it.

Agree 100%. Other than propping up older radios, there is no reason to keep wide band on GMRS. Set a sunset date for wide band then let the manufacturers figure out updates for existing equipment if that's possible. On most commercial equipment, it's just a programming screen toggle. And wile we're dreaming, tell the FCC to move FRS somewhere else. Other UHF frequencies, 220 MHz, 900 MHz, the top end of the VHF band, et al. It never belonged as an unlicensed overlay to a licensed service.

 

[ladn]

And wile we're dreaming, tell the FCC to move FRS somewhere else.

The toothpaste is already out of the tube on that one!

 

[smittie]

And wile we're dreaming, tell the FCC to move FRS somewhere else.

GMRS is well on its way to license by rule like CB radio. The price of the license was cut in half. A license already covers everyone in your family tree, making it pretty much unenforceable.

 

[Napalm]

GMRS is well on its way to license by rule like CB radio. The price of the license was cut in half. A license already covers everyone in your family tree, making it pretty much unenforceable.

And how would the police your family tree? Demand a DNA test of my best friend I let use my licence?

 

[prcguy]

Agree 100%. Other than propping up older radios, there is no reason to keep wide band on GMRS. Set a sunset date for wide band then let the manufacturers figure out updates for existing equipment if that's possible. On most commercial equipment, it's just a programming screen toggle. And wile we're dreaming, tell the FCC to move FRS somewhere else. Other UHF frequencies, 220 MHz, 900 MHz, the top end of the VHF band, et al. It never belonged as an unlicensed overlay to a licensed service.

But wideband 5KHz deviation sounds better than narrow band 2.5KHz deviation. Why would you want to give that up?

 

[vagrant]

I use GMRS and it is reasonably popular in my area. Even though I can make adjustments, I doubt anyone will embrace narrow around here.

 

[W8UU]

The toothpaste is already out of the tube on that one!

Easy enough to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Give FRS other frequencies and forbid the sale of any equipment on the shared GMRS channels after a certain date (For example, two years from now, to allow existing equipment to be sold). You say it can't be done? The FCC did it with baby monitors and cordless phones. They also mandated the addition of UHF TV channels to VHF sets back in the 1960s and the 1610-1700 kHz extended AM band added to all radio receivers. It can be done.

 

[W8UU]

But wideband 5KHz deviation sounds better than narrow band 2.5KHz deviation. Why would you want to give that up?

I don't want to give up the better audio quality but GMRS does not exist in a vacuum. Commercial UHF equipment is narrow band so Midland and the Chinese junk may be your only source for wide band GMRS radios in the future. If narrow band became the standard, the current FRS channels could be assigned for GMRS use, giving additional high power frequencies to licensed GMRS users.

 

[prcguy]

I don't want to give up the better audio quality but GMRS does not exist in a vacuum. Commercial UHF equipment is narrow band so Midland and the Chinese junk may be your only source for wide band GMRS radios in the future. If narrow band became the standard, the current FRS channels could be assigned for GMRS use, giving additional high power frequencies to licensed GMRS users.

I think most current LMRs will do wide band for GMRS, no reason to go with the cheap stuff.

 

[W8UU]

I think most current LMRs will do wide band for GMRS, no reason to go with the cheap stuff.

For now.

Just wondering about what the future may hold.

 

[vagrant]

The future is a buddy was using a Baofeng for GMRS until I put an XTS5k in his hand. He uses it for Amateur as well, but there are plenty of different brands and models of wide goodness out there and the price keeps going down. If the future is 50 years from now, I won’t be in a position to care.

I initially purchased a Midland GMRS mobile, but that junk was set for narrow. I returned it the next day and started buying Motorola handhelds and mobiles.

 

[nokones]

The repeater club I belong to is narrowband on all four of their repeaters and Tac channels. There is nothing wrong with using narrowband channels. I've been involved with several Part 90 systems that was affected by the narrowband mandate and I didn't notice any difference in the audio quality. If you're using quality equipment you can't tell.

