Ben96cal
Member
I was going to program the radio for only recieve with no transmit..Pretty much an expensive gloried scanner that actually decodes the audio correctly. I guess programming it like the old days of 3600 has gone away....
New Oakland system
- Thread starter stingray327
- Start date
- Status
we understood your intention, but it's not as easy as it used to be otherwise we'd already be doing it by now
Ben96cal
Member
Bummer! I thought by actually being in Oakland that the audio would be normal... It's ridiculous that scanner manu's can't put out a product that works. I could see being 30 miles away and not working but I'm off the 24 near Children's IN Oakland proper and I'm missing transmissions and using the out of the box antenna, nothing big and powerful, with choppy audio when i do get it. I think I'm going to set up trunker when i'm there and program the Edacs into it and see what's going on with both systems ie. Whether or not OFD is actually still on EDACS and what TG's OFD is using on the P25. It's really strange OFD had 10 TG's on the edacs but only 2 tacs on the P25 system.
Ben96cal
Member
Just spoke to Uniden for giggles.. The CS person didn't know about the issue. I asked if I could speak to anyone above him and mentioned RR and he said "Upman" the project manager would be the person if anyone who would know but that he doesn't take calls from the public... Very disconcerting at the very least considering this issue has been going on for quite a few years. He told me he'd call me back either way.
Oakland Police and Fire haven't been on the EDACS system since March. See Inigo's post here: http://forums.radioreference.com/sa.../219504-new-oakland-system-2.html#post1729717. The police and fire tacs haven't been on EDACS since then either. What was left on the EDACS system were a few re-broadcasts of dispatch talkgroups, not actual users. The current users now are public works and other related traffic.
The LSM/simulcast issues have also been discussed in earlier threads. This is not new and has been plaguing scanner listeners since these systems were deployed. I've been lucky enough to compare my PSR-500 to a department issued radio side by side. The department issued radio picked up about 90% of the transmissions while my PSR-500 picked up 60% or so. I actually went to GRE in Belmont last week to get my RF board replaced on my PSR-500. They seemed to be aware of the issue but couldn't really offer a solution. They did show me a sample of the PSR-900 while I was waiting, it had a serial number of 4.
I did discuss with them about adjusting the VR4 potentiometer and how it improved readability for Oakland. They seemed to agree but my incessant adjustments may have facilitated the need for a new RF board. So while it did work better, I don't know if that might have been a factor in my RF board failing. The BNC connector also failed on me back in 2009, so my sloppy soldering back then could have been a factor also.
The LSM/simulcast issues have also been discussed in earlier threads. This is not new and has been plaguing scanner listeners since these systems were deployed. I've been lucky enough to compare my PSR-500 to a department issued radio side by side. The department issued radio picked up about 90% of the transmissions while my PSR-500 picked up 60% or so. I actually went to GRE in Belmont last week to get my RF board replaced on my PSR-500. They seemed to be aware of the issue but couldn't really offer a solution. They did show me a sample of the PSR-900 while I was waiting, it had a serial number of 4.
I did discuss with them about adjusting the VR4 potentiometer and how it improved readability for Oakland. They seemed to agree but my incessant adjustments may have facilitated the need for a new RF board. So while it did work better, I don't know if that might have been a factor in my RF board failing. The BNC connector also failed on me back in 2009, so my sloppy soldering back then could have been a factor also.
Last edited:
Ben96cal
Member
re:
Oh I know it's been a known issue for years now since they started rolling out these systems. Have you seen any other tacs on P25 besides tac 2 and tac 3? How did the 900 do at decoding the signal? I'm seriously thinking about picking something up other than a Uniden. I've heard the radioshack handheld does well or even the PSR600..
Oh I know it's been a known issue for years now since they started rolling out these systems. Have you seen any other tacs on P25 besides tac 2 and tac 3? How did the 900 do at decoding the signal? I'm seriously thinking about picking something up other than a Uniden. I've heard the radioshack handheld does well or even the PSR600..
its been sooner than march. there was activity for PD at least up until a week ago. I saw several unique radio IDs and console IDs.
I do listen to Oakland FD once in a while but I haven't heard them use any other tac channels that often. I do have a wildcard object programmed in so I can hear new talkgroups as they show up. I also have hit counts enabled so I can see how active a certain talkgroup is. Here's what I have:
31684, which I presume to be Tac 4, has just 2 hits
31685, which I presume to be Tac 5, has just 2 hits
31686, which I presume to be Tac 6, has just 1 hit
While the hit counts are low and my readability of the system is poor, I think these talkgroups may exist.
I've programmed both GRE/RS and Uniden scanners for listening to Oakland. It does seem the GRE/RS scanners seem to work a little better. I recently tested a Home Patrol-1 and it seemed fairly deaf. Granted, I was using the stock antenna on the HP-1 while I was using the 800 MHz ducky on my PSR-500, so that may be an unfair comparison.
Ben96cal
Member
Found this post in the GRE forum.. What do you think since you have one that you could test his theory.
--------------------------------
PSR-500/600/800 on P25 CQPSK simulcast systems
DISCLAIMER: In no way am I suggesting this is a fix for reception issues on P25 CQPSK simulcast systems - there are several other tricks/hints (directional antennas, attenuation) that have been suggested. However, I saw this post and it got me thinking:
Yahoo! Groups
This person was having difficulty with non-P25 CQPSK systems and associated Multi-Site settings on their PSR-800, but I'm wandering if this might actually help in the P25 CQPSK situation???
"I read about the PSR-800 data thresholds (set on the Trunked Systems Tab, Multi-Site Settings down at the bottom left). I discovered a workable solution to keep the scanner on the strongest tower most of the time.
As defaults, the Lo value is 88 and the Hi value is 95.
