Pro 197 and 106 each receive differently

Status
Not open for further replies.

bep

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
509
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
I have a Pro 197 and 106 side by side.
Each programmed with Win500 same file.
Each has the RS 800 antenna
Monitoring Va. Beach Va. PD, EMS, Fire P25 system
106 is receiving great showing 4 bars, and the 197 is deaf, but showing 3 bars

I have been fighting the 197 with poor reception since forever.
My thoughts are that there is an internal issue.
Or should I do a factory reset and start over?

Comments please, hammer is at the ready.
(Just kidding)

Thanks
 

K2KOH

Silent Key
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
2,767
Location
Putnam County, NY
Well, one thing I can say...to put the RS800 antenna on your 197, you would need a right angle adapter. They can cut your reception by a bit. Is it a BNC right angle adapter, or are you using the PL259 right angle?
 

cg

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2000
Messages
4,969
Location
Connecticut
PRO197 has a known history of signal overloading. I installed a PAR Electronics FM trap (filters out FM broadcast band) and a NOAA WX trap to remove 162.4-.55. Improvement was significant across all bands (the interference can affect any band).
You can also try the attenuator and see if that helps.

chris
 

kruser

Well Known Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
5,077
Location
W St Louis Cnty, MO
Well, one thing I can say...to put the RS800 antenna on your 197, you would need a right angle adapter. They can cut your reception by a bit. Is it a BNC right angle adapter, or are you using the PL259 right angle?

I agree that they should only cause a small amount of loss.
I've had some (Chinese likely) poorly made right angle BNC adapters that would kill weak 800 MHz signals or cause easily seen attenuation of stronger signals. For those problem adapters, they all worked fine below 300 MHz.
Swapping them with an Amphenol brand solved that problem.
The ones that killed the 800 signals worked fine below 300 MHz and they also appeared just fine visually. They tested fine with a standard ohmmeter also yet they still caused a lot of attenuation at the higher frequencies. The cheap ones even fit nicely like a quality made one does. I guess the insulator material may have been the cause but they all appeared to use the standard Teflon or nylon type material. Perhaps cheaper insulator material becomes a short at RF above 300 MHz or so.
Now I test them first when I need to use one by installing them inline while tuned to a weak signal in the 800 band.

If I were the OP, I'd eliminate the right angle BNC and hold the 197 sideways for a minute (so the antenna is upright) and see it that brings the signal level back inline with the 106.

In theory, a right angle adapter should only add about 0.5 dB of loss so it should not be noticeable by much if any at all unless you use test equipment.
The ones I had that killed weak 800 signals most likely came from RadioShack also as I only buy name brand when ordering online. I've also had some from RS that did not cause any problems even at the higher frequencies so it could just be cheap quality control from whoever supplies them for RS.
From my experience, most have not caused a problem and I've only had a small amount that did. The ones that did were always unmarked no name adapters that I must have purchased locally when I was in a hurry.

The right angle adapters can also be purchased in 50 and 75 ohm versions. I would not think that should make a difference in a receive only application though.
I do have some Amphenol 75 ohm versions for CCTV equipment and they did not look any different than the 50 ohm models. They only had different Amphenol part numbers on the bags they were packed in. Some of the 75 ohm BNC fittings do not have full length Teflon or nylon insulation in the female end of the adapter but mine do which makes identifying them impossible as they are not stamped with a part number. I mark mine with a small scratch or something. I've used some of my 75 ohm Amphenol’s on my antenna feeds temporarily before and they did not cause any noticed attenuation at high frequencies like I saw in the no name unmarked adapters.
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
16,252
Location
BEE00
As stated, a lousy adapter can cripple reception. Put the 106's rubber ducky on the back of the 197 and flip it so that the antenna is pointing straight up, then check the signal strength. You've got to start by comparing apples to apples, which you are not doing when that right-angle adapter is in the mix.
 

