Need assistance with Placer CIRN on a BC996P2

[Duster]

Good morning,

I have been monitoring Placer's P25 since it came into being, and have noticed since its inception that I have never been able to keep 100% coverage. What I mean is that I could hear traffic on the analog channel, but it would never come across the P25 system, or it wouldn't start on the P25 system for sometimes 10, 15, even 30 seconds into the traffic, or until the receiver responded to the original caller. Sometimes I would never hear it on the P25 system at all.

A year or two ago, they restructured their system into three zones: West, Central, and Signal Peak. I live within 5 miles of a primary West site, and have line of sight to Signal Peak from my neighborhood. I commute from the Placer valley to Nevada County via Colfax every day, so I transit all three zones daily. Based upon their daily operations (which I know very well), there are ALWAYS radios affiliated in the West zone, and almost ALWAYS someone in Central, and usually something is affiliated with Signal, because Signal is very visible to the far western Placer County area. With all this, I still consistently miss radio traffic on the P25. It has just never been 100% reliable. And for the last few days, I will often hear traffic on analog that either doesn't come through on P25 at all, or doesn't start picking up until well into the transmission.

Now this past week, I am receiving NO traffic on West or Central at all. I only receive traffic on Signal when I'm in the areas of the valley where Signal is visible. But driving all over Roseville/Rocklin/Lincoln, I only hear analog, no P25 at all. Once I start up I-80, I get intermittent traffic on West and Central as I drive to Colfax, but not consistently. I tried putting the scanner on hold, and stepped through the actual channels, and I found squelch noise on all the radio frequencies on the West zone and several of the Central zone frequencies, which I had not heard before.

I don't have this problem with any other trunked system in my scanner. I regularly monitor Roseville and Sacramento P25 systems, as well as several analog trunked systems and P25 systems out of state, and I never have missed traffic like I do with Placer.

Does anyone else who regularly monitors Placer have any suggestions? I can also share a code plug for the system in either ARC or Freescan format if that will help.

 

[gmclam]

There have been a lot of changes since its inception. I've monitored it via UniTrunker, PSR-500, and intermittently with BCD996P2. With the PSR-500 the site frequencies are all in one list. But I can go to Analyze mode and see how well each works,. It's not simply signal strength, it is which site has the best decode rate that matters.
The good thing with the BCD is that each site can be assigned to a separate Quick Key. It seems that each site is separately scanned and the one you're picking up from is displayed. On either scanner I've included a WildCard so nothing is missed (and I'll lock out stuff I truly don't want).
I like monitoring P25 from Placer far more than from either Roseville or Sacramento because they are on VHF. So many issues with 800 MHz simulcast.

 

[Duster]

There have been a lot of changes since its inception. I've monitored it via UniTrunker, PSR-500, and intermittently with BCD996P2. With the PSR-500 the site frequencies are all in one list. But I can go to Analyze mode and see how well each works,. It's not simply signal strength, it is which site has the best decode rate that matters.
The good thing with the BCD is that each site can be assigned to a separate Quick Key. It seems that each site is separately scanned and the one you're picking up from is displayed. On either scanner I've included a WildCard so nothing is missed (and I'll lock out stuff I truly don't want).
I like monitoring P25 from Placer far more than from either Roseville or Sacramento because they are on VHF. So many issues with 800 MHz simulcast.

I was hoping you would see this. I figured you or mkewman would be most likely to have some input, but I know there are several people here who monitor Placer.

I have toyed with a few settings and have seen no appreciable difference. I've turned on and off AGC, and I've turned on and off Control Channel Only. Neither change has improved reception. Based on what you've said above, do you have any recommendations that I could try out to improve my reception?

- I currently have the whole system under one quick-key. Before they reorganized into zones, I had each site on a separate quick-key.
- I have all the frequencies for each site in the site frequency list, including the non-control frequencies.

David

 

[gmclam]

What you need to do is determine which control channel has the best decode for you. If you're receiving while mobile, this might change, which is why it is better to have each site on its own key. Monitoring at home is easy for me with a base antenna and lots of options. When I've been mobile in the area (driving east on I80), I still also monitor analog. I usually don't pay attention to how a channel is being received or if Placer digital is not working at all.