On tower A, which is the strongest, I changed Lo = 70 and Hi = 90.
That ensures control channel sampling should match all the time.
On all the other weaker towers within range I set Lo = 98 and Hi = 99.
That is virtually impossible for the data channel decode rate to meet that criteria unless I am right underneath the tower."
So... if you were to program a P25 CQPSK system as ROAM with Lo = 98 and Hi = 99, would it help force the scanner toward a "tighter decode threshold"???
Just a suggestion - I don't have any system close to my QTH to test. Any feedback on this would be appreciated...
__________________
The speed of light = 299 792 458 meters / second.
The speed of sound = 343.053 meters / second.
That's why some people appear bright until they open their mouth.
Last edited by KD4YGG; 12-05-2012 at 10:03 PM..
--------------------------------
PSR-500/600/800 on P25 CQPSK simulcast systems
DISCLAIMER: In no way am I suggesting this is a fix for reception issues on P25 CQPSK simulcast systems - there are several other tricks/hints (directional antennas, attenuation) that have been suggested. However, I saw this post and it got me thinking:
Yahoo! Groups
This person was having difficulty with non-P25 CQPSK systems and associated Multi-Site settings on their PSR-800, but I'm wandering if this might actually help in the P25 CQPSK situation???
"I read about the PSR-800 data thresholds (set on the Trunked Systems Tab, Multi-Site Settings down at the bottom left). I discovered a workable solution to keep the scanner on the strongest tower most of the time.
As defaults, the Lo value is 88 and the Hi value is 95.
On tower A, which is the strongest, I changed Lo = 70 and Hi = 90.
That ensures control channel sampling should match all the time.
On all the other weaker towers within range I set Lo = 98 and Hi = 99.
That is virtually impossible for the data channel decode rate to meet that criteria unless I am right underneath the tower."
So... if you were to program a P25 CQPSK system as ROAM with Lo = 98 and Hi = 99, would it help force the scanner toward a "tighter decode threshold"???
Just a suggestion - I don't have any system close to my QTH to test. Any feedback on this would be appreciated...
__________________
The speed of light = 299 792 458 meters / second.
The speed of sound = 343.053 meters / second.
That's why some people appear bright until they open their mouth.
Last edited by KD4YGG; 12-05-2012 at 10:03 PM..
I don't believe those settings apply for Oakland, since it is a simulcast system that uses the same frequencies on multiple towers. Those settings are for monitoring systems with different towers on different frequencies. So in the Bay Area, that would apply to Marin County's system or San Mateo County's system. The scanner can switch sites based on which one comes in stronger.
Corner reflectors have shown to help with LSM but that's only useful to someone in Oakland, or nearby that can focus on one physical site or a direction where the phase distortion is limited. It would not work in Livermore due to the distance.
This problem can be easily fixed with a scanner but you're gonna pay for it in R&D. That's one of the reasons AOR and ICOM are so much more expensive. You're paying for that real radio receiver in them.
This problem can be easily fixed with a scanner but you're gonna pay for it in R&D. That's one of the reasons AOR and ICOM are so much more expensive. You're paying for that real radio receiver in them.
Ben96cal
Member
Normally I would throw up a yagi and be done with it however with this location I can't put anything outside...
Attic? And yagis won't often help this though they're directional they're very wide in width, not to mention they'll pickup from the rear also.
Ben96cal
Member
re:
Went out there last night and fooled around with it a bit. I turned ATT on and seemed to help every so slightly...Has anyone figured out how fire is going to roll out it's TG's? I'm assuming their TG's will be simulcasted over all cells and PD be will only in their "local" sites such as Fremont pd only coming up on the southwest cell..
Went out there last night and fooled around with it a bit. I turned ATT on and seemed to help every so slightly...Has anyone figured out how fire is going to roll out it's TG's? I'm assuming their TG's will be simulcasted over all cells and PD be will only in their "local" sites such as Fremont pd only coming up on the southwest cell..
Ben96cal
Member
Has anyone seen any patching of the Oakland system on EBRCS yet?
I was experimenting with a few settings on my pro106 last night. I think I may be onto something but its probably just wishful thinking. Up until yesterday I was running the Oak P25 with just a standard p25 auto setting. I did 2 things since then. I switched multisite mode to roam from off with default threshold settings. Also (grasping at straws here) I went to trunking tables and chose 800mhz rebanded in the standard band pans list and then selected custom tables just to see how it would affect reception. I think it helped but not sure. The pro106 seems to track the system more efficiently now. I am using Win500 v02.02
Ben96cal
Member
Wish the 996XT had settings like that
None. There may be some Interop TG's set aside for them since there's some for other outside agencies. Or Oakland may have the ability to patch to a pre-existing Interop TG. Considering it's City of Oakland I wouldn't think either have been decided on yet.
Yagi Works for Livermore
I had very bad digital simulcast distortion on Livermore PD and I installed the TerraWave T09100Y11206T yagi antenna and all distortion went away. I have it installed outside on my roof. I had it temporary in my bedroom and the distortion went away so I think installing it in the attic will work also. I chose this model because of the front to back ratio being 14dB high.
I had very bad digital simulcast distortion on Livermore PD and I installed the TerraWave T09100Y11206T yagi antenna and all distortion went away. I have it installed outside on my roof. I had it temporary in my bedroom and the distortion went away so I think installing it in the attic will work also. I chose this model because of the front to back ratio being 14dB high.
I'm sorry, but neither of those options will make a bit of difference. If your decode got better it's only because that's what you wanted to hear. We're all in the same boat and pretty disappointed that our $500+ scanners aren't working as advertised on these systems, but that's just the way it is until scanner manufacturers get their act together.
A yagi antenna is really the best (and only) option at this point...
- Status
Similar threads
