NXDN Update Now Available!

[AA6IO]

Just saw post #47 by Sofa King. I completely agree. My same experience with trying to do limit search tonight here in LA for NXDN. Great sounding digital quality all around, but "searching" is a basic function for many of the more experienced users of these radios. Perhaps Whistler can help us out with that basic function so these digital modes can be used to their fullest.

 

[troymail]

I think I figured out my problem with the system I'm trying to monitor. See image. It would have helped to have been watching the DSD+ screen the entire time last night. I think the system has some type of radio registration acceptance. I don't know if this is why I get nothing. Anyone?

I did get 5 2 second recordings on this system with no voice. The TGID's were different than DSD+, but I did change the RAN to any so maybe they were from another system.

All in all, I have to say that whatever Whistler did on this update for DMR, it made my receive even better than it was. There were a few systems that I only ever had 2-3 bars that now have 4-5. Better decode on those same systems too.

I've seen things like this before on DSD+ but there were also voice calls as well. Perhaps the system is only being used for data? Not that FCC license is always accurate but what does the license say for emission types for the system/frequencies you are listening to?

 

[sibbley]

I've seen things like this before on DSD+ but there were also voice calls as well. Perhaps the system is only being used for data? Not that FCC license is always accurate but what does the license say for emission types for the system/frequencies you are listening to?

troy, I am getting data and voice on DSD+. I'm also getting parts of voice on the TRX-1 and TRX-2 now. Only brief though, maybe 2-3 seconds. See the bandwidth below. Maybe the scanners are using a different bandwidth?


Emissions Designator 8K30F1E
8K30F1E--
Bandwidth: 8.30 kHz
Modulation Type: [F] Angle-modulated, straight FM
Modulation Nature: [1] Digital, on-off or quantized, no modulation
Information Type: [E] Telephony, voice, sound broadcasting
Emissions Designator Notes: 8K30F1E 12.5 kHz voice NXDN (Wide IDAS, NEXEDGE)
Radio Reference Identified Designator: 8K30F1E NXDN 12.5 kHz digital voice (Wide IDAS, NEXEDGE)
Emissions Designator Lookup

The Emissions Designator 8K30F1E signifies a wireless radio which transfers data over a modulated wave using Digital, on-off or quantized, no modulation signal. This signal transmits at a 8.30 kHz [8K30] maximum bandwidth.


Emissions Designator 8K30F1D
8K30F1D--
Bandwidth: 8.30 kHz
Modulation Type: [F] Angle-modulated, straight FM
Modulation Nature: [1] Digital, on-off or quantized, no modulation
Information Type: [D] Data, telemetry, telecommand
Emissions Designator Notes: 8K30F1D 12.5 kHz data NXDN (Wide IDAS, NEXEDGE)
Radio Reference Identified Designator: 8K30F1D NXDN 12.5 kHz data (Wide IDAS, NEXEDGE)
Emissions Designator Lookup

The Emissions Designator 8K30F1D signifies a wireless radio which transfers data over a modulated wave using Digital, on-off or quantized, no modulation signal. This signal transmits at a 8.30 kHz [8K30] maximum bandwidth.

 

[MichaelBhere]

OK...So we have bugs in the new firmware and a library that has a bunch of "RAN 0" instead of "All" that was said to be worked on (fixed) overnight and released this morning. I just did a check of all updates on my TRX-2 and the CPU went backwards from 4.0 to 3.0.0.0. I guess they are stopping anyone else from updating to NXDN. No new library update either.

FWIW, I tried some NXDN and liked what I heard once I was on frequency. The big problem I had with limit searching was the nonsense step size on UHF that took way long to scan through, and stopped on several incorrect frequencies prior to reaching the actual frequency, forcing me to manually advance to the correct frequency...then forcing me to manually advance past several more incorrect frequencies to get it searching again. NO OPERATOR STEP SIZE SELECTION FOR MANUAL LIMIT SEARCH? Why not?

That made manual searching almost useless. By the time you got it "on frequency", the traffic was done. You missed it. The I tried Service Search for Ham Radio and got bogged down wasting a whole lot of time stepping through 420 to 440 MHz for nothing. In fact, most of the ham ranges have way too much wasted time looking at frequencies that are not going to yield much of anything. And with no way to tailor the ranges and step size, you are stuck with poor search tools. Only one limit search range, no step size adjustment, and NO EZ-Scan support for searching is beyond comprehension for a "top of the line" scanner.

And to make matters worse, searching is THE ONLY WAY to hear all modes (including DMR and NXDN) on a frequency! I can't even create memory channels that can do that because of that stupid MODE selection barrier of AM, FM, NFM, DMR and NXDN. So if I want to search known Amateur Radio bandplans for any mode, or just for all "DIGITAL MODES", how can I do that? Seems like a simple request. I just want to look for all mode (or just all digital mode) reception on a memory channel, or list of memory channels. Can't do it!