When mobile I've used the PSR-500 (so far), programmed with WIN500 and all default settings (except those which affect CT decoding for CHP). I have not been mobile with the BCD996. I have not been mobile in that area with the TRX-1 (which I would expect to not perform as good).

 

[Duster]

What you need to do is determine which control channel has the best decode for you. If you're receiving while mobile, this might change, which is why it is better to have each site on its own key. Monitoring at home is easy for me with a base antenna and lots of options. When I've been mobile in the area (driving east on I80), I still also monitor analog. I usually don't pay attention to how a channel is being received or if Placer digital is not working at all.

When mobile I've used the PSR-500 (so far), programmed with WIN500 and all default settings (except those which affect CT decoding for CHP). I have not been mobile with the BCD996. I have not been mobile in that area with the TRX-1 (which I would expect to not perform as good).

Thank you for your suggestions! I'll play with it more on my days off (after Wednesday), and try to do what you suggested. If I'm really lucky, PCSO will keep the analog channel up until I retire and move out of state, so I won't have to worry about it as much LOL.

 

[crucialcolin]

Nature of the beast I guess.

I have kind of the opposite problem as yourself. Sacramento systems reception is poor from my location in Roseville(I'm not far from the PD). Analog seems to have gotten a little worse lately and P25 no longer comes in at all. At one point I was able to pull P25 in via SDRTrunk hooked up to my base antenna but not with my BCD325P2.

Its like I could probably try investing in a yagi style high gain antenna for Sacramento but then I would loose Placer/VHF frequencies. That or add another feed line and mount. It starts to get complex and add up quickly cost wise with all these different systems lol

 

[gmclam]

Sacramento systems reception is poor from my location in Roseville(I'm not far from the PD). Analog seems to have gotten a little worse lately and P25 no longer comes in at all. At one point I was able to pull P25 in via SDRTrunk hooked up to my base antenna but not with my BCD325P2.

This makes me question the sensitivity of your BCD including whether or not some close signal is overloading your front end. All it takes is a strong FM broadcast or Cell signal in the area everything else gets "pushed down".

I am running an antenna that many don't like, a discone. It's omni-directional and broad band and kind of a barn door for letting signals in. But the first thing I do is run it through a filter to remove AM & FM broadcasts before going into a multi-coupler. It's high pass 25MHz and band stop 88-108MHz. As I sit here writing this I am picking up the Merced Type I 800 trunked system this morning. The various Sacramento systems, Roseville, Vacaville and EBRCS (eastern sites) are no issues (except really poor conditions). I love Placer because they are on VHF. Stanislaus VHF conventional P25 is also 5 bars and clear.

Although I run 99% GRE, I did have my dad's BCD996P2 here last month and it was doing well on the same antenna system. I am also evaluating a TRX-1 and it is horrible. This shows me the significance of location, antenna system (including any needed filtering) and the receiver. Plus it's not signal strength per se, but signal quality.

 

[crucialcolin]

This makes me question the sensitivity of your BCD including whether or not some close signal is overloading your front end. All it takes is a strong FM broadcast or Cell signal in the area everything else gets "pushed down".

I am running an antenna that many don't like, a discone. It's omni-directional and broad band and kind of a barn door for letting signals in. But the first thing I do is run it through a filter to remove AM & FM broadcasts before going into a multi-coupler. It's high pass 25MHz and band stop 88-108MHz. As I sit here writing this I am picking up the Merced Type I 800 trunked system this morning. The various Sacramento systems, Roseville, Vacaville and EBRCS (eastern sites) are no issues (except really poor conditions). I love Placer because they are on VHF. Stanislaus VHF conventional P25 is also 5 bars and clear.

Although I run 99% GRE, I did have my dad's BCD996P2 here last month and it was doing well on the same antenna system. I am also evaluating a TRX-1 and it is horrible. This shows me the significance of location, antenna system (including any needed filtering) and the receiver. Plus it's not signal strength per se, but signal quality.

