PSR-500 vs. PRO-96 results

[mancow]

I can't figure out what the error could be on my end. I only have talk group and that's a generic wildcard.

It's sitting here showing 1199 and other talk groups, the light is on but nobody's home.

So far it looks like one of those "issues" was operator error. User had several instances of the same TGRP and possibly one of those was lockout or set to ignore or something. The user reset the scanner, reprogrammed and everything works fine now. It will be interesting to see if it keeps working fine for him or not....

 

[wwhitby]

I've been using my '500 in my car over the last couple of days. These are my impressions:

- Seeing what's on the display with a quick glance isn't a problem. I had been concerned, due to the slightly smaller characters.

- I tried the shorting the ear phone jack resistor to the BNC connector with a piece of wire trick, and although the audio was louder, it didn't seem to be as loud as that on my PRO-96. GRE wasn't kidding when they said to use an amplified speaker. BTW, I use an amplified speaker in my commuter car, and it works fine.

- The '500 seems better at rejecting interference when I go through high RF areas. There's one area that swamps railroad frequencies on my PRO-96. The '500 doesn't have a problem in this area. BTW, this is using a mag mount antenna on the car.

Warren

 

[djg000111]

CQPSK: 2096 vs 500

so ummm, what about CQPSK 9600bps P-25 systems? any comparisons between the two radios?

In Michigan, I monitor the Macomb County Simulcast CQPSK P-25 System. I have a Pro-2096 and a PSR-500 on at the same time. Approximately, for every 10 calls I hear on the Pro-2096, I hear 1 call on the PSR-500. The Pro-2096 will follow a talk group when the replies are within the delay time. The PSR-500 seems to randomly pick talk groups and do not follow any talk groups. Both radios have their stock antenna.

 

[LawnCowboy]

any more comparisons? especially after whatever firmware fixes have been updated for the PSR-500?

 

[djg000111]

Cqpsk

any more comparisons? especially after whatever firmware fixes have been updated for the PSR-500?

I think we are the only two people that have CQPSK in our area.

The DSP beta firmware helps but the Pro-2096 is still better for CQPSK.

With the new beta firmware I can hear more on the PSR-500 than before. I now have drop outs that can occur anywhere in the message. These drop outs can be one word to several words. The PSR-500 still misses a lot of the calls.

 

[mikey60]

I think we are the only two people that have CQPSK in our area.

The DSP beta firmware helps but the Pro-2096 is still better for CQPSK.

With the new beta firmware I can hear more on the PSR-500 than before. I now have drop outs that can occur anywhere in the message. These drop outs can be one word to several words. The PSR-500 still misses a lot of the calls.

I'm in the SE corner of Oakland County. I have both the Detroit and Macomb CQPSK systems within range (although I'm just outside the intended footprint of both it seems).

I've only put the Pro-96 and PSR-500 side by side on a couple of occasions, but when I did, I found that the Pro-96 did a little better at picking up on when the transmissions were occuring, and the PSR-500 did better at decoding the audio.

When turned on attenuation, the PSR-500 was doing as well or better at finding the transmissions as the Pro-96. I'm guessing (and this is strictly a guess since I don't have test equipment to prove it) at the moment that the receiver in the PSR-500 is more sensitive than the Pro-96, and is getting more interference from the multi-path signals from the other transmitters on the system. The Attenuation helps reduce the multi-path and makes the radio decode better.

YMMV, but you might try turning on the Attenuation and see if it helps. With the upgrades, it also seems to help a lot if the SuperTrack option is turned on in the TSYS object for the system.

Mike

 

[djg000111]

CQPSK: PSR-500 Vs Pro2096

I think I have a very good Pro-2096 or a bad PSR-500.

I have tried the "big G" attenuator. Maybe a slight improvement with signal detection. The Pro-2096 is still better.

I purchased the PSR-500 because I wanted something better than the Pro-2096. Maybe I not suppose to have two-in-a-row good radios.

 

[DonS]

I think I have a very good Pro-2096 or a bad PSR-500.

I have tried the "big G" attenuator. Maybe a slight improvement with signal detection. The Pro-2096 is still better.

I purchased the PSR-500 because I wanted something better than the Pro-2096. Maybe I not suppose to have two-in-a-row good radios.

And, of course, both of these radios are connected to the same antenna?

 

[fmon]

I think I have a very good Pro-2096 or a bad PSR-500.

I have tried the "big G" attenuator. Maybe a slight improvement with signal detection.

If near my PC I need the "big A" next to the "big G".

 

[NYG]

I think I have a very good Pro-2096 or a bad PSR-500.

I have tried the "big G" attenuator. Maybe a slight improvement with signal detection. The Pro-2096 is still better.

I purchased the PSR-500 because I wanted something better than the Pro-2096. Maybe I not suppose to have two-in-a-row good radios.

The big "G" only means the attenuator is set to global. It's not active unless the big "A" is on too. At least that's how it looks to me.

