Radio Shack Pro-2096

[W9NES]

Monitoring a p -25 system and I have the base freq set to 856.000 and the offset to 75 and the split to 6.25. audio is not clear. Also have noiticed the vc channels are cutting out during a transmission. Has anyone that has a 2096 help me idea and settings to try? Thanks

 

[Engine104]

Dear W9NES,

I've had the same issues monitoring a P25 system here in Los Angeles on my Pro-96. As you know, the 2096 shares much of the same circuitry as the Pro-96. I was able to improve reception using extended tables in Win 96, but the signal is still very directional.

Maybe go to the geographic forums on here and let the guys know what system you are trying to monitor. I was eventually able to find the correct settings for my situation that way. Just be sure to point out that the 2096 (like my 96) will not automatically setup the system based on information from the control channel. It has to be setup manually in Win 96.

I hope that helps.

73,

-Larry (KG6EJT)

 

[W9NES]

Thanks Larry, It has been rebanded.

 

[Engine104]

No problem. I hope it is a system that the 2096 can still receive somehow.

73,

-Larry (KG6EJT)

 

[ka3jjz]

If it indeed has been rebanded (and it's not a true P25 system), then you must use Win96 or ARC96 to set up the proper values for the tables; I don't think the ones listed in this first message are right.

We have specific instructions for both packages in the wiki;

Win96 - The RadioReference Wiki

ARC96 - The RadioReference Wiki

It should also be noted that seeing that radio is so old, that folks have found that making a minor adjustment in the RF section brings everything back in alignment. Check this forum for the procedure - it sounds pretty simple. It wouldn't be so surprising that some of the components have drifted out of spec over the years.

Mike

 

[ka3jjz]

I found the procedure for the 96 - the 2096 ought to be pretty close.

PRO-96 Internal Adjustments - The RadioReference Wiki

Note that if you do tweak VR4, VR2 and 3 MIGHT also need tweaking, as a couple of threads suggest it's involved with UHF reception. One of the message in that thread the wiki has a link to says that VR3 is the one that handles 800 Mhz on the 2096. Caution suggested. It also suggests that having DSP 1.4 firmware might be a good idea; there's a link to it in the 2096 wiki article; unfortunately I don't think there are any instructions...

Mike

 

[Engine104]

Hi KA3JJZ,

Thanks so much.. In my case, the alignment for UHF and 800 on my 96 is still very close, as evidenced by listening to other local systems. I just don't think these old radios handle P25 very well. I've heard from several people out here in L.A. who are also having issues with one of our TRS' that recently went to P25. It is possible to track and receive P25 systems on the 2096 and the 96, with extended tables in Win 96, as you wrote, but the audio can still be a bit choppy at times.

TNX & 73,

Larry (KG6EJT)

 

[ka3jjz]

Actually Larry, if that migration to P25 is fairly recent, there might be a better explanation. It's been noted in several other places that new systems tend to restructure and realign their antennas to concentrate coverage inside their target area, and reduce it in the outlying ones. About 2 years ago, Philadelphia did this as a prime example, and the poor folks there are still dealing with this. My own home (Prince George's county in Maryland) did this with their Phase 2 system that went online about the same time Philly was making their changes, and had a similar result.

The official (??) argument (yeah, right) was this was intended to reduce co channel interference, but who's buying that one.

Of course simulcast distortion issues have been plaguing us for years now - and scanner manufacturers have yet to catch up

Mike

 

[Engine104]

Actually Larry, if that migration to P25 is fairly recent, there might be a better explanation. It's been noted in several other places that new systems tend to restructure and realign their antennas to concentrate coverage inside their target area, and reduce it in the outlying ones. About 2 years ago, Philadelphia did this as a prime example, and the poor folks there are still dealing with this. My own home (Prince George's county in Maryland) did this with their Phase 2 system that went online about the same time Philly was making their changes, and had a similar result.

The official (??) argument (yeah, right) was this was intended to reduce co channel interference, but who's buying that one.

Of course simulcast distortion issues have been plaguing us for years now - and scanner manufacturers have yet to catch up

Mike

Hi Mike,

I totally agree. This is very much the case with the P25 system here that I was describing. ICIS (Very unfortunate name, but then they can claim they had it first ) has separate cells for Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena, among others. Those three communities are geographically adjoining each other and their frequencies are close in the spectrum as well. It seems there could be a lot of interference issues if they did not make the transmitter output as directional as possible.

73,

-Larry (KG6EJT)