New antenna

jandlory

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
45
Location
Papillion, Nebraska
Ok I have been having troubles with the new simulcast system here in Omaha metro area with my BCD536HP, so I purchased a new Remtronix 800 MHz antenna to see if it would help. I will have to say the difference is night and day. Running the same favorite list program side by side to my SDS200 I see very little difference at all in reception. There is at times when I might miss the first half second or so with the BCD536HP but other than that it’s been a world of difference. So those that are experiencing problems like I was the fix could be as simple as a dedicated 800 MHz antenna, it’s worth a try.
 

trentbob

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
1,682
Location
Bristol, Pa.
So here's something you want to try on your 536. You can do this right on the radio and then the next time you hook up to Sentinel just transfer the card to your profile and the changes will go with it.

Push menu, scroll to manage favorites, go to the favorites list that the system you're trying to hear that has the clipped Transmissions is on, choose review edit systems, go to the system that has the problems, go to edit system options, choose set hold time, set it for 2 seconds. Then keep pressing menu and back out of menu. There are shortcuts you can take here but I'm walking you right through it. Now monitor your system and see if the clipped Transmissions improve.

Let us know how that works and remember the next time you hook up to Sentinel make sure the first thing you do is transfer the card to your profile so it will record the changes you've made.

Hope that helps.
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
11,260
Location
VA
If the problem is weak signal, a new antenna with better reception can help. But if you already have full signal bars, it won't.
 

trentbob

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2007
Messages
1,682
Location
Bristol, Pa.
So my understanding op is that you bought the remtronix antenna for the 536 and it has improved the situation except for clipped and missed Transmissions.

Short of a rooftop or attic or otherwise mounted antenna the remtronix antenna is a good performer.

See if the system hold works on the 536. I'm assuming that you're not having any clipped or missed transmissions on the 200 but if you were a system hold of one second can certainly help but the problem will be solved by the use of filters, it happened to me when I first got the sds100 before the filters were introduced. My simulcast system had the clipped and missed Transmissions. When the filters were introduced it was like a miracle. I also added a one second system hold time.

So you have the attention of two folks here waiting to hear how your results are LOL.
 

jandlory

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
45
Location
Papillion, Nebraska
So my understanding op is that you bought the remtronix antenna for the 536 and it has improved the situation except for clipped and missed Transmissions.

Short of a rooftop or attic or otherwise mounted antenna the remtronix antenna is a good performer.

See if the system hold works on the 536. I'm assuming that you're not having any clipped or missed transmissions on the 200 but if you were a system hold of one second can certainly help but the problem will be solved by the use of filters, it happened to me when I first got the sds100 before the filters were introduced. My simulcast system had the clipped and missed Transmissions. When the filters were introduced it was like a miracle. I also added a one second system hold time.

So you have the attention of two folks here waiting to hear how your results are LOL.
I will try your suggestion this evening and let you know, and you are correct I have not experienced any issues with the SDS200
 

Riresj

Newbie
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
2
Location
Lincoln, NE
It's counter-intuitive, but with simulcast, too much signal is destructive. Even much higher tolerance receivers encounter trouble if they encounter multiple signals with significant delay spread. If you can obtain a usable signal with a paper clip, it will contain less errored bits, and that equates to less receiver muting. Experiment with a consistent couple bars rather than attempting to maximize the level in the front-end.
 

jandlory

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
45
Location
Papillion, Nebraska
Update . I ran both scanners my SDS200 and the BCD536HP on the Omaha ORiON system last night with the same favorites on the SIM card. Again both scanners performed well the SDS never missed a signal and my 536 would sometimes miss the very beginning of a transmission and a few times would drop in the middle of the conversation but pick right back up which would give a choppy transmission. I tried increasing system hold time and I could not really tell any difference. But here is my new twist if I try to scan multiple sites my performance goes down with the 536, if I only scan a single talk group the performance is much better. With that being said my 536 will be locked on Sarpy and my SDS will scan Douglas county, Omaha, and Ralston.
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
11,260
Location
VA
It's counter-intuitive, but with simulcast, too much signal is destructive. Even much higher tolerance receivers encounter trouble if they encounter multiple signals with significant delay spread. If you can obtain a usable signal with a paper clip, it will contain less errored bits, and that equates to less receiver muting. Experiment with a consistent couple bars rather than attempting to maximize the level in the front-end.
That doesn't apply to the SDS scanners.
 

Ubbe

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
3,927
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
......a few times would drop in the middle of the conversation but pick right back up which would give a choppy transmission. if I only scan a single talk group the performance is much better.
Both cases indicate that you might improve your monitoring experiance by increasing the delay time of the TG, not the system hold time. Try something like 5-10 sec.

/Ubbe
 

Ubbe

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
3,927
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
5-10 seconds is a little too long, don't you think?
I was thinking the same thing
Default is 2 sec so you'll need to at least double that or it wont matter. If the prolonged delay doesn't change anything then it was probably a fluke that it seemed to work better when you where locked on to the talk group instead of scanning it. During the delay time it will be exactly as if you where locked on the TG and should behave the same.

The TG delay can be set by the user in favorite lists to suit your own preference. If you often miss answers in a conversation or miss the first words then you would probably benefit from a longer delay time. It mostly depends on the system and its users what delay time that are the most appropriate to use.

If you have some problem with reception like intermod or simulcast problems that interupt the reception in the middle of conversations then it is a high risk that the scanning continues and you will miss the rest of the conversation if you use a short delay time.

The hold time are used when you scan and land on a system that has no active conversations and it will wait for the hold time for a conversation to start.

/Ubbe
 

jandlory

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
45
Location
Papillion, Nebraska
Hey thanks to all for your inputs and suggestions . At this point I feel it just a simulcast problem that the 536 is having a small problem with. With the 536 just doing Sarpy county the drops and the front transmission cut is reduced to a more acceptable level.
 
Top