Post-V2 Update Performance for BCD396T and BCD996T

Status
Not open for further replies.

UPMan

In Memoriam
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,296
Location
Arlington, TX
Dave:

What AUTO start value were you using for the P25 optimization setting with V1.x?
 

918Dave

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
205
Location
Glendale, Arizona
If memory serves me correctly I believe it was 8 on the Phx system? I'm not really sure. I DO remember manually experimenting with this value though and choosing the number that brought me closer to zero. None of which resolved my reception issues before the update.

Dave
 

cellphone

Silent key.
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
1,811
Location
Ahwatukee, AZ (Phoenix)
Paul,

I too would say that P25 decoding is the same on the PRWN system after the firmware update. The Auto value that worked the best for me on the past firmware was 9.

I hope to get you some more information. I will be doing some testing with the non-simulcast sites on the PRWN and hopefully answer some of Lou's questions from an earlier post.

--Joe
 

rfburns

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 19, 2002
Messages
1,029
P25 Simulcast & 996T Reception

The audio on single site P25 trunked systems and P25 conventional systems is now better sounding than on GRE's.
On trunked simulcast systems the audio is no better and much more likely worse than it was prior to the update. On non-simulcast systems the ERR starts out close to zero and quickly goes to zero. On simulcast systems the ERR starts out high as detailed below and doesn't get any better than around 45. Examples:
Fairfax County, 5 sites, starts at 83 and drops to 45, original setting 11.
Loudoun County, 8 sites, starts at 60 and drops to 45, original setting 12.
MWAA, 3 sites, starts at 87 and drops to 63, original setting 12.
Fauquier County, 5 sites, starts at 60 and drops to 46, original setting 12.
D.C. 800, 10 sites, starts at 56 and drops to 46.
D.C. 400, 10 sites, starts at 14 and drops to 1. I don't remember exactly what my D.C. settings were, but they were higher than 9.
Montgomery County, 14 sites, sounds bad, original setting was 12.
All of the above simulcast systems have acceptable audio on my 4 GRE radios. I don't hear users asking for repeats or saying things like "you went digital" on any of the above systems.
I suspect that the few people who say simulcast systems sound better now, have just a single site capturing their receiver. It might be helpful it those people who have improved simulcast audio would post their ERR's.
 

loumaag

Silent Key - Aug 2014
Joined
Oct 20, 2002
Messages
12,935
Location
Katy, TX
Re: P25 Simulcast & 396T Reception

rfburns said:
...I suspect that the few people who say simulcast systems sound better now, have just a single site capturing their receiver. It might be helpful it those people who have improved simulcast audio would post their ERR's.
I can guarantee that I was not experiencing single site capture, as it was the same stationary as it was mobile throughout the area. Plus of course the Pro-96 was completely unreadable when stationary. I cannot say for certain what the ERR rate was as I only looked out of curiosity since adjustment there is now moot, but I do remember thinking that the numbers seemed high with regard to previous numbers on other P25 systems, like over 30 to begin with; however, I certainly never was able to adjust it to anything acceptable prior to the update.
 

Sting11

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
79
Location
Sylvania, OH
From the Toledo, OH area using a v2 BCD396T and a Radio Shack 800MHz Duck...

...MARCS seems to be much improved. Not nearly as much of that *braaaap* sound as before, and very clear audio. Dare I say it almost sounds as good as an analog system. I haven't had a chance to hear the Michigan MPSCS system much since the upgrade but it also seems improved. The new Lucas County P25 system still sounds like garbage, which I fully expected.
 

awasser1

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
618
Location
Apache Jct, AZ
Yep Mr RFBurns you were using 12 before just like I was for CSP. Your readings look very similar to mine and I am getting the same results as you. I am hoping Paul will send out a revised firmware so we can adjust our numbers manually....I am glad to see others getting the same results. Keep posting everyone...
 

awasser1

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
618
Location
Apache Jct, AZ
Oh sorry I forgot I have the BC396T and CSP is Connecticut State Police. The funny thing is my old BC250D brings in everything beautiful. The BC396T cuts off the very beginning of every transmission also because I hear a little more on the BC250D.
 

