No firmware updates?

Status
Not open for further replies.

belvdr

No longer interested in living
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Messages
2,567
Writing all the conditional code to keep the model-specific stuff straight is harder and more complex than having a separate software version for each model.
Agreed. I wasn't sure how much was different, other than display, filters, and firmware. If 90% is the same, then it may have been easier to just add the differing pieces in, rather than make any core changes across two pieces of software.

I'm not certain how large the org is that is developing Sentinel, but it may have been much harder to develop and test due to resource constraints. Just a guess on my part.
 

Ubbe

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
8,944
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
To make it easier for themself they copied the firmware code from BCD435/536 with bugs and all and reused in SDS100/200. The only big change where the interface to the SDR receiver and the new DSP handling. Filters are the same but the SDS series can tweak the oscillator frequency to shift the IF frequency in relation to the IF crystal filters frequency. It can be done just as easily to the 436/536 but they don't need it. Copying the code made it possible to use the same Sentinel and Database for both model types. Nothing wrong in doing that as the x36 series have most of the features needed and any changes and bug fixes can be easily done at the same time to both scanner series.

/Ubbe
 

rjdj2000

Gone Cuckoo
Feed Provider
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
347
Location
Central NY
Uniden has abandoned Siren, and pretty much all of the x36 line. It is designed on old technology that has been replaced with SDR technology. When they realized how widespread the LSM issues were, they pretty much gave up. They used it as the test bed for provoice, DMR and NXDN upgrades, but once the realization that SDR was the only way to fix the big problem, they abandoned it like a prom night dumster baby.

Yes, I'm still bitter about being lied to over what was coming that never materialized. That said, my SDS200 works exactly as advertised. It was worth every penny of the $479 I spent on it.

Yeah, I hear you there, bitter about it is putting it mildly..... But I have not rushed to get a SDS100/200 as I really don't need it, would I like to have, yeah I would but not for another 600.... I got about 10 bucks invested in a USB dongle and using a free program, I get just as good decode on the P25 system I listen to. I just wished there was a way to listen directly without having to setup a server to do it like I can with ProScan on the 536. But for the meantime will listen through the calls section when I can and I don't miss any traffic as all calls are there, with the 536 or even the SDS series, you can only listen to what I stops on and unless you lock onto a talk group, you miss a bunch. I really am hoping for the day they finally deliver on what was advertised for the 536 line. I may be old and grey by the time that happens though. LOL
 

Citywide173

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,151
Location
Attleboro, MA
Everything you ask for can be done for $50 PROSCAN.
You bought a TV then had to pay for cable or buy a Tower and Antenna you are not complaining about your TV.
Your missing the point. The items I'm complaining about were advertised as included, why should I have to pay more to get them? If Uniden had admitted they couldn't get things done and bought all of the x36 owners Proscan, that would have gone a long way after stringing them along, but they just stopped answering the questions about when promised features would be available. Like I said, it was a radio that was not fully developed, poorly rolled out and then pretty much ignored beyond what they felt they had to do to make it appear that they didn't produce a lemon. Fanboys would do a great swervice to their own credibility if they would just admit this. Chevy had the Citation, Ford had the Edsel and Pinto, Firestone had the 500 and Uniden has the x36. No one gets it right every time.

P.S. I have ProScan, It is used to feed the TAC9 live feed.
 

Citywide173

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2005
Messages
2,151
Location
Attleboro, MA
Sorry you donot understand it works more are happy than not. This is my last reply as I am sure you never stretched the facts or ever mislead anything.
It doesn't, as is proved by it's performance on the RISCON system as I type, but the Siren App and the automatic updates were the tipping points on my purchase decision. I'm sure there are people happy with it, and good for them. The term "truth in advertising" means something to me. Apparently not the case for everyone.
 

mymman

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
57
Location
Danville VA
Although I am aware of SDS "problems" but I have to say I really love my 100 and 200. With the NXDN upgrade, I get everything I want to hear - everything. Yes, a happy camper. But thanks to all who push for more.
 

mr10pt

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
260
Location
Lowell, IN
Although I am aware of SDS "problems" but I have to say I really love my 100 and 200. With the NXDN upgrade, I get everything I want to hear - everything. Yes, a happy camper. But thanks to all who push for more.
Conventional channels reception sucks. Shouldn't have to play with filters (my opinion).
 
  • Like
Reactions: RRR

iMONITOR

Silent Key
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
11,156
Location
S.E. Michigan
How come there has been no firmware updates bc125at or bcd325p2 since the passing of Paul???
So for instance had bc125at with firmware of 1.05.01 and it's not listed at all.