I'm not so sure the BCD scanners do particularly well with Simulcast systems on Analog or P25. I actually usually use mine with a RS 800 mhz rubber ducky most of the time. But yeah that's entirely possible(an overloading local signal).

I kind of figured what was up with my own antenna system... Seems my LNA stopped working.. I have too much loss in RG6 line to receive 800 mhz frequencies without it but VHF works fine of course. I have about 65 feet or so of feed line. Could be the device itself or even my power injector. But at any rate it will probably be awhile until I get a chance to figure it out as its going to be way to hot climb up there.

* edit fixed it loose power supply connector

 

[AA6KA]

Good morning,

I have been monitoring Placer's P25 since it came into being, and have noticed since its inception that I have never been able to keep 100% coverage. What I mean is that I could hear traffic on the analog channel, but it would never come across the P25 system, or it wouldn't start on the P25 system for sometimes 10, 15, even 30 seconds into the traffic, or until the receiver responded to the original caller. Sometimes I would never hear it on the P25 system at all.

A year or two ago, they restructured their system into three zones: West, Central, and Signal Peak. I live within 5 miles of a primary West site, and have line of sight to Signal Peak from my neighborhood. I commute from the Placer valley to Nevada County via Colfax every day, so I transit all three zones daily. Based upon their daily operations (which I know very well), there are ALWAYS radios affiliated in the West zone, and almost ALWAYS someone in Central, and usually something is affiliated with Signal, because Signal is very visible to the far western Placer County area. With all this, I still consistently miss radio traffic on the P25. It has just never been 100% reliable. And for the last few days, I will often hear traffic on analog that either doesn't come through on P25 at all, or doesn't start picking up until well into the transmission.

Now this past week, I am receiving NO traffic on West or Central at all. I only receive traffic on Signal when I'm in the areas of the valley where Signal is visible. But driving all over Roseville/Rocklin/Lincoln, I only hear analog, no P25 at all. Once I start up I-80, I get intermittent traffic on West and Central as I drive to Colfax, but not consistently. I tried putting the scanner on hold, and stepped through the actual channels, and I found squelch noise on all the radio frequencies on the West zone and several of the Central zone frequencies, which I had not heard before.

I don't have this problem with any other trunked system in my scanner. I regularly monitor Roseville and Sacramento P25 systems, as well as several analog trunked systems and P25 systems out of state, and I never have missed traffic like I do with Placer.

Does anyone else who regularly monitors Placer have any suggestions? I can also share a code plug for the system in either ARC or Freescan format if that will help.

Goood morning Dave. I am getting Signal Peak very poorly here in Antelope, but West and Central are full scale. I have a Unication G-5 and BCD436HP. The Unication G-5 receives well with nothing missed and not so much with the 436. I also have a 996P2 at my disposal ( No Placer system though). Send me a copy of your ARC file and I will look at it for you.



Kevin AA6KA

 

[gmclam]

I kind of figured what was up with my own antenna system... Seems my LNA stopped working.. I have too much loss in RG6 line to receive 800 mhz frequencies without it but VHF works fine of course. I have about 65 feet or so of feed line.

I am running an LMR-400 equivalent (Air-802) between my antenna and multi-coupler (with filter inline). Then I have some long runs of low loss RG-6 from the multi-coupler to radios in the back. Of course some also fairly close. I have had multi-coupler failures from recent lightning storms. Easier to replace when not at the antenna.

 

[scannerboy02]

With LSM systems LESS signal is better! I know you guys in the greater Sacramento area are just starting to experience the world of LSM but in my current home town of Cincinnati, Ohio we have been dealing with it for years. I have taken antennas off some scanners as well as turn antennas horizontal on others to help attenuate the signal with good results.

The issue with scanners is that they are getting the '1's and 0's' from multiple transmitters at slightly different times causing the scanner to get confused, so you want to reduce the number of duplicate '1's and 0's' the scanner receives.

 

[crucialcolin]

I am running an LMR-400 equivalent (Air-802) between my antenna and multi-coupler (with filter inline). Then I have some long runs of low loss RG-6 from the multi-coupler to radios in the back. Of course some also fairly close. I have had multi-coupler failures from recent lightning storms. Easier to replace when not at the antenna.