Someone has to rethink the approach to interfacing with this "high end" scanner. Bugs? I can tolerate that knowing it will be fixed. But major limiting design issues like above??? No, there is no excuse for that. It's a major letdown on a great receiver with great sound. No joy on searching out new activity of ANY kind. I hope Whistler is listening to this (and yes, I did make suggestions to them using the official e-mail address) and fixes these shortcomings ASAP. Good hardware, but bad software!

Phil

I sent a similar request thru the scannersuggestions email address. Now that Whistler released the free upgrade to NXDN on the TRX series before the end of the year as was promised, hopefully Whistler will address several of the most desired suggestions. If you all have not made your official suggestions yet, send them now to get them on the scannersuggestion list or to at lease increase the number of similar requests to raise its priority on the list of suggestions.

 

[AggieCon]

The screenshot from DSD+ is radios turning on/ affiliating with the system, I assume.

If something has an emission of "D," but not another with "E", or "W" too as the last digit, I would be skeptical.

Of course, I am skeptical of any database information. The best way is to trust the RF spectrum. SDR really helps with that.

I tend to find RTLSDR to receive better than Whistler in almost all instances. What's the Whistler squelch set to and what antenna? What's the call sign of that system?

 

[AggieCon]

Also as a study of the bandwidth... What are some of the common emission designations of P25 digital?

 

[milcom_chaser]

OK...So we have bugs in the new firmware and a library that has a bunch of "RAN 0" instead of "All" that was said to be worked on (fixed) overnight and released this morning. I just did a check of all updates on my TRX-2 and the CPU went backwards from 4.0 to 3.0.0.0. I guess they are stopping anyone else from updating to NXDN. No new library update either.

FWIW, I tried some NXDN and liked what I heard once I was on frequency. The big problem I had with limit searching was the nonsense step size on UHF that took way long to scan through, and stopped on several incorrect frequencies prior to reaching the actual frequency, forcing me to manually advance to the correct frequency...then forcing me to manually advance past several more incorrect frequencies to get it searching again. NO OPERATOR STEP SIZE SELECTION FOR MANUAL LIMIT SEARCH? Why not?

That made manual searching almost useless. By the time you got it "on frequency", the traffic was done. You missed it. The I tried Service Search for Ham Radio and got bogged down wasting a whole lot of time stepping through 420 to 440 MHz for nothing. In fact, most of the ham ranges have way too much wasted time looking at frequencies that are not going to yield much of anything. And with no way to tailor the ranges and step size, you are stuck with poor search tools. Only one limit search range, no step size adjustment, and NO EZ-Scan support for searching is beyond comprehension for a "top of the line" scanner.

And to make matters worse, searching is THE ONLY WAY to hear all modes (including DMR and NXDN) on a frequency! I can't even create memory channels that can do that because of that stupid MODE selection barrier of AM, FM, NFM, DMR and NXDN. So if I want to search known Amateur Radio bandplans for any mode, or just for all "DIGITAL MODES", how can I do that? Seems like a simple request. I just want to look for all mode (or just all digital mode) reception on a memory channel, or list of memory channels. Can't do it!

Someone has to rethink the approach to interfacing with this "high end" scanner. Bugs? I can tolerate that knowing it will be fixed. But major limiting design issues like above??? No, there is no excuse for that. It's a major letdown on a great receiver with great sound. No joy on searching out new activity of ANY kind. I hope Whistler is listening to this (and yes, I did make suggestions to them using the official e-mail address) and fixes these shortcomings ASAP. Good hardware, but bad software!

Phil

Not sure a radio would be able to search in Digital Mode and have enough time to analyze the signal for which mode it is before the signal is gone. This would be the case for short transmissions. Uniden's "Close Call" feature will not even capture DMR Mode, due to the duty cycle of the carrier vs traditional FM mode.

 

[AggieCon]

Well people keep buying the outdated hardware scanner, so why should they improve it? Of course it would be possible to receive all modes in a search with the proper equipment and software. The demodulation is essentially the same, and the vocoder is identical, just with a varying data rate. Hey, it's amazing any of this stuff works on the scanner. Heck, the other day, I was even able to listen to simulcast P25. It's nice that they are paying someone to create new firmware and software, but to say that the consumer hardware scanners are modern technology would be a joke.

 

[wbswetnam]

Of course, I am skeptical of any database information. The best way is to trust the RF spectrum.

That's for sure! I know of systems here in Arkansas which are FCC licensed for certain digital modes, but I know that they are not using it. Also, there are agencies which are NOT licensed for digital, but they are using digital anyway. Finally, there are a few I know that are licensed for a particular digital mode, but they are using a different digital mode! Of course this is Arkansas which seems to the RF "wild west" - as long as you think the FCC isn't listening and you think you can get away with it, do it.

