SDS100/SDS200: SDS Firmware 12/21/23 Digital Reception Improvements

[maus92]

so some observations, with both of the new firmware version tested with all of the filters (they did not really change the performance), the D-error rate was min of 40 and maxed out at 130, while idle on the CC, the Rssi was -50 to -70 under load the Rssi was -80 to -109. after revert back to the 1.20.00 firmware and all the filters set back to auto, the the D-error rate was min of 0 and maxed out at 10, while idle on the CC, the Rssi was -70 to -80 under load the Rssi was -60 to -75

the system for testing is the Charles County Motorola Type II Smartnet, sitting 1 mile from the tower

I've found that the Wide Invert filter doesn't improve the SDS200 reception in my office located about 6 air miles south of the Williamsville subsite and outside the service area of the DE system - it might even be detrimental. It does seem to help the SDS100 when in my vehicle when withing the service area of the Sussex simulcast cell, but I'm still experiencing breakups, missed and incomplete transmissions. If I had a lot of time, I'd try to identify if it is specific channels (frequencies) that are causing the issue. It appears that whatever was changed in the FW is allowing co-channel interference between the site's channels - perhaps there's a timing issue with DE's infrastructure, but I doubt that as it seems to be happening with multiple systems and sites.

I did install the latest FW "patch" this morning, and I'll take it out for testing later today. I think I have 1.21 on another computer that I haven't update Sentinel and / or used it to update radios. I've saving it in case Uniden doesn't acknowledge or fix the problem.

 

[maus92]

Updating the above: it appears that the updated new firmware corrects my issues with simulcast SmartZone with digital voice. Reception seems to be back to normal when using the SDS100 within the simulcast cell's service area. The only other variable that has changed is the weather - it's clear today with temps in the mid 50's (rather than dreary low clouds and rain.)

 

[IcomIcR20]

I just applied the updated firmware, but unfortunately I am still seeing some digital decode issues on my local Motorola Type II simulcast system. I am in the service area with a strong signal.

 

[Dewey]

Updating the above: it appears that the updated new firmware corrects my issues with simulcast SmartZone with digital voice. Reception seems to be back to normal when using the SDS100 within the simulcast cell's service area. The only other variable that has changed is the weather - it's clear today with temps in the mid 50's (rather than dreary low clouds and rain.)

I was hoping, so I tried. Once again, completely awful decoding with the same effects... transmissions that either fade out or go robotic after 2 to 4 minutes, and other times, totally missed transmissions. Fortunately, I only tried it on the 200 this time instead of doing the 100 and the 200. I don't think I spent over 5 or 10 minutes of trying with no better results before I rolled back to 1.21.00/6-29-2022.

 

[NCFireman11]

I just applied the updated firmware, but unfortunately I am still seeing some digital decode issues on my local Motorola Type II simulcast system. I am in the service area with a strong signal.

Same here. It seems like the tail end of a conversation is the hang up for me. No decode errors, then just before they unkey the mic the error rate will shoot up to 113-115. Meanwhile, my 536 hears the entire thing with no errors. None of the filters fix this and some make it worse.

 

[IcomIcR20]

Same here. It seems like the tail end of a conversation is the hang up for me. No decode errors, then just before they unkey the mic the error rate will shoot up to 113-115. Meanwhile, my 536 hears the entire thing with no errors. None of the filters fix this and some make it worse.

That is precisely what I am seeing here, although it is not always at the end of the transmissions for me. I believe we are listening to the same system, so it is good to get some confirmation that others are hearing the same behavior on the same system. No issues with my 436.

 

[KevinC]

Same here. It seems like the tail end of a conversation is the hang up for me. No decode errors, then just before they unkey the mic the error rate will shoot up to 113-115. Meanwhile, my 536 hears the entire thing with no errors. None of the filters fix this and some make it worse.

Check if "End Code" is set to "Analog+Digital".

 

[NCFireman11]

That is precisely what I am seeing here, although it is not always at the end of the transmissions for me. I believe we are listening to the same system, so it is good to get some confirmation that others are hearing the same behavior on the same system. No issues with my 436.

I believe so, monitoring the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Type II System. Wide normal filter seems to give me a better RSSI but Wide invert jumps up to over -110 RSSI but I get less errors. I am very close to a simulcast tower so it shouldn't jump that high. Neither filter is great, however.

 

[maus92]

Weird - I had 4 hours of so in the Selbyville / Ocean View / Bethany Beach / Fenwick Island areas and the only breakup was on the subscriber side as noted by their dispatcher. Night and day for me. But that area is covered by two subsites: Roxannna / WIlliamsville and Ocean View / Bethany Beach. I'll be in the Rehoboth area on NYE, so I'll be watching then (2 other subsites cover that area.) I didn't get near Dagsboro today which is the another site that covers lower Sussex. Still using the Wide Invert on the SDS100. Normal filter works on my SDS200, monitoring from outside the service area.

 

[NCFireman11]

Check if "End Code" is set to "Analog+Digital".

Analog+Digital is the setting I have it on. Is this not right?

 

[KevinC]

Analog+Digital is the setting I have it on. Is this not right?