kruser

Well Known Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
5,077
Location
W St Louis Cnty, MO
PRO197 has a known history of signal overloading. I installed a PAR Electronics FM trap (filters out FM broadcast band) and a NOAA WX trap to remove 162.4-.55. Improvement was significant across all bands (the interference can affect any band).
You can also try the attenuator and see if that helps.

chris

All the modern day GRE made scanners can experience the signal overload problem! It is not just the Pro197. It can also be found in other brands as well but GRE's bring most of the complaints.
Many users would see a nice improvement by adding an FM trap in the urban areas yet many do not know that. Many just think that is the way it is and live with it.
I suffer badly from VHF paging signals on all my GRE made radios. The PAR paging notch filters work wonders for me. Most of our areas FM station transmitter antennas are located far enough away from my location that I don't normally need an FM trap but I do use it (a PAR also) along with an VHF air band bandpass filter when doing civil airband monitoring with any of my GRE made radio's.
I don't need any filters with the modern Uniden's or my Icom R7000 or R9000. Of course the Icom's cannot really be compared to any scanner. I also have an Icom R2500 and PCR1000 that do not need any external notch or bandpass filters. The Uniden scanners also handle the local paging and FM broadcast crud pretty well here without additional help from a filter. The older Uniden or other brand scanners that do not have triple conversion IF circuitry can also benefit greatly from trap or notch filters like the GRE's do.
I always thought they should mention the use of filters in the user manuals. I guess many users never use an external antenna though so they may not be affected by these problems.
Radioshack should sell an FM Trap with 50 ohm impedance and BNC connectors for the scanner market. I bet many of the 75 ohm TV version traps they sell are for scanner users! Of course then you need more adapters which all cause more loss. PAR is the way to go if you need a notch filter or FM trap. Way better quality and they will be tuned on frequency unlike the RS FM traps which I've seen tuned where they trap the lower part of the civil airband and miss the FM broadcast band. I've seen many RS traps tuned to the point that the center of the notch was more around 125 MHz and they did not atttenuate anything in the FM broadcast band. Just poor construction usually with no support for the coils inside so they would move around during shipping and detune themselves. Some use hot glue to hold the coils in place after tuning. I've also opened several that were way off frequency and found the coils just held in the air from the solder that hooked them all together. Drop one of those on a hard surface and the coils will move and your filter may now be tuned to another range of frequencies!
 
Last edited:

bep

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
509
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
Thank you all for the input and lessons taught.

Looking like a fool, I held the 197 upside down so the antenna, without the 90, was sticking straight up. Both units received the same a good portion of the time. Placing the 197 back at correct sitting with the antenna sticking straight out the back reception was not so good as the 106.

All my BNC 90's are RS, so I will be looking for new ones. Good thing there is a ham fest coming in a week or two.

Will have to do some research on the traps. This is all new to me, but am willing to learn and to do what it takes to get my humble shack receiving as I think it should.
 

RDGDigital

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
376
Location
MD - Eastern Shore
I don't know enough to give any advise but I just wanted to share my experience since I have the exact same setup. I have both the pro-106 and pro-197 sitting side by side. Both with the Radio Shack 800Mhz antennas, although the pro-197 has the right angle adapter. And they both were programed with the same Win 500 file.

In my case they both receive almost exactly the same. The only difference I can see is that they don't always lock on the same trunk group at the same time. I don't know if that means one is scanning trunk groups faster then the other or what. For me that's actually a good thing because I have a better chance of not missing traffic on other TGs.

Anyway that's just my experience.
 

kruser

Well Known Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
5,077
Location
W St Louis Cnty, MO
Will have to do some research on the traps. This is all new to me, but am willing to learn and to do what it takes to get my humble shack receiving as I think it should.

