blackbelter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2004
- Messages
- 864
The same occasional garbled transmission on the only one talk group is still present.
Last edited:
SDS100/SDS200: SDS100/SDS200 New Public Release Sub CPU 1.03.05
- Thread starter Enforcer52
- Start date
I'm still having more garbled transmissions than before. I've tried changing the SD card, no change. i'm now going through all the different filters. I know the release notes said RSSI is more accurate now than before. Mine went from being -50 to -60 on the old firmware to now -100 to -115 dBm. not sure if this is due to the new accuracy or something else? anybody else have comparisons on this?
I just commented over on the Maine forum about general improvement on the mscommnet vhf Project 25 Phase I system. I am located in a pretty bad location but can receive at least 3 sites with slightly better rssi and definitely better decoding. Global filter=wide invert. Also best for analog vhf for my location. Again maybe a slight improvement in analog. No uhf so cannot compare.
Ubbe
Member
The RSSI level are detected over a wide frequency range if another transmitter at another frequency are too strong. When selecting filter and IFX you should probably try and get as low signal as possible as the filter are supposed to block other interfering signals and only leave the one you are monitoring. So -110dBm seems to be the true signal you have and -60dBm are when you have another strong signal interfering with reception.
If another signal within 7MHz are way too strong then the receiver has an automatic gain that reduce its sensitivity and you could loose the signal you are monitoring and the AGC detector sits before the filter function so it doesn't help trying all filter settings.
If the signal you are monitoring are digital then only go by the D-error value and not signal level when selecting filter.
/Ubbe
richee2000
Communications Professional
Strong, Local P25 systems sound fine.
But, all moderate and weaker channels and systems are not being received at all, this is the same problem.......
This new update has NOT fixed the issue of decreased signal strength
But, all moderate and weaker channels and systems are not being received at all, this is the same problem.......
This new update has NOT fixed the issue of decreased signal strength
Last edited:
Yes sir i agree.
Point of Information:
For those updating the SDS200 and you previously updated the beta Main Version 1.23.03A, Sentinel will only update the Sub CPU to 1.03.05 unless you wipe your SD card (SD Card formatter), on Sentinel, Scanner...Clear User Data (check the box to Display all Drives), then Write to Scanner (it will write your current scanner's programming), then Update Firmware and you will have the current public release 1.23.03 (No A at the end). I don't know the difference in the Main Versions, just in the event you want to have the public version in the SDS200.
For those updating the SDS200 and you previously updated the beta Main Version 1.23.03A, Sentinel will only update the Sub CPU to 1.03.05 unless you wipe your SD card (SD Card formatter), on Sentinel, Scanner...Clear User Data (check the box to Display all Drives), then Write to Scanner (it will write your current scanner's programming), then Update Firmware and you will have the current public release 1.23.03 (No A at the end). I don't know the difference in the Main Versions, just in the event you want to have the public version in the SDS200.
richee2000
Communications Professional
SDS100: I rolled back to Main 1.21.00 Sub 1.02.01, back to normal reception, but no waterfall option.
As noted, the new public release sub CPU 1.03.05 update through Sentinel provides inferior reception on moderate to weak P25 systems
Last edited:
Yes i did the same ,ive tried to work through this ,UNIDEN Needs to fix this for the amount of money paying for these units .
I think you might be confusing Motorola Type 2 with P25 systems. No mention in the release notes of improving weak P25 systems just to those with Motorola Type 2 systems which is different.
richee2000
Communications Professional
Nope I'm not confusing anything. No matter what the release notes say I am giving you real world experience. I stand by my information posted
No, I got that and we can all do the same. The difference is you seem to be confused as to what the release notes say versus your expectations. I have a P25 Phase 2 system I monitor, and with the filter changes on Type 2 systems, it has made some improvements. So on the other side of the coin, it has improved things and that's my real world experience. You did the right thing, dialed back to a version that works and wait until release notes come out with the verbiage "improves weaker P25 systems reception" or something along those lines. None of the recent releases had notes attached saying they improved weaker P25 systems. If a previous version is working for you, that's great, but from reading through the threads since the beta releases, some appear to be much happier. This is the most beta release activity we've seen in awhile, and takes patience.
richee2000
Communications Professional
I never referenced any release notes.
I never referenced any release notes. I simply dialed back The firmware to where I was getting good p25 reception on the systems that I monitor, before uniden released the update with the waterfall option that has led to reception problems for multiple users, including me.... As I stated, here are my experiences:
All public releases of updated firmware through sentinel since the waterfall option have led to substantially decreased p25 reception.
I rolled back to 1.21.00 main/1.02.01 sub and this has increased reception on p25 systems.
My expectations are simple: when uniden releases any additional and new updates to the firmware they should not decrease receive sensitivity on p25 systems, or any other system for that matter.... Don't you think that's a fair expectation?
When adding additional features such as waterfall, this should not come with the burden of decreased reception of the systems which we monitor....
Last edited:
You should always review the release notes, back up your programming prior to updating your scanner has always been the motto. Either way, your expectations versus what the release notes have said do not match up. Many here will disagree on your assessment based on individual's real world assessment. Leave it there for now, until an update comes out that you're satisfied with. Glad to hear your scanner is working with the older version.
richee2000
Communications Professional
I never said I didn't read the release notes I said I didn't reference the release notes in my comments. Everyone has different real world experiences. I have documented mine. He called on the GOP to protect he called on the GOP to protect the he called on the GOP to protect a deal he called on the GOP to protect the deal that he called on the GOP to protect the deal that he called on the GOP to protect the deal that doesn't have he called on the GOP to protect the deal that doesn't have he called on the GOP to protect the deal that doesn't have court to he called on the GOP to protect the deal that doesn't have court to he called on the GOP to protect the deal that doesn't have court to he called on the GOP to protect the deal that doesn't have court to everything he called on the GOP to protect the deal that doesn't have court to everything press he called on
Once again, and to be clear, I never said I did not read the release notes. I said my comments on here did not reference the release notes. I have noted many others on here with real world experience the same as mine: poor reception on P25 systems with these new public updates, with waterfall ..... I use my sds100 for business, the current public updates are unacceptable. You know radio reception has many variables, and different user findings.... Yes, Its working much better with the older version.
I hope you get your issue(s) worked out.
I've been listening to several different digital systems, some of which I'm on the fringe of receiving (NJ Turnpike Authority, Metro-25/MTA MRRS, NYC Interoperable Communications Network, NJ Interoperability Communications System) along with many analog UHF channels. Although there might be a hiccup here and there, my SDS200 has never performed better than it does with Main 1.23.03/Sub 1.03.05.
richee2000
Communications Professional
I had the same results with strong local trunking systems, however any moderate to weaker trunking systems that were not considered local were considerably lower in receive signal strength or non-existent
I am happy to report that I can listen to the Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Type II system again with no decode errors. It also seems to be doing better on several P25 Phase I systems with the exception of the High Point, NC P25. Not sure if the Greensboro/Guilford P25 is causing interference or what but I need to mess with the filters to see if that helps.
Mine has been the opposite. On the NJICS. I normally can only pick up one site strong (Monmouth County) and one site barely (Union County). Since the update, although the Union County Site signal is still weak, I can now use it. Previously any thing picked up from that site was inaudible or garbled. Now, the majority of what I hear from it is clear or at least understandable.