I would think that is correct. The mention of errors at the end is suspect, maybe the end code feature got screwed up in the new FW.

 

[KevinC]

Maybe try different end code settings and see if it makes a difference.

 

[station09]

I was hoping, so I tried. Once again, completely awful decoding with the same effects... transmissions that either fade out or go robotic after 2 to 4 minutes, and other times, totally missed transmissions. Fortunately, I only tried it on the 200 this time instead of doing the 100 and the 200. I don't think I spent over 5 or 10 minutes of trying with no better results before I rolled back to 1.21.00/6-29-2022.

How do you roll back ? Thank you

 

[RaleighGuy]

How do you roll back ? Thank you

There is a whole thread for that, though someone hid it in the Uniden Tech Support Forum, hmmmm who would have guessed.

SDS100/SDS200: - How can I go back to the previous firmware

I just downloaded the new firmware and I am not happy with it. How can I go back to the previous version? Thanks, Ed

forums.radioreference.com

 

[Ubbe]

Wide normal filter seems to give me a better RSSI but Wide invert jumps up to over -110 RSSI but I get less errors.

Filters are used to filter out interfering transmitters, so aim for lowest RSSI, most negative value that only receives the transmitter the scanner are tuned to and not other transmitters that adds to the signal strength as the RSSI meter senses a several MHz wide spectrum. But -110dBm are just at the squelch level so an extremely low level. For digital signals the D-error value are the best indicator, to try and get as few errors as possible trying all settings of filters, IFX and attenuator and in different combinations.

/Ubbe

 

[Peerlessk]

Instead of rolling back . How about Uniden fixes the issues uniden has caused because of firmware updates ? This scanner has been released now a few years . for Uniden to release firmware that causes problems for the consumer having the time now to provide issue free firmware is absolutely ridiculous. Uniden needs to fix any issues . Rolling back ? Heck no this is on Uniden

 

[werinshades]

Instead of rolling back . How about Uniden fixes the issues uniden has caused because of firmware updates ? This scanner has been released now a few years . for Uniden to release firmware that causes problems for the consumer having the time now to provide issue free firmware is absolutely ridiculous. Uniden needs to fix any issues . Rolling back ? Heck no this is on Uniden

While many here will agree with you, if your scanner was previously receiving a system that's important to you, then it's not, you'd like to find an immediate solution out of pure frustration. "Rolling back" is an alternative until the problems are corrected. Unlike the current procedure for firmware upgrades, you have to load the bin and firmware file directly into the scanners firmware folder. I either plug the scanner into the computer and put it into Mass Storage Mode, or use my USB/SD card adapter and plug it into the computer.

 

[station09]

Instead of rolling back . How about Uniden fixes the issues uniden has caused because of firmware updates ? This scanner has been released now a few years . for Uniden to release firmware that causes problems for the consumer having the time now to provide issue free firmware is absolutely ridiculous. Uniden needs to fix any issues . Rolling back ? Heck no this is on Uniden

I

While many here will agree with you, if your scanner was previously receiving a system that's important to you, then it's not, you'd like to find an immediate solution out of pure frustration. "Rolling back" is an alternative until the problems are corrected. Unlike the current procedure for firmware upgrades, you have to load the bin and firmware file directly into the scanners firmware folder. I either plug the scanner into the computer and put it into Mass Storage Mode, or use my USB/SD card adapter and plug it into the computer.

Instead of rolling back . How about Uniden fixes the issues uniden has caused because of firmware updates ? This scanner has been released now a few years . for Uniden to release firmware that causes problems for the consumer having the time now to provide issue free firmware is absolutely ridiculous. Uniden needs to fix any issues . Rolling back ? Heck no this is on Uniden

I totally agree

 

[Randyk4661]

Not going to say this will solve everyone's problems here,
Yesterday I was fine tuning a system in the Los Angeles area.
I always use a filter to help the receive on digital systems.
I had one site that I could receive but just never sounded right. Trying all the filters, only the inverted filters help.
Then I turned the filter setting to off, now that site booms in better than the other sites on the system.

Try all the options in the filters including the off setting.
I hope this helps at least one other person, it did me.

Thanks and good luck

 

[Ubbe]

Try all the options in the filters including the off setting.

Yes, try also the Auto filters even if they are slowing down scanning while evaluating them. If Auto Wide works then it is either Wide Normal or Wide Invert that works, and if Auto works it is either Normal or Invert that works, so its just a matter of testing both alternatives to find the one that auto was using. The best would be if Uniden could make the filter item selection in the display to show what filter that are actually in use in real time by the auto setting.

The filters Off setting are the normal filter type as used by other scanners.
The Normal selection are a high pass filter that pass frequencies above the monitored one and more importantly blocks lower frequencies.
Invert are a low pass filter that works the opposite to the Normal setting.
Wide are settings that only goes halfway to Normal and Invert.

The filter are 10MHz wide and the SDR receiver are too sensitive to other signals within that filter range when other scanners are not and doesn't need any filter settings. Uniden could have used a more narrow filter that works to block both lower and higher frequenies at the same time but those are way more costly and would have made SDS scanners even more expensive.

/Ubbe