new files on a Pro 2096 base unit.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ThreeTMR

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
5
I put the files on my Pro 96 scanner with an upgraded rubber 800 mhz antenna and it works. However the same files and antenna on my Pro 2096 base unit picks up nothing. The software says it is the same. Anyone having the same trouble with the base unit? Perhaps the base unit requires a different powered antenna? Any help is appreciated.

David
 

jimfromiowa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
24
Same problem with my neighbor's 2096. My PRO96 and PRO106 and PRO197 all work fine with the new RR files with the same antenna, and at the same location. The 2096 appears to work fine on conventional channels, and I've checked the receiver sensitivity with a service monitor and everything seems good; just will not work with the same files used by the PRO96. Tried both ARC96 and Win96. Sure looks though there is a unique tweak that the 2096 needs.

Jim
 

jimfromiowa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
24
The 2096 had DSP v1.3. It was upgraded to V1.4 with no change. "Soft" reset and initialization have both been tried with no success. There are about 10 PRO96s that have all been successful with the new system, but this is the only 2096 I know about.

Jim
 

jimfromiowa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
24
I don't know about ThreeTMR, but we are attempting to load files from RR for Linn Co Public Safety (Iowa). There are several PRO96s in the area that have been successfully programmed and I also have a PRO106 and PRO197. My neighbor's PRO2096 is the only one we know about in the area. The Cedar Rapids PD/FD have used a Mot P25 800 system for a number of years and the neighbor was hearing them well until the cutover to the new Harris P25 system about two weeks ago.

Jim
 

jimfromiowa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
24
PRO96 users have changed the tables for the 9600 control scheme, so I don't think we have a rebanding problem.

Unless someone can tell me why the 2096 would be different that the 96, I'm going to assume that what works for the 96 should work for the 2096.

It seems that the sensitivity on the 800 frequencies may not be good enough to properly decode the P25 signal. I did a quick look at 855 MHz with my service monitor generator and it seemed pretty good, but I think I need to go back and really make sure the synthesizer is getting on the correct frequency and the injection is enough. Quite a bit of info with regard to the PRO96 PLL adjustments, but I haven't seem much on the 2096. If anyone can point me to that info, I would appreciate it. I have seen reference to VR3 for the 2096, but would like comments on that.

Appreciate the interest.

Jim w0nkn
 

N8IAA

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
6,797
Location
Fortunately, GA
PRO96 users have changed the tables for the 9600 control scheme, so I don't think we have a rebanding problem.

Unless someone can tell me why the 2096 would be different that the 96, I'm going to assume that what works for the 96 should work for the 2096.

It seems that the sensitivity on the 800 frequencies may not be good enough to properly decode the P25 signal. I did a quick look at 855 MHz with my service monitor generator and it seemed pretty good, but I think I need to go back and really make sure the synthesizer is getting on the correct frequency and the injection is enough. Quite a bit of info with regard to the PRO96 PLL adjustments, but I haven't seem much on the 2096. If anyone can point me to that info, I would appreciate it. I have seen reference to VR3 for the 2096, but would like comments on that.

Appreciate the interest.

Jim w0nkn
Have you tried cloning one of the 96's to the 2096 directly? Maybe that would work.
Larry
 

ThreeTMR

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
5
I tried another antenna, a BNC W100RX, still nothing. I got the police in Cedar Rapids before they switched too. I can get cabs and DOT, just not the police, fire and ambulance that I want. The tag on the back says it will get 849-868 mhz. I need to get my 2096 going because I like the external speaker output on the back. I run an outdoor speaker.

any help appreciated!
David
 

jimfromiowa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
24
David,

Pretty much the same thing I am seeing on the 2096. You are the only other 2096 user in Cedar Rapids that I have heard about. I have tried cloning from a working PRO96 (several times, after initialization).

I will try to do the PLL adjustment on the bench, when I get some time.

Jim w0nkn
 

jimfromiowa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
24
I tried another antenna, a BNC W100RX, still nothing. I got the police in Cedar Rapids before they switched too. I can get cabs and DOT, just not the police, fire and ambulance that I want. The tag on the back says it will get 849-868 mhz. I need to get my 2096 going because I like the external speaker output on the back. I run an outdoor speaker.

any help appreciated!
David
David,

Sent you a PM
 

Tim-in-TX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
272
Location
Pearland TX
I ran into the same problem monitoring the new Houston system. The 96 monitors with no problem but the 2096 won't receive the new system at all. They both have the most recent firmware but the one difference between them is the 96 has the 1.3 CPU, but the 2096 only has the 1.1. That's the only difference I can find between the two. Maybe that's the problem? I still don't know for sure.
 

n5ims

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
3,695
According to the RR Database, the Linn County Public Safety (Project 25) System is a simulcast system and as such can suffer from signal overload where signals that are too strong from multiple towers will cause much grief trying to pick them up on scanners. What's worse is that the "too strong signals" will give you all of the indications of having "too weak signals". Yes, too much signal is a bad thing!

