Summit County 800 System

[k8zgw]

Thanks John,
I have the control channels
858.5125
858.7125
857.2625
857.6625
and only using a small duel band mag mount on a cookie canister, inside the apartment window.
and I am 1.8 air miles from that site
Now, I have no idea where I am hearing the Cleveland system from, as I hear Euclid as good as Twinsburg
Using the same radio and antenna ( when I add that scan group)

Don

 

[Swipesy]

Don, I thought I did a "As The Crow Flys" map for you. I will check.

 

[wa8pyr]

Summit County posts from other thread merged into existing Summit County thread.

 

[a388sig2]

Specific to the MARCS IP Summit County Simulcast, does anyone have BC436HP/BC536HP threshold settings that work well with this system? I've tried and I've tried and I can't seem to get even fair reception compared to the SDS100.

 

[mtindor]

Specific to the MARCS IP Summit County Simulcast, does anyone have BC436HP/BC536HP threshold settings that work well with this system? I've tried and I've tried and I can't seem to get even fair reception compared to the SDS100.

This isn't going to answer your question, But I'd speculate that no amount of threshold setting changes is going to make you be able to significantly increase the realiability of capture of the LSM signal. Maybe moving the scanner around, using a different antenna, using attenuator -- maybe. But unlikely that the threshold stuff is going to make much difference. Good luck, but you're probably wasting your time with settings. If it were that easy to pick up LSM on 436/536, everyone would be doing it and swearing by it. For those who don't have issue with the Summit simulcast on a 436/536, they simply dont have issues because of the scanners' location compared to that of the sites in the simulcast.

Mike

 

[a388sig2]

This isn't going to answer your question, But I'd speculate that no amount of threshold setting changes is going to make you be able to significantly increase the realiability of capture of the LSM signal. Maybe moving the scanner around, using a different antenna, using attenuator -- maybe. But unlikely that the threshold stuff is going to make much difference. Good luck, but you're probably wasting your time with settings. If it were that easy to pick up LSM on 436/536, everyone would be doing it and swearing by it. For those who don't have issue with the Summit simulcast on a 436/536, they simply dont have issues because of the scanners' location compared to that of the sites in the simulcast.

Mike

Thanks for the info! Seems I was good even during the transition, but ultimately when joining up with MARCS and going full simulcast my reception quality diminished significantly.

 

[mtindor]

Thanks for the info! Seems I was good even during the transition, but ultimately when joining up with MARCS and going full simulcast my reception quality diminished significantly.

You really just never know. When I used to monitor a simulcast close to me on my PSR-500 a few years back, one day it would sound great and the next day it would be a lousy decode. So even weather conditions locally can make a difference in how "dirty" the signal appears to a scanner.

And they may have turned on more sites in the simulcast cell since the time they were transitioning, or may have done some adjustments specifically to "tune" the system based upon testing of units out in the field. And it could be that any changes like that caused your decode to go from good to bad.

Good luck!

 

[a388sig2]

You really just never know. When I used to monitor a simulcast close to me on my PSR-500 a few years back, one day it would sound great and the next day it would be a lousy decode. So even weather conditions locally can make a difference in how "dirty" the signal appears to a scanner.

And they may have turned on more sites in the simulcast cell since the time they were transitioning, or may have done some adjustments specifically to "tune" the system based upon testing of units out in the field. And it could be that any changes like that caused your decode to go from good to bad.

Good luck!

So basically it's lots of trial & error, or just a new paperweight.

 

[mtindor]

So basically it's lots of trial & error, or just a new paperweight.

Depending upon where you (or more specifically your scanner) is in relation to multiple sites in the simulcast, yes it's pretty much trial and error if you are using a non-LSM scanner to try to pick up a simulcast site. The idea is that you would want to do something to either focus your scanner on capturing the strongest signal possible from the most local site in the simulcast, or focus on making your scanner not hear as many of the sites that are far away from you that it might hear right now.

Lots of people put up a yagi and point it at the strongest / closest tower to them. But it all depends upon where you are. If you are right in the middle of a bunch of sites within the simulcast cell, a yagi probably works okay to focus on the strongest signal and null out some of the others. BUt if you are outside of the simulcast "looking in", depending on how far away you are from the simulcast a yagi won't necessarily let you focus on one tower within the system as your yagi by default my be pointing at 3 or 4 or 5.

So trial and error is it. I've heard people using only their ducky do things like use some tin foil or a pie plate or something metal to try and block the signals coming in from one area towards the antenna.

And, like I mentioned before, even weather changes can affect it. Rain / humidity / etc.

Mike

 

[relay99]

Radio Teck testing heard at multiple spots in Sagamore, Northfield and Macedonia lately .
Will these communities finally catch up to the rest of Summit Counties radio comms?

 

[northernsummit]

Radio Teck testing heard at multiple spots in Sagamore, Northfield and Macedonia lately .
Will these communities finally catch up to the rest of Summit Counties radio comms?

This forum is pretty defunct (it's considered part of the MARCS system now and the Summit 800 system is no more).

To answer your question I think it's a foregone conclusion that it's coming:

Dec. 9 trustees meeting
Sagamore Hills Police Det. Victoria Miavitz landed a $30,000 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant that will go toward the department’s upgrade to 800 megahertz frequency radios. According to Trustee David DePasquale, the upgrade will likely take place early in the new year.

“It’s something we are going to have to do, because everybody is changing,” he said. “Northern Summit County, in this area, is the only area that has not switched over to the 800 MHz radios yet.”

The cost of the radios will be about $110,000, Trustee Paul Schweikert said, so the township will owe about $80,000.

Although the grant covers less than one-third of the cost, DePasquale said it is much better than having to pay the whole sum from the general fund.

 

[tvengr]

Can anyone verify that the control channel frequency for the Summit County site of the MARCS system is currently correct in the database. I have been working with another member who has a Pro-197 with receive problems. If the database is correct, then the problem is due to simulcast issues.

 

[wmlovell]

Hearing Summit 2-2 using 858.5125 CC

 

[Swipesy]

The RadioReference Database is correct for MARCS Summit County. Summit is not a site it is sites and is simulcast. The scanner you are trying to program has major issues with simulcast. As a result, depending where the individual lives his Pro-197 may well be overwhelmed. I would suggest you refer your person to the Ohio forum and ask for help there from those of us who live in the area who can provide them with a possible solution.

 

[tvengr]

Thank you for your response. I am aware that it a simulcast site. I also have a Pro-197, so I am aware of the simulcast issues. I had the impression that he wasn't receiving the site at all, but he just sent me a message that his audio is broken on the Summit County site, so I am certain it is a simulcast problem. I will suggest the usual attenuator and directional antenna solutions, but he will probably end up with a SDS100 or SDS200. The SDS100/SDS200 scanners and G4/G5 pagers are the only radios that will work with my local simulcast system. Thanks again for your help.