 

[buddrousa]

Up to when DMR was released for scanners I found several Trbo sites with no listings in the FCC database for the simple reason nobody could hear so why spend the money. 4 TRBO sites with several paying users.

 

[AggieCon]

Exactly, guys! I've been through so many of the FCC licenses by now, and it's just amazing what you come across. And then once you add in all of the typographical errors, there's certainly stuff out of place with reality.

I think--or at least I hope--the future is equipment that makes use of the available spectrum intelligently without everyone holding a specific segment that is not at 100% utilization. At least in the more populated areas, the current system is great for generating lots of bureaucracy, but it's really not the best way to utilize the RF spectrum.

The other problem with the current system is that some users assume they "own" the channel so there will never be interference or other being interfering. If the licensee is using digital, there's a good chance they never realize that there is interference, they just cuss the radio.

If you had 10 receivers, the best thing would probably be to leave them each searching a different band. However, for those with just one or two, you have to use some methodology to narrow down where to listen. I think the FCC information is a great starting point, but it's definitely not a stopping point. Same for this website's database.

 

[bravo14]

Has anyone have video on nxdn on the whistler?

 

[wbswetnam]

Has anyone have video on nxdn on the whistler?

Your wish is my command! https://youtu.be/FtJAdePJKW8

 

[KC1UA]

I will, at some point in the very near future or unless someone beats me to it, make a video showing NXDN trunking performance and how currently 2 $20 RTL dongles and one $25 software subscription to DSD+ Fast Lane blow said performance of the TRX-1 out of the water.

In the interest of full disclosure I have a TRX-1 and a TRX-2 for testing purposes courtesy of Jeff at Hamstation. I do not own either. So, while I truly have "no dog in this fight" it will be interesting to see how or if this currently sub-par trunking performance is improved.

The DMR issues I reported on when the TRX models first came out were by comparison relatively easy to troubleshoot when viewing a side-by-side comparison with the RTL/DSD+ setup. The performance of these radios in this case is purely random and I have yet to see any rhyme or reason to it.

I am not schooled in the mechanics of NXDN trunking but one thing comes to mind that reminds me of the old GRE/Radio Shack PRO-92, the original model before the A came out. In that scanner GRE utilized what they called "slow speed handshaking" (or similar wording) that did not use the control channel for trunking. Could it be that there is something similar going on here? The trunking on the 92 as a result of that method was awful. This seems somewhat like that.

 

[W4KRR]

Whatever the cause of the poor trunking performance, I hope it's fixable via a firmware upgrade. (are you listening, WW?)

 

[troymail]

Your wish is my command! https://youtu.be/FtJAdePJKW8

Sounds pretty good to me and much more portable than carrying a PC around.

I will, at some point in the very near future or unless someone beats me to it, make a video showing NXDN trunking performance and how currently 2 $20 RTL dongles and one $25 software subscription to DSD+ Fast Lane blow said performance of the TRX-1 out of the water.

In the interest of full disclosure I have a TRX-1 and a TRX-2 for testing purposes courtesy of Jeff at Hamstation. I do not own either. So, while I truly have "no dog in this fight" it will be interesting to see how or if this currently sub-par trunking performance is improved.

The DMR issues I reported on when the TRX models first came out were by comparison relatively easy to troubleshoot when viewing a side-by-side comparison with the RTL/DSD+ setup. The performance of these radios in this case is purely random and I have yet to see any rhyme or reason to it.

I am not schooled in the mechanics of NXDN trunking but one thing comes to mind that reminds me of the old GRE/Radio Shack PRO-92, the original model before the A came out. In that scanner GRE utilized what they called "slow speed handshaking" (or similar wording) that did not use the control channel for trunking. Could it be that there is something similar going on here? The trunking on the 92 as a result of that method was awful. This seems somewhat like that.

I'm interested in seeing your videos - and your configurations on the TRX. I'm monitoring some trunk systems in my area and am finding different settings - particularly when it comes to delay - make a difference. I've also seen some what I would call "unusual" trunk talkgroup usage for some systems in that the base/dispatcher calls out on one talkgroup and the units in the field all seem to be on different TGs (I've been told this might be to keep them from talking to one another of the radio). For these, I find that NO delay is best. Then of course there are missed conversations when scanning multiple frequencies or systems.... Point being is that it may come down to the details and configuration of one system vs. another.

As I said - I'm curious to view your videos!

 

[KC1UA]

It sounds great, and yes, most of us don't want to carry around a PC!

I have a few system users that have similar setups with the multiple talkgroups. This seems to be a carry-over from when they were on a now defunct LTR system so you may well be correct about it being used to deter them from talking to one another.