 

[SCPD]

Pro-96 vs PSR-500 on C4FM-Wide Digital

Where I live I can hear multiple systems which include strong/no simulcast distortion, strong/heavy simulcast distortion.

There is a point there, you can have a 5 bar signal and still have bad simulcast distortion. If you listen to the CC in Tune or Analyze mode you can still hear the signal is bad with simulcast distortion which sounds like a periodic noise/ringing sound (I hear it multiple times a second).

Strong / No simulcast distortion:
I found that I can not tell the difference at all (both are perfect) between the Pro-96 and PSR-500 on this system regardless of the PSR-500 CPU or DSP firmware load, although I do like to see some of the new items on the CPU upgrade.

Strong / Heavy simulcast distortion:
Here is where the Pro-96 was winning until the U0.2 and U0.3 DSP upgrades on the PSR-500. After upgrading the PSR-500, and listening in a variety of locations (mobile, handheld around house, and also on a discone with a 800 MHz capable passive "Y" adapter so both radios hear the exact same thing), I find now that the PSR-500 has the edge over the Pro-96 on how fast the audio initially comes on and how well it tracks the DG audio. With that being said, in handheld mode, I sure can place the radios in relative locations that give the edge to one over the other, but that is not a fair test. If I play with the radio's (handheld) locations and smooth out the performance in my mind, The PSR-500 still has the edge and I can now copy 90-100 percent of my local crappy system, where the Pro-96 only copies maybe 50-70 percent. While mobile the PSR-500 is much improved with the upgrades and is as good if not slightly better than the Pro-96.

How I have found to make simulcast distortion less of an issue when handheld... I place the radio on its side or back and rotate it so the antenna ultimately points away from a transmitter site. This causes the site in question to be reduced in energy and therefor allows the other site to have more capture which reduces the simulcast distortion. It is just a simple trick I learned by "fox-hunting" in ham radio (you can also experiment with holding the radio close to your chest and rotating your body around (body blocking a transmitter). When I connect to the discone, I can not use the above method, so on a simulcast system, I can often get better results with the radio handheld. I bet that a nice well pointed beam might also help, but I have not tried that yet.

Clearly where the PSR-500 shines now post upgrade, is I get equal to or better than the nice Pro-96 performance now, but with a much more powerful user interface.

 

[djg000111]

CQPSK: PSR-500 Vs Pro2096

Thank you everybody for the comments on my post.

This morning I made sure that I had the "Big G and A". My pro-2096 is still better than the PSR-500 (with or without the big A).

The pro-2096 has the stock telescopic antenna in the shortest position. The PSR-500 has the stock antenna. I have a Radio Shack 800 MHz antenna that is for hand held scanners. The 800 MHz antenna does not improve the performance of the PSR-500.

If a ringing sound on the CQPSK simulcast control channel indicates strong heavy simulcast distortion, then I have CQPSK simulcast distortion. (How do the police and fire departments make their radios work when the simulcast system has strong heavy simulcast distortion?)

I have the U0.2 DSP firmware.

 

[SCPD]

Thank you everybody for the comments on my post.

This morning I made sure that I had the "Big G and A". My pro-2096 is still better than the PSR-500 (with or without the big A).

The pro-2096 has the stock telescopic antenna in the shortest position. The PSR-500 has the stock antenna. I have a Radio Shack 800 MHz antenna that is for hand held scanners. The 800 MHz antenna does not improve the performance of the PSR-500.

If a ringing sound on the CQPSK simulcast control channel indicates strong heavy simulcast distortion, then I have CQPSK simulcast distortion. (How do the police and fire departments make their radios work when the simulcast system has strong heavy simulcast distortion?)

I have the U0.2 DSP firmware.

When listening to a control channel what I hear (will do the best I can typing)....
if "normal" = a clean CC I hear:
normal (mixed normal and "fff fi fi ff fi" sound), normal.. etc... The "ff fi fi ff fi" intermixed sound happens every second to multiple times a second. It is a mixed RF noise and ringing sound.

The pros actually have problems with this too. In my area I hear they are thinking of site changes to mitigate the worst areas.

 

[djg000111]

CQPSK: PSR-500 vs Pro-2096

When listening to a control channel what I hear (will do the best I can typing)....
if "normal" = a clean CC I hear:
normal (mixed normal and "fff fi fi ff fi" sound), normal.. etc... The "ff fi fi ff fi" intermixed sound happens every second to multiple times a second. It is a mixed RF noise and ringing sound.

The pros actually have problems with this too. In my area I hear they are thinking of site changes to mitigate the worst areas.

I hear something like you are describing. The ringing noise is not always present. Most of the time I have a normal clean CC. The ring noise, when present, lasts for a few seconds and then I have a clean CC. The ring noise is present in just about any one minute interval.

The 2096 is not a perfect receiver. One night I restricted my monitoring to 3 talk groups and I kept score for 100 consecutive calls. The 2096 received 85%. I know the 2096 missed some calls because I could hear the calls on the 500. The 500 with the CPU and DSP upgrade received 82% with many drop outs.