I can't imagine what needs to be updated in firmware for an analog scanner that's been out for years and works perfect. What would you suggest? What is it lacking? Firmware is not necessarily a never ending venture.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RRR

iMONITOR

Silent Key
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
11,156
Location
S.E. Michigan
Although a very good analog scanner, it does not have the complexity of newer digital models and works as intended. I have both Uniden and Whistler (GRE) scanners, and none of the older models have had any updates. Planned obsolescence is how new items get sold and companies keep making money.

There's nothing obsolete about analog scanners. They still do what they're designed to do. Scanners/receiver manufactures don't dictate when something becomes obsolete. It's the transmitter/transceiver manufactures that do that.
 

mr10pt

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
260
Location
Lowell, IN
There's nothing obsolete about analog scanners. They still do what they're designed to do. Scanners/receiver manufactures don't dictate when something becomes obsolete. It's the transmitter/transceiver manufactures that do that.
Referring to the SDS200 conventional channel reception. Static and noise.
 

fxdscon

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
7,162
Referring to the SDS200 conventional channel reception. Static and noise.

That might be the case at your location or with your particular scanner, but as a blanket statement.... no, definitely not the case.

.
 

iMONITOR

Silent Key
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
11,156
Location
S.E. Michigan
Referring to the SDS200 conventional channel reception. Static and noise.

I tend to think the main target of the SDS series was to be used and optimized for digital and simulcast digital in particular. They gave it analog conventional capabilities that are "good enough" but that was not their prime objective. I monitor both analog and digital. I have a BCT15X which is optimized for analog and I use it for that, primarily VHF/UHF air-bands. I use my 536HP & SDS200 for digital.

Static and noise are somewhat to be expected on conventional analog radio to a certain degree. You would never expect to have full-quieting on analog. Have you experimented with any of the filter settings on the SDS to improve analog reception? You might be presently surprised!
 

mr10pt

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
260
Location
Lowell, IN
That might be the case at your location or with your particular scanner, but as a blanket statement.... no, definitely not the case.

.
Actually, thinking about it, I agree with you. My problem on the conventional's is the robotic dispatch. Have solid signal during dispatch and unit transmissions. But, automated dispatch modulation fluctuates to no end. Responding units can be heard clearly. Make any sense?
 

mr10pt

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
260
Location
Lowell, IN
I tend to think the main target of the SDS series was to be used and optimized for digital and simulcast digital in particular. They gave it analog conventional capabilities that are "good enough" but that was not their prime objective. I monitor both analog and digital. I have a BCT15X which is optimized for analog and I use it for that, primarily VHF/UHF air-bands. I use my 536HP & SDS200 for digital.

Static and noise are somewhat to be expected on conventional analog radio to a certain degree. You would never expect to have full-quieting on analog. Have you experimented with any of the filter settings on the SDS to improve analog reception? You might be presently surprised!
I have but don't think I have the right combo yet. I know each geo area has it's own specific features about it. Until the, I'll keep trying.
 

bobruzzo

W1AV
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 4, 2019
Messages
1,414
Location
Cranston, Rhode Island
I tend to think the main target of the SDS series was to be used and optimized for digital and simulcast digital in particular. They gave it analog conventional capabilities that are "good enough" but that was not their prime objective. I monitor both analog and digital. I have a BCT15X which is optimized for analog and I use it for that, primarily VHF/UHF air-bands. I use my 536HP & SDS200 for digital.

Static and noise are somewhat to be expected on conventional analog radio to a certain degree. You would never expect to have full-quieting on analog. Have you experimented with any of the filter settings on the SDS to improve analog reception? You might be presently surprised!
I also agree with you iMONITOR. I use my SDS200 strictly for simulcast/digital. I have never tried monitoring anything besides the state simulcast system and another Motorola system. I dont know how good/bad conventional sounds cause I never tried. But I do feel it is a fairly expensive radio to monitor the small system I listen to. If Uniden "skimped" on the radios ability to receive (clearly good audio) conventional freqs. and optimized it for simulcast/digital, then they could have maybe offered better filtering system (with clearly defined EXPLANATIONS of what they actually do!) or some other small features. I am a musician and produce music. I use filters extensively in production. If I had to pick my filters with no name and or no explanation of what they do I would never get the job done. This is the only thing about the sds radios I dont like. I understand a lot of people just keep trying the filters till they find one that works best. But combined with all the other MANY variables getting good P25 simulcast reception, the filters SHOULD have a better explanation of EXACTLY what they do!
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
13,416
Location
VA
Digital performance cannot be better than analog performance, because all digital signals are encoded in analog waveforms. If analog performance sucked, it would take digital performance down with it.
 

dougjgray

Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2003
Messages
535
Location
Englewood CO
I alway wondered if whistler had a strategy of rumoring new models to get uniden to rush at least the sds200 to market and get sloppy, the whistler then backed out of the new models lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top