Test for P25 Decode Improvement

[DrCranky]

Link to the system in RRDB. Canton/Stark County Trunking System, Canton, Ohio
Specific site monitored (if known). Canton/Stark County
Condition before: Excellent
Condition after: Excellent/No noticeable change.


Tested with the BCD536HP & BCD436HP, and followed along side the PSR 500 with no issues.

 

[Jake68111]

Link to the system in RRDB: STARCOM21 Statewide Illinois P25 Trunking System, Statewide, Illinois - Scanner Frequencies
Specific site monitored (if known): BOTH Will County Simulcast Site Details (STARCOM21 Statewide Illinois P25) and Morris Site Details (STARCOM21 Statewide Illinois P25)
Condition before: Excellent
Condition after: Excellent

NO CHANGE ON 536

Can't wait to see what the future has in store for this radio!

 

[evan]

Metro Nashville-Davidson County P25
Site: 3 (simulcast)
Condition before: excellent
Condition after: excellent

Metro Govt of Nashville and Davidson County
Site: System A simulcast
Before: Poor
After: poor/minimal to no improvement

 

[Dafe1er]

My second test system.

Monitoring Fairfax County Virginia P25 Phase 1 system (Mobile around 5PM this evening) using BCD436HP unit: Fairfax County (Project 25) Trunking System, Fairfax, Virginia - Scanner Frequencies

Change NFM>FM 800 Range
Monitoring Site: 102
Condition before: Excellent
Condition after: Excellent

There was a noticeable difference in clarity but nothing other than that.

I did notice that it worked better than the HP-1 90% of the time in either mode. The unit caught all of the transmissions coming from multiple channels and talk groups in entirety from start to finish. No digital noise or “out of range” noise. I went from Tysons corner right to and thru downtown Fairfax. It worked flawlessly. Best time hearing Fairfax in years compared to the predecessor.

 

[AA6IO]

Countywide Coordinated Communications System (CCCS) Motorola Type II SmartZone Orange County
California
North, South, Northwest, Countywide sites with regard to digital P25 (not encrypted)
Before with NFM: Very poor and choppy.
After with FM: Some improvement, but not stellar.

Comments:
1) Paul: Thank you for all you do to establish a link between Uniden and the RRDB scanner community.
2) I have two 536HPs and one 436HP. The above trunking system covers an area 2 to 30 miles from my home in Cerritos CA (heart of LA basin). It is the only one giving me P25 problems. All other P25 in LA basin (and there is a lot of P25) sounds pretty good.
My 996XT does a bit better, and my GRE/RS scanners do much better on this particular system.
However, I think the new Uniden scanners have great potential and am looking forward to Wi-fi and advanced features.

Steve AA6IO
BCD536HP x 2, BCD436HP, BCD396 and 996T, BCD396 and 996XT, HomePatrol Extreme,
PSR-600, PRO-197, PRO-106, and multiple other radios for amateur radio.
800 Mhz antennas include paper clips, RS-800, stock Uniden antennas, and two TerraWave Yagis

 

[pepsima1]

I ditto the same from above. Orange County area too. 996XT is better with P25 and GRE 600 no problems at all with P25.

 

[tbakken]

I monitor a simple P25 Phase 1 channel (no trunking) here in Stockton. Before I was very frustrated and could receive but partial conversations. Maybe 75 percent. Now that I set it to FM I am receiving everything. Still needs a fix but it works for now.

 

[tlwaltz]

STARS and Culpeper/Fauquier

Monitoring:Virginia Statewide Agencies Radio System (STARS)
Specific site monitored (if known): Multiple sites
Condition before: Very Good
Condition after: Very Good

Still get some garbled transmissions and others that cut in and out. Some of the time I can hear the dispatch or mobile unit complain about "robotic signal" or "unreadable transmission" but sometimes they also make the same comment when transmissions come across clearly. So it's possible some or all of the errors I am seeing are system issues with STARS. Overall though I get a pretty solid copy on the traffic on the system.

Monitoring: Fauquier / Culpeper / Rappahannock
Specific site monitored (if known): Both Culpeper and Fauquier
Condition before: Culpeper - Very Good/ Fauquier - Fair
Condition after: Culpeper - Very Good/ Fauquier - Fair

For whatever reason I still am seeing about 25-35% of the transmissions breaking up with a strong signal and a few sounding garbled. Nearly all of the problem transmissions are Fauquier traffic, it rarely happens on the Culpeper traffic. The error rate isn't excessively high (only in the 100-150 range vs the 0-50 range on STARS where I often barely notice that their is even any disruption in the transmission). It's possible I need to play around a bit more with the P25 encoding to tune in the system, but with almost all of the errors coming from the Fauquier traffic it has me a bit baffled. I am in the middle of Culpeper so it's not likely simulcast distortion but I am still trying to figure things out.