Viper43

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
3,272
After my drive South today I found that the SAFET system is much better alround over v1 firmware. Watching the ERR rates and comparing those to what I had April 27th I found that 1: ERR Rate started off much lower to begin with 2: the ERR adjusted it'self much faster 3: audio sounded better, a bit pixalated in some areas but not garbled and not objectional.
Some SAFET towers that had been high 70+ ERR rate were now in the 20;s to start nd adjusted themselves much quicker, although one didn't change much i am chalking that up to it's location and where I was. I used the same two antennas I used on the previous trips, the RS 800Mhz on the way down and the exterior all band antenna on the way back North. Overall pretty happy with the setup :)

V
 

cellphone

Silent key.
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
1,811
Location
Ahwatukee, AZ (Phoenix)
I wanted to share some more info on my Phoenix PRWN decoding issues and answer some of the excellent questions asked by Lou in an earlier post. I hope that this information will assist Uniden in addressing audio quality on the Phoenix PRWN.

loumaag said:
Lets think of this using the following points, if anyone can add points please do so:
*I think that the first point to consider is does the radio perform better or worse on the same simulcast sites before or after the update. Again (for those of you reading this in normal everyday mode :) ), please remember I am only talking about Project 25 simulcast sites.
-The radio is performing about the same as it did prior to the V2 firmware update on simulcast sites. Audio quality is poor. I would estimate that I am able to understand about 80% of any given transmission.
loumaag said:
*The next thing to consider is how do the actual users seem to perceive the system as working?
-I do not perceive that end users on the simulcast sites are experiencing similar issues. I rarely hear users ask to repeat because “they went digital”.
loumaag said:
*Is a non-simulcast site, carrying the same traffic, available to compare?
-Unfortunately, the non-simulcast sites do not often carry the same talkgroups as the simulcast sites. I have not been able to monitor the same talkgroups on a non-simulcast site yet. However, I have been monitoring site 103-Sky Harbour IR. This is a non-simulcast site, and audio is cleaner on than on the simulcast sites. I have also been watching the error rate, and it is much lower on the non-simulcast site 103.

Hopefully this helps better explain issues that PRWN listeners are experiencing on simulcast sites.

--Joe
 

ctrl

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
127
Location
Phoenix Area.
Some of my info about the PRWN--I'll try to keep it short, so we dont steal the thread...

What I have learned after 2 years of monitering prwn with my 396--hearing everything clear.
Only site A- (867.9625, 867.2125) is worth listening to, it carrys ALL traffic ALL the time. So if your not listening to these 2 control channels, you might as well give up. Toss up an antenna at your home, and hope for the best.

I'm not saying there isnt a problem (I have heard it on the online phoenix scanner feeds of the past) but I think its an antenna issue. I drive around alot with my radio, and notice these trouble spots, but it never lasts, and always continues to work great after a second or two. I cannot duplicate it on demand, thats forsure. Maybe you guys should start a thread in the phoenix section of areas that have bad reception, I would be interested in knowing where to see for myself.

With my 396 I have the error rate set on 7 auto. Squelch 4-5. (867.9625, 867.2125)

With this said, I am still using the old firmware. Unfortunately, the problems people are reporting, and 'nothing changed' being reported, really dont make me want to upgrade-- There is no benefits at all for me. I'm not going to risk updating and end up with problems, it just isnt worth it, they didnt publish a reversion back to the old firmware and with all the past issues, I think thats a huge mistake. I wont even get into the hoops uniden has us jumping through to download these updates, in this thread..

Search my username for more phoenix posts-- also check out what GOOD audio in phoenix sounds like, keeping in mind I re-encoded this, to 'AM radio' quality for size reasons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU1SbzlOrCw Beware, this recording might not be work safe, but its the only one I have uploaded at the moment..
 

UPMan

In Memoriam
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,296
Location
Arlington, TX
In order to handle some specific issues, I have created a Yahoo! group "unidenflash" for certain topics. I am adding "Degraded P25 performance after update" to the list of allowed topics on that group.

If you feel you fall in that category, please join and post in that group (it is difficult for me to seperate out issues here, sometimes, and is also easier for our engineering group to catch all comments in one place). Actually, anyone can join that group, but it is 100% moderated and no off-topic comments are allowed (because they get in the way of diagnosing the problems). If you have an off-topic post, post it here (just kidding, Lou :) ).

If you see other posts about this, please give me (and them) a hand by directing them to that group.
 

donc13

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,423
Location
Grand Junction, CO
newsalan said:
500.00 shipped if you want it.
Now I made the backup and Paul and Uniden are wrong. The problem is not easily fixed. And just wait until rebanding. You haven’t seen anything yet! It killed my reception and saying just get rid is a simplistic, lets get on the good side of Uniden answer.

There is a problem, Uniden promised to fix it several times, it's not fixed.
The analog V. digital issue has been around a year, it was supposed to be fixed, it's not.
The motorboating/braaap was supposed to be fixed, it's not, in fact in many cases it is worse. And more users are experiencing this issue now. Some still blindly support Upman and Uniden like yourself.