There are benefits to narrowbanding.

 

[prcguy]

The repeater club I belong to is narrowband on all four of their repeaters and Tac channels. There is nothing wrong with using narrowband channels. I've been involved with several Part 90 systems that was affected by the narrowband mandate and I didn't notice any difference in the audio quality. If you're using quality equipment you can't tell.

There are benefits to narrowbanding.

I’m using Motorola Quantar repeaters with Motorola XTS, XTL and Harris XG series radios. Very noticeable difference going from wide to narrow, the fidelity takes quite a hit.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I don't want to give up the better audio quality but GMRS does not exist in a vacuum. Commercial UHF equipment is narrow band so Midland and the Chinese junk may be your only source for wide band GMRS radios in the future. If narrow band became the standard, the current FRS channels could be assigned for GMRS use, giving additional high power frequencies to licensed GMRS users.

There is absolutely no benefit to narrow banding the GMRS channels.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

This is exactly the frustration with some of the older Midland MXT radios. They set the high power GMRS channels for narrow band when, according to the FCC's band plan, they are wide band. As a result wide band and narrow band radios trying to work together gets frustrating. The newer versions of Midlands radios have corrected this.

Still not sure why the FCC does things like this as it creates confusion for everyone. They did it again on the MURS channels with the two 154 MHz channels being wideband. I think both GMRS and MURS would be better off if they just made them all narrow band and be done with it.

I can assure you, any confusion was created solely by Midland, not FCC. The rules are quite clear. The bandwidth requirements for both FRS and GMRS were set in stone many decades ago when FRS was established and GMRS has had wide band deviation for decades longer.

 

[nokones]

I’m using Motorola Quantar repeaters with Motorola XTS, XTL and Harris XG series radios. Very noticeable difference going from wide to narrow, the fidelity takes quite a hit.

What was that hit? Can you still understand the audio with clarity, yes you can, and that means the communication objective was accomplished? Is the difference in the audio sound a distraction in understanding the audio being transmitted, no its not, and that means the communication objective was still accomplished. Do you think the Public Safety system users, the biggest complainers of all complainers had complaints when they were mandated to go narrowband 10+ years ago, not even a peep from the users. Just because it sounds different doesn't mean its not useable and the benefit of narrowbanding and making additional channels available in a closer proximity still outweighs the difference of it sounding different even if you can tell the difference. Narrowbanding makes sense as the airwaves become more crowded with users.

I'm sure it may sound different to some people but is that really a problem in communicating, No it is not. After a short while you'll get use to it and won't even remember the difference.

If you think the quality of sound is a real problem in understanding the audio and if that really bothers you, you might as well hang up your radio before you are mandated to go digital such as P25. Yes. P25 digital does sound different so what. If you're looking for stereophonic quality sound then get some earbuds and listen to music because you definitely will not like the quality of digital audio.

And, if you're communicating on a simulcast system, OMG, you better standby because the audio will sound like hell especially on a digital system. If that is going to be a problem for you, well what can I tell you, you might want to resort to texting rather than playing with radios.

 

[jeepsandradios]

There is absolutely no benefit to narrow banding the GMRS channels.

While technically I agree for the most part however I narrow banded 2 of my repeaters as the user base is all midland. Nope it did not help me as all my gear is MSI but it fixed issues with the Midlands. I guess in the end it really depends on the user base of the system in question. My main repeater is for me and my family. They have midlands for the KISS method. My other repeater is a quantar in wideband for other stuff.

As said toothpaste is out of the tube. This weekend I was in WV for Jeep Jamboree. My JK has both the midland 275 HHCH and a CDM1250. About 2 hours in day one I went to the Midland as everyone on my trail had either a midland mobile or a variant of a handheld. All of which were narrow band. The CDM heard them fine but was cranked max volume and they complained I was distorted. So I go back to the user base. Rest of weekend I used the Midland for trail comms and the CDM to scan the other trails.