 

[kikito]

Here's the results on mine:

System: Alaska Land Mobile Radio (ALMR) Trunking System, Statewide, Alaska - Scanner Frequencies

Sites monitored: Multiple Sites

Condition before: Very Good

Condition after: Very Good (Slight improvement towards Excellent at times)

Here's were it becomes a little more interesting and technical. While monitoring audio quality and signal bar strength, etc. I also activated the P25 Decode Error mode and on the default NFM setting which I've been using most of the time, it shows the error to be on the single digits and always slightly fluctuating. In general, the worst I've seen it is at 12-15 on average. At best is about 1 or 0 but doesn't always stay there for long or steadily, especially at the beginning and the end of the transmission.

Using the FM setting, the decode error on the meter in about 95% of transmissions starts at 0, and stays at zero for the whole duration of it.

Another observation which is kind of expected is the audio volume in NFM mode is a bit louder than FM, however, in FM mode the audio seems to be more steady in the ups and downs of the AGC action, which is something I still think needs to be tweaked in these radios but that's another thread or issue I suppose.

 

[AndrewGS]

System: Texas Wide Area Radio Network (TxWARN) Project 25 Trunking System, Various, Texas - Scanner Frequencies
Site: Houston Public Safety Northeast Simulcast Site Details (Texas Wide Area Radio Network (TxWARN) Project 25)
Condition Before: Poor
Condition After: Poor

Notes: The scanner is fickle. I can set it on my bed next to the pillow and it works much better than anywhere else, although I still miss transmissions and it still has a tough time decoding some transmissions. If I move it to the nightstand, the window sill, the desk, take it out to the porch or for a ride in the car, it performs poorly.

Videos

NFM: BCD436HP Modulation Test 1 - NFM - YouTube

FM: BCD436HP Modulation Test 2 - FM - YouTube

 

[Kingmobileaudio]

Nebraska State Radio System Trunking System, Statewide, Nebraska - Scanner Frequencies.
055 (37) Lincoln Lancaster 154.21250 154.68750 154.93500a 155.58000c
Condition before:VERY Poor (nothing at all) NFM
Condition after: Excellent FM

Lincoln Site is 4.8 miles away from me.
site 076 (4C) Plattsmouth Cass witch is 43.2 miles works with NFM.
I was wondering if the Lincoln site is to close? .

 

[KE4ZNR]

Folks for the last time:

Also please do not comment in this thread unless you have a report to pass along.
Help us keep thread "noise" down by only replying if you have a report to pass along.
Thanks for your help!

Do not comment in this thread unless you have reports to pass along in the exact format
UPMan requested!

Off topic posts will be deleted and infractions issued from here on out!
Thanks for your cooperation
Marshall KE4ZNR

 

[UPMan]

Thanks, Marshall. I've had to ignore a few reports, as I am unable to determine the specific system.

 

[UPMan]

Results so far can be seen here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AicXZBl5UfpjdEYzZDM4dGM4VHZmc25VTEV6ZzE1d3c&usp=sharing

 

[dwlipp]

Montgomery County, MD

Montgomery County, MD Trunking System, Montgomery County, Maryland - Scanner Frequencies

Site Montored: Site 1
Condition Before: Marginally Tolerable (Decoding error rate ~55-65)
Condition After: More Tolerable (Decoding error rate ~45-55)

Test configuration:

436 with Global Setting set to FM
Same system duplicated in the scanner, once configured for FM in the site and once for NFM in the site.
Scanned both with a consistent improvement of ~10 in the decoding error rate and a perceptible, but slight, improvement in perceived audio quality with the FM configuration.

396XT sitting 14" away from the 436 consistently decoding the system with an error rate ~15-25 and sounding much better than the 436; both running in the Auto mode.

396XT immediately adjusts the decoding threshold from 8 to 11 consistently; 436 never budges, always shows 8.

 

[nr2d]

Link to the system in RRDB:
Camden County Public Safety Trunking System, Camden County, New Jersey - Scanner Frequencies (P25 Phase II)

Specific site monitored (if known): Simulcast. Majority of sites

Condition before: Fair (slight distortion, crackling, some missed transmissions)
Condition after: Fair (slight distortion, crackling, some missed transmissions)

Basically the same before and after.

I made an additional change to my BCD536HP this AM. I am now just scanning the closest site to me and with the changes recommended here I have to change my evaluation:

Camden County Public Safety Trunking System, Camden County, New Jersey - Scanner Frequencies (P25 Phase II)

Specific site monitored (if known): Simulcast. Lindenwold

Condition before: very good (very slight distortion, crackling, no missed transmissions)
Condition after: very good (very slight distortion, crackling, no missed transmissions)

 

[WaveJam]

To submit a report:
FORMAT FOR REPORTING (to make my life a little easier):
Link to the system in RRDB.
Specific site monitored (if known).
Condition before: Excellent / Poor
Condition after: Excellent / Poor

Frederick County Trunking System, Frederick, Maryland - Scanner Frequencies
Frederick County (MD) Project 25 Phase I
Before: Moderate-Poor
After: Moderate-Poor (No noticeable change)

The feed is here - http://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/9809

 

[dispatcher812]

My test System for Connecticut.


Monitoring:Connecticut State Police Trunking System, Statewide, Connecticut - Scanner Frequencies
Specific Site: Site 7 Troop D, Site 8 Troop E