Ah, I've considered upgrading from RG6 to LMR-400 equiv or similar myself. I'd still have more loss then I would like(-2.5 dB at 800 mhz) in a situation where I need all the signal I can get from the Sacramento system in this part of Roseville. I'm not sure upgrading would eliminate the need for the LNA below my FM trap at my antenna either. Possibly just exacerbate the feed line balancing act I've been playing and a step backwards.

As it stands right now I only turn the LNA on for monitoring higher frequency systems otherwise I have to heavily attenuate my line due to signal overload at lower frequencies like VHF such as Placer County.

My antenna is located in the attack due to HOA restrictions. Think when its 100F outside its probably 130 up there! It's not an ideal situation.

 

[crucialcolin]

Goood morning Dave. I am getting Signal Peak very poorly here in Antelope, but West and Central are full scale. I have a Unication G-5 and BCD436HP. The Unication G-5 receives well with nothing missed and not so much with the 436. I also have a 996P2 at my disposal ( No Placer system though). Send me a copy of your ARC file and I will look at it for you.



Kevin AA6KA

I can confirm that myself in Roseville. West works well on SDR Trunk which supports Simulcast audio. BCD325P2 not so much(cant lock onto control channel).

 

[crucialcolin]

* Accidental Post*

 

[gmclam]

Ah, I've considered upgrading from RG6 to LMR-400 equiv or similar myself. I'd still have more loss then I would like(-2.5 dB at 800 mhz) in a situation where I need all the signal I can get from the Sacramento system in this part of Roseville. I'm not sure upgrading would eliminate the need for the LNA below my FM trap at my antenna either. Possibly just exacerbate the feed line balancing act I've been playing and a step backwards.

As it stands right now I only turn the LNA on for monitoring higher frequency systems otherwise I have to heavily attenuate my line due to signal overload at lower frequencies like VHF such as Placer County.

What you need is a "tilt filter". It compensates for (long) coax length by having near zero attenuation at high frequency and most attenuation at low frequency. Put that before a LNA. Otherwise an amp where you can set gain of VHF and UHF separately.

 

[crucialcolin]

What you need is a "tilt filter". It compensates for (long) coax length by having near zero attenuation at high frequency and most attenuation at low frequency. Put that before a LNA. Otherwise an amp where you can set gain of VHF and UHF separately.

Makes sense. I just realized I can also use my attenuators downstream from the spliter. Not sure why I never thought of it before as it would allow different values for different devices that either monitor VHF or UHF.


Btw a little more back on topic in regards to Placer. Are you able to pick up the Placer County analog VHF XPL Fire Tacs?

I know when Roseville went to their new P25 system the fire department switched those instead using their own system for interop and safety reasons. I wish I could remember which # Roseville tends to get assigned off hand(Think its usually either 1, 3 or 5).

 

[gmclam]

Btw a little more back on topic in regards to Placer. Are you able to pick up the Placer County analog VHF XPL Fire Tacs?

Yes and no. It depends on the tac and where it is being used. It's all about distance.

 

[crucialcolin]

Yes and no. It depends on the tac and where it is being used. It's all about distance.

Yeah it seems to be 50/50(more like 25%) rather or not I can pickup tactical traffic with Roseville Fire now. I'm assuming the Placer tacs assigned are often low power or don't get added onto a local repeater. Its one change I dislike from the old Roseville Smartzone System days when Roseville Fire had their own tactical talk groups.

 

[gmclam]

My antenna is located in the attack due to HOA restrictions. Think when its 100F outside its probably 130 up there! It's not an ideal situation.

I don't think scanner antennas are protected like TV antennas are. But many people are not aware the HOAs cannot restrict most TV antenna installations.

 

[crucialcolin]

I don't think scanner antennas are protected like TV antennas are. But many people are not aware the HOAs cannot restrict most TV antenna installations.

I've heard mention of similar protections for HAM operators before. I'm not but that another possible way around HOA restrictions. Who knows, I'm also sort of in a temporarily living situation, looking at apartments and/or possibly relocating within the next 2-3 years anyways. I'm trying to be good and limit myself on antenna related equipment expenses. Priorities..