Right now I'm scanning a single NXDN UHF 4 frequency system with the TRX-1 and absolutely nothing else. The Dwell time is set to the default of 1 second. Aggie suggested the .3 setting for this but I honestly noticed no difference in performance so I went back to the default. The only talkgroup I have programmed is the Wildcard and its delay is set to 2 seconds. My results with this were reported in a previous thread.

I would really like to hear from Whistler as to what method they're using for "trunk-tracking". Is it via the control channel or is it in fact something akin to the slow speed handshaking method I mentioned above. Someone commented earlier that if it's using the CC it may have to be able to identify the channel number used yet there's no provision to program that in the software.

All I know is that the TRX-1 as programmed, on the same antenna via a multicoupler as the DSD+ setup is, is missing an enormous amount of traffic. I'll make the video showing that ASAP.

 

[SOFA_KING]

I will, at some point in the very near future or unless someone beats me to it, make a video showing NXDN trunking performance and how currently 2 $20 RTL dongles and one $25 software subscription to DSD+ Fast Lane blow said performance of the TRX-1 out of the water.

In the interest of full disclosure I have a TRX-1 and a TRX-2 for testing purposes courtesy of Jeff at Hamstation. I do not own either. So, while I truly have "no dog in this fight" it will be interesting to see how or if this currently sub-par trunking performance is improved.

The DMR issues I reported on when the TRX models first came out were by comparison relatively easy to troubleshoot when viewing a side-by-side comparison with the RTL/DSD+ setup. The performance of these radios in this case is purely random and I have yet to see any rhyme or reason to it.

I am not schooled in the mechanics of NXDN trunking but one thing comes to mind that reminds me of the old GRE/Radio Shack PRO-92, the original model before the A came out. In that scanner GRE utilized what they called "slow speed handshaking" (or similar wording) that did not use the control channel for trunking. Could it be that there is something similar going on here? The trunking on the 92 as a result of that method was awful. This seems somewhat like that. [B/]

My thoughts exactly. I suspected the same. It might get your "NXDN offering" to market fast, but at what price to your reputation? Granted, reverse engineering complex trunking protocols takes effort...which either translates to money OR means you need knowledgeable engineers with updated education.

In a modern world of all sorts of open source collaboration, SDR radio designs, rapidly advancing technologies, you can't afford to take the easy way out. If you do, you will be called out...just like what is being observed and reported here. To compete you need to be up to date. That is what many of the "old name" companies are struggling with and falling behind on. Amateur developers are outpacing the established developers, who are looking for the cheap and easy way out.You snooze, you loose.

All that being said, I appreciate Whistler and Uniden, and I don't want to see them go away. But they have to step up their game. The user experience HAS TO BE GOOD, or you will not sell product for long. Someone else will come in and take your market.That is happening right now on the amateur radio hotspot market. But I strongly believe this is a good thing because we are finally getting innovation and getting what we wanted all along. The future is bright! Jump on it or get left behind.

Phil

 

[troymail]

It sounds great, and yes, most of us don't want to carry around a PC!

I have a few system users that have similar setups with the multiple talkgroups. This seems to be a carry-over from when they were on a now defunct LTR system so you may well be correct about it being used to deter them from talking to one another.

Right now I'm scanning a single NXDN UHF 4 frequency system with the TRX-1 and absolutely nothing else. The Dwell time is set to the default of 1 second. Aggie suggested the .3 setting for this but I honestly noticed no difference in performance so I went back to the default. The only talkgroup I have programmed is the Wildcard and its delay is set to 2 seconds. My results with this were reported in a previous thread.

I would really like to hear from Whistler as to what method they're using for "trunk-tracking". Is it via the control channel or is it in fact something akin to the slow speed handshaking method I mentioned above. Someone commented earlier that if it's using the CC it may have to be able to identify the channel number used yet there's no provision to program that in the software.

All I know is that the TRX-1 as programmed, on the same antenna via a multicoupler as the DSD+ setup is, is missing an enormous amount of traffic. I'll make the video showing that ASAP.

If you're only listening to one system, I wouldn't think the "dwell" time (for what I understand it does) would make much difference. If anything (again, if only scanning one system), I'd suspect a longer dwell time would make a bigger difference (at least, that's what I find when trying to get around issues with Unidens by adjusting the HOLD time).

 

[KC1UA]

I thought of that as well and increased the dwell time to 2 seconds. I also locked out the wild card, programmed in all recently used talkgroups (per DSD+ logs), used the actual site's RAN and set the NXDN mode to 4800. There may be some improvement but it is still clearly missing numerous transmissions. I'm also trying to do my day job at the same time. Unfortunately these systems being mostly business related for the most part go dark by the time I get home and situated, so this is really the best testing ground.

Obviously by scanning a single system I'm trying to duplicate the conditions used by DSD+ as closely as I can in order for a fair comparison.