If you only monitor 800 systems, a trap or notch filter would not really do anything I don't think.
I've not read anything where FM broadcast stations are causing issues when tuning 700/800 systems as the radios internal bandpass filters should be doing their job.
If you plan on monitoring VHF systems though, an fm trap can make a big difference.
You could always purchase the trap and needed adapters at RS and test if you notice odd or poor reception on VHF. If it helps, take it all back and buy a better quality (more expensive!) PAR FM trap or keep the RS stuff.
One thing to watch for is attenuation of the higher frequencies when you have a trap or notch filter inline.
I've seen some of the RS FM traps cause a significant loss at 800 MHz while the next one worked fine. I'd bought a bunch of them from an ebay auction for a buck each still sealed in original packaging. That is how I was able to test so many of them and find they are not all created equally.
Then I tried the FM filter that scannermaster sells. It is a plain label filter that is also a high pass filter. It notches the FM broadcast band plus it attenuates everything below 30 MHz which can be nice for those near AM or SW broadcast stations. That filter also caused pretty good attenuation of the 700/800 frequencies. The 800 system I monitor does not have a good signal at my location so I cannot use any of the filters or traps that cause much attenuation or loss in the 800 range. I ended up using PAR's FM filter as it does not cause much loss in the upper frequencies.
I still use the other filters that cause loss at 800 on a GRE PSR600 that I use for monitoring our states new VHF P25 system that is slowly coming online. Without them, I cannot even hear a weak signal from the distant sites. Put an FM trap inline and I can get reception of some of the distant control channels with near perfect decode rates!
I'm always amazed at the day and night difference they can make depending on the source of any problems you may have.
They are not a cure all for everything and everyone though.

Visit PAR Electronics site and I think they have a page or PDF that does a pretty good job at explaining how a notch filter works and when they may help if you are interested in learning more about them.

Good luck in your search for a better 90 degree BNC adapter! If all seem to cause an issue, you may have better results with an antenna that has a swivel base. They usually use coax at the swivel part of the base and that can do a better job sometimes over a right angle BNC for some reason I don't understand.
 

bep

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
509
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
Thank you again for your input. Along with the 800 system I am trying to monitor I also cannot hear the state wide system that is 151-159 range. Will give the FM trap a try, and go from there.

Again thank you for your guidance
 

K9WG

Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
1,366
Location
Greenfield, Indiana USA
One other thought on comparing side-by-side. If you have two receivers in close proximity there is a chance the local oscillators (LO) and intermediate frequencies (IF) will interfere with each other. Depending on the current frequencies being scanned this could cause a de-sensing of a receiver or other kinds of interference. Handhelds could be more prone to this as they do not have the metal case like the mobile units have.
 

bep

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
509
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
In this case they were both close together and far apart (6 feet or so). The Pro 106 was the one always receiving, with the plastic case.
 

bep

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
509
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
OK, been doing some testing.

It appears that my old discone antenna is bad, or its location in the attic is poor. Either way I have placed a mobile magnet antenna to my galvanized roof (different roof), and reception is great. I also added the RS FM trap, the airport and marine channels are coming in better than before.

Do antennas give out?

I do have a Scantenna ready to put up, but I need help and I wont have a helper until later this year.
 

kruser

Well Known Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
5,077
Location
W St Louis Cnty, MO
OK, been doing some testing.

It appears that my old discone antenna is bad, or its location in the attic is poor. Either way I have placed a mobile magnet antenna to my galvanized roof (different roof), and reception is great. I also added the RS FM trap, the airport and marine channels are coming in better than before.

Do antennas give out?

I do have a Scantenna ready to put up, but I need help and I wont have a helper until later this year.

