• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

Pro-96/2096 DSP 1.3 Upgrade Available

Status
Not open for further replies.

jimmnn

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
14,327
Location
Colorado
So has anyone figured if this upgrade is needed or helpful for Colorado DTRS?

Jim<
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,356
Location
Lansing, MI
If you monitor a digital system, this will help. If you monitor a simulcast CQPSK digital system, this will dramatically improve your reception.

Given the price of upgrading (5 minutes of your time) I'd say it's worth it regardless. But given the note that it improves weak digital reception, unless you are always close to a tower I'd do it.
 

jimmnn

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
14,327
Location
Colorado
rdale said:
If you monitor a digital system, this will help. If you monitor a simulcast CQPSK digital system, this will dramatically improve your reception.

Given the price of upgrading (5 minutes of your time) I'd say it's worth it regardless. But given the note that it improves weak digital reception, unless you are always close to a tower I'd do it.
I heard it was only designed to fix a problem with the Detroit system, everyone else much just be experiencing placebo effect.

Jim<
 

scanlist

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
2,032
Location
Greeley, CO
Wasn't the Detroit situation where the table data was no longer transmitted on the Control Channels?

Phil.
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,356
Location
Lansing, MI
This is not the "Superbowl" fix, the Pro96 never needed the implicit fix (this is the scanner that still worked.) The 396T needed the Superbowl fix.

Anyways, my post above says exactly what this does. It is primarily intended to dramatically improve CQPSK P25 simulcast systems. If you listen to a digital simulcast tower(s), you need this update.

As a side affect it improves the decode quality for signals that aren't full strength. So unless you are getting a strong signal 24/7, it will help all P25 users.

No reason not to update.

The reason they call it the "Detroit" fix is because that's where the initial testing was done, if you're familiar with the issues of CQPSK reception -- all digital scanners were horrid and Detroit is the biggest market to suffer from it. So that's probably why GRE/RS did their testing there. It has nothing to do with Detroit itself, this also greatly improved the quality in Flint and Monroe MI (also CQPSK) and near Columbus OH with their CQPSK system...
 
Last edited:

abqscan

DataBase Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
2,620
Location
AOA
The
detroit info came straight from someone inside RS :D

-Viva Las Vegas
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,356
Location
Lansing, MI
And we all know how good RS sources are! Why not check with GRE since it's their scanner ;>
 

abqscan

DataBase Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 8, 2002
Messages
2,620
Location
AOA
Ya, i guess they buyer for RS isn't good enought huh.
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,356
Location
Lansing, MI
When he's wrong - yes.

If he said this only affects Detroit, he's very wrong. Read the reports thread in the RS forum here and you'll see MANY non-Detroit improvement reports. This is a CQPSK fix, not a Detroit fix.
 
Last edited:

jimmnn

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 2002
Messages
14,327
Location
Colorado
rckydenver said:
So, has anyone here in Colorado download this into there Pro96/2096 radio yet?..I'm still debating if i want to do this or not.
Yes I have updated 2 of my 6 Pro-96/2096 radios. About the same maybe a little better weak signal reception and audio appears cleaner to me.

Now doing a side my side comparison on the same TG's.

Jim<
 

rckydenver

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
1,478
Location
Arvada, Colorado
Thanks Jim, Notice on the download page that there is 1.2 followed by 1.3 is there any need to do that in order? Both of those where posted on Aug 17, 06.
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,356
Location
Lansing, MI
rckydenver said:
I'm still debating if i want to do this or not.
I'm just curious - what's the debate? What is the 'con' of upgrading to the latest? No cost, just a few minutes of your time, good reports all around -- what not?
 

Halfpint

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2004
Messages
949
Location
Slightly NE of the People's Republic of Firestone
rckydenver said:
I'm still debating if i want to do this or not.
Yep.

I've got 3 PRO-96s, 1 with CPU V.1.1 and 2 with CPU V.1.4, and I did the `upgrade' to one of the V.1.4 ones and am doing a bit of a comparison between all three setup off of a common RS #20-283 800MHz antenna via a Stridsberg 4-port multicoupler along with one of my PRO-2096s that hasn't been `upgraded' and is running off of my `normal' outside antenna.

So far I haven't really noticed any `improvements' and *might* actually have some `degradation' on *some* signals but, it's, as far as *I* am concerned, still too early to really tell. I'd really like to take a few days worth of listening to try and be a tad bit more certain. (Just in case it *might* make a `difference' I've manually selected 35th Avenue site, dunno *if* it'll actually stay `on site', though it appears to be doing so right now, as such but that is where I'm starting from at least, and then manually selected `hold' on the WLPD S Dsp TG 1946 for one of my tests. I am also going to try `camping out' on 35th Ave & Weld Law 1 TG 1930, 35th Ave & the Road & Bridges C8 Motor TG 9017, and doing a `free run' on Weld SO, Weld FD, Weld LG/R&B, and Greeley TGs with just the 35th Ave site unlocked for a few hours each in sort of a `rotation'. I'll change sites now and then as, or if, it seems that some sort of `pattern' may develop. [If someone else has any suggestions that might work up this way I'm open to them.])

*If* there is/are any noticeable improvement(s) that are `worthwhile' I'll probably go ahead and `flash?' all of my PRO-96/2096s. After all... I can always go back to V.1.2 if it turns out that the `upgrade' doesn't help after we finally get moved or there are any `issues' that only show up later on `down the road'. {WAN GRIN!} However... *I* am hoping that this `upgrade' actually does make some decent `improvements' which makes these scanners even better than they already are. ('Course I am also hoping that once the `re-banding' is done and over with that GRE and RS see fit to offer either a free or cheap `upgrade' to all of us owners instead of making us go out and buy all new scanners. [That's not to say that I probably wouldn't go and buy some new scanners *if* they actually came out with ones that were *definitely* a `step up' from these. But, it would *have* to be a *definite* `step up' not just a few minor `mods'.)

Just an `Olde Fart's' 2¢ worth.
 

scanlist

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
2,032
Location
Greeley, CO
It does improve decoding of distant weaker signals at home and at the office. I was able to decode and track off of the horsetooth site which I have never been able to do before at the office.

Audio quality is slightly different with a little more of the low end of the voice spectrum though nowhere near as bassy as the original 1.1 codec.

It also appears to be react better to over cranked CSP Denver dispatcher mics too.

Phil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top