I am aware of ALL the adjust parameters for the BCD396. And I’ve tried them, which according to Upman’s promise “nobody” would need to do so. He said the problems would be fixed. They are not, and in some cases they are worse.

Yes it sounds like I hate the radio. It is clearly not doing what it is supposed to do, and it is now worse, now missing transmissions, it has trouble with Motorola Type I systems now, and P25 systems. Never had those issues before. It doesn’t even come close to prior performance under the version 1.xxx firmware’s.

Again you want the radio, with firmware version 2.01.00; send me money and it’s yours

No, I have a 396, works fine for me, works better than it did before the v2 upgrade. Besides which, why would I (or anyone) pay $500 for a used radio when I can get a brand new one for that price?

In addition...The suggestions I gave you "fixed" the initial minor issues after the upgrade and there are others here who also had initial quirks that were also fixed by simply doing a reload of their backup.

I do find it interesting you have firmware 2.01.00 when the official release is 2.00.07 but what the heck.
 

donc13

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
1,423
Location
Grand Junction, CO
UPMan said:
BCD396T Users:

It appears that the squelch setting on some units is being reset during the update. If you are seeing reception issues, please recheck (manually re set) your squelch setting and/or restore the backup of the programming you made prior to applying the updates. Several people have reported then recanted problems after doing this.

BCD396T

Using the new software, does the P25 decode level setting have any effect if Auto is selected? I ask this because before the update, I had the decode level set at 5 and the audio was "ok" but not great. After the update....initially it was worse, I reset the P25 decode to 8 and it improved signifigantly, although it seems to have taken a few transmissions on each system before it "settled" down. Soon after, I did a full restore from the backup because things still weren't great....that fixed all issues.

So I'm not sure if the P25 decode setting was my imagination or it really does have some effect even wtih the v2 update.
 

awasser1

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 31, 2004
Messages
618
Location
Apache Jct, AZ
I have 2.01 also

I have 2.01 also but it didnt make any difference from 2.0.7. Your not missing anything... Hopefully a better version will be on the horizon....Have a nice evening.
 

Viper43

Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2005
Messages
3,272
awasser1 said:
I have 2.01 also but it didnt make any difference from 2.0.7. Your not missing anything... Hopefully a better version will be on the horizon....Have a nice evening.

Did you reload your programming AFTER the update?

Also, one thing I found was that it can take time to really notice a difference, the more you have programmed in the scanner the longer it takes to get systems to "settle in". I have 160 trunked systems programmed in my scanner and it took three days to get them all settled in. Watch the ERR Rate and over time it will move down with most systems. Adjusting the P25 Wait Time as referenced in the PDF instructions with the download may help as well.

V
 

Drumbum

Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
359
Location
Lynchburg Va
My Edacs beeps are gone completely after the update. the part of the update that made it scan from channel you are on in edacs still is useless . It just switches from ID Scan to ID Search most of the time. but before the update I got used to hitting hold then hold again instead of scan because it will change if someone else was talking in the system. If they made it resume from channel off hold like was intended off scan THEN it would work right.I also use hold because when hittting scan in a hurry sometimes would hit lockout which I wish was a Function lockout Two button procedure. other than those things I notice no difference in my area .
 

viperdew

Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
10
Viper43 said:
Did you reload your programming AFTER the update?

I just upgraded my firmware on both my 396 and 996 tonight. Is it required to reload all of your programming????? Everything on mine seems to work great and I didn't do anything but load the firmware. If I should reload please let me know as I am using the Butel Software which is really easy to do. I think the guy you answereed may have had other problems but if not and this should be done please let me know.

Best Regards.....
 

Jay911

Silent Key (April 15th, 2023)
Feed Provider
Joined
Feb 15, 2002
Messages
9,378
Location
Bragg Creek, Alberta
viperdew said:
I just upgraded my firmware on both my 396 and 996 tonight. Is it required to reload all of your programming?????

Some people have had to; others have not. I ran my scanners fine without reloading the programming at first and it worked just fine.

For the fellow who was commenting on v2.01.00 not existing yet, I'm pretty sure it's a narrow-release given to a select few who were having problems.. nothing of benefit to anyone else.
 

gregmoss

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
151
Location
Alaska
Yes the v2.01.00 it does exist, i have it right now in my radio! No Joke buddy! There's barely any difference between the two that i've notice now. Hopefuuly their will be a better tweak soon :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top