Antennas mounted in attics usually do not go bad. I guess loading coils could dry up and crack from the heat but you have a discone and they are pretty simple.
I'd suspect the coax at the scanner end has broken inside or it is like you said, the discone is just not in a good location.
I assume you mentioned a different roof to say that the roof your discone is under is not galvanized or metal roofing! That would sure kill most signals from reaching the discone in the attic.
Coax usually last a long time as well especially if it is in an attic and not exposed to rain.
The end that connects to your scanner, do you disconnect that or move it around much? That can cause a break in the inner conductor or outer shield which will cause problems. If you are using large coax like LMR400 or RG8, many will place a coupler at the scanner end and then attach a short 5 foot or so length of smaller coax so it does not place strain on the large coax or the scanner. The loss is minimal so that is the way to go if you are running large diameter coax from your antenna to your scanner. Put a short jumper coax of say RG58 not more then a few feet long at the indoor end.
In your case, you could end the large coax at the FM Trap and then use smaller stuff from the trap to the scanner. You really don't want a lot of weight hanging off the scanner especially a handheld one. If a mobile or base scanner, you can run the large stuff to the scanner but support it and the scanner somehow so neither can move when you operate the scanner and the weight of the coax does not bend down in back and eventually rip out of its connector or worse, rip the connector jack out of the scanner!

Is your discone used? If so, it could have spent several years outdoors but again, I think it is rare for a discone to fail. If it has all the rod elements, it should be fine.
What kind of coax are you using and how long to the discone?
You don't really want anything longer than maybe 25-30 feet if you are dealing with frequencies above 170 MHz. The loss in the smaller RG-58 type coax adds up very fast at UHF and higher frequencies so keep that stuff short.
If your coax run must be longer, try and use LMR400 from Times Microwave or Belden's 9913. I think you will find cheaper cost fittings for the LMR400 over the 9913. 9913 has a slightly larger center conductor diameter which prevents the use of most of the fittings made for RG8.
Of course if you do not have the needed tools to install the connectors on LMR400, I'd try and purchase it online with the length you need and the correct connectors already installed. Installing the connectors on the larger coax can be a pain in the rear if you have never done it plus some of the tools can cost more than the coax with fittings installed already!!

Many here also use a good quality RG-6 Quad Shield. It is 75 ohm though and the antennas and most scanners are designed for 50 ohms. Many will argue that it makes no difference but I've seen quad shield not bring in a signal that LMR400 will so I usually disagree with those thoughts and only use 50 ohm cable. If your intended signals are decent strength, then using RG6 quad shield is fine though and it sure is cheaper plus you can buy a kit with the compression connectors and the tool for compressing them to the cable really cheap. Most of that will be the typical F connector though like used for cable tv so you must still use adapters to get back to the antenna's connector and the BNC of the scanner. Each time you add an adapter, you loose about 0.5 dB of signal strength. If you loss adds to 3dB from adapters, you have now lost half your signal. Each 3dB of loss equals about half the original available signal. Same goes for gain, if you buy an antenna with 3dB of gain at the frequency you monitor, you have about doubled the signal strength. Discone's usually have 0 gain. That does not make them bad though especially if you are working with decent signal levels to begin with.

I'm glad to hear that the FM Trap seems to have helped.
I'm sure you tried adding the trap in the coax line from the discone.

At least you are making some progress!
 
Last edited:

bep

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2003
Messages
509
Location
Virginia Beach, Va.
Wow, more info to digest. Thank you for the response.
The discone antenna was used, and I have had it for at least 10 years. It is sitting under a fiberglass shingled roof. The coax cable was one that was run for future video signal. Figured I could use it since it was already run.
The current working mag mount antenna is also utilizing an extra video run cable. Both cables run from the attic and down two floors, so I guess at least 50 feet.
I think I am going to (sometime) get the Scantenna up and run the LMR cable exterior to my little shack.
Thanks again
 

Lexx333

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
24
Location
Oklahoma
PRO197 has a known history of signal overloading. I installed a PAR Electronics FM trap (filters out FM broadcast band) and a NOAA WX trap to remove 162.4-.55. Improvement was significant across all bands (the interference can affect any band).
You can also try the attenuator and see if that helps.

chris

Where did you get the WX trap? I am wanting to purchase one as well. thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top