First try turning on the attenuator for that system to reduce the amount of signal the scanner is getting. If that works, great. If not, you'll need to do things to help reduce your signal strength or focusing your scanner on picking up one and only one of the towers. Reducing the signal strength may be as simple as using an antenna that will do a worse job on the 800 MHz signals (try using the generic one that came with the scanner instead of the 800 MHz optimized one you're now using. You may also try adding a length of spare coax you have to reduce the signal. Failing those options, you may need to get a very directional 800 MHz antenna (typically a yagi) and pointing it at the various towers to see if you can isolate one. Note that this may not be the closest tower to you, but the one where all of the others are located in your antenna's null zones (basically off to the sides). I have one system here that has a very strong local tower where my solution is to run the scanner without any antenna at all on it.
 

jimfromiowa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
24
I ran into the same problem monitoring the new Houston system. The 96 monitors with no problem but the 2096 won't receive the new system at all. They both have the most recent firmware but the one difference between them is the 96 has the 1.3 CPU, but the 2096 only has the 1.1. That's the only difference I can find between the two. Maybe that's the problem? I still don't know for sure.
Tim,

The PRO96 has 1.2 CPU and the PRO-2096 has 1.3. The DSP was upgraded to v1.4, but that didn't seem to make any difference.

I have recently checked the 2096 with a service monitor and the sensitivity is as good or better than the 96, so I have decided not to try the PLL adjustments.

Still hoping for a miracle!

Jim
 

talkpair

Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
926
Location
Clinton County, MO
Has anyone tried just sitting on a voice channel in TUNE mode just to see if the radio is capable of decoding a voice channel?

If the system isn't all that busy you might temporarily program in the voice channels as conventional P25 channels.
 

jimfromiowa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
24
According to the RR Database, the Linn County Public Safety (Project 25) System is a simulcast system and as such can suffer from signal overload where signals that are too strong from multiple towers will cause much grief trying to pick them up on scanners. What's worse is that the "too strong signals" will give you all of the indications of having "too weak signals". Yes, too much signal is a bad thing!

First try turning on the attenuator for that system to reduce the amount of signal the scanner is getting. If that works, great. If not, you'll need to do things to help reduce your signal strength or focusing your scanner on picking up one and only one of the towers. Reducing the signal strength may be as simple as using an antenna that will do a worse job on the 800 MHz signals (try using the generic one that came with the scanner instead of the 800 MHz optimized one you're now using. You may also try adding a length of spare coax you have to reduce the signal. Failing those options, you may need to get a very directional 800 MHz antenna (typically a yagi) and pointing it at the various towers to see if you can isolate one. Note that this may not be the closest tower to you, but the one where all of the others are located in your antenna's null zones (basically off to the sides). I have one system here that has a very strong local tower where my solution is to run the scanner without any antenna at all on it.
n5ims,

I think I'm in the "sweet spot" for the area. With the PRO96, PRO106 and PRO197, I get very little distortion. But when I drive around town with the PRO96 and PRO106, I find lots of areas that have badly distorted signals. I have all the encrypted channes locked out, so I'm pretty certain it's really intermod. (I'm a retired airborne comm systems engineer by trade and a ham for more than 50 years, so I've had a little experience!).

I have tried the attenuation schemes and have used both the telescoping antenna supplied with the scanner and UHF rubber ducky as well as an outside discone and a 9dB gain 902 antenna that I normally use with a small 902 repeater.

The gent that started this thread has pretty much the same experience here in town and Tim-in-Tx has similar results in Pearland, TX.

I've looked at the control and voice frequencies on a spectrum analyzer and all of the Linn Cty channels are within a couple of dBs of each other at this location, but there are adjacent channel signals that are 10 dB or more higher. So I'm thinking that some of the problem may be the inability of the scanner receiver to reject the adjacent channel signal rather that problems with the simulcast system. There are some areas in town that do have severe problems with the simulcast system and have been fairly successful using small yagis to improve things. I have a 33 ele. 902 loop yagi that came off the tower last fall for some other antenna work. As soon as the wx gets decent, I will get it back on the stack and see what it does.

Appreciate your comments. It really looks as though there is something unique going on with the PRO2096.

73
Jim w0nkn
 

jimfromiowa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
24
Has anyone tried just sitting on a voice channel in TUNE mode just to see if the radio is capable of decoding a voice channel?

If the system isn't all that busy you might temporarily program in the voice channels as conventional P25 channels.
When we were first working on the PRO96s, we were doing that and hearing the P25 channels fine but it was pretty erratic until we finally go the trunking tables worked out. Tried those same files on the 2096 and it wasn't decoding the Harris P25 signals. The 2096 had been working fine with the old Motorola P25 system used here. The Harris system uses 9600 control channel rate while I think the Mot system used 3600 bps. The 96 and 2096s use the same firmware, so really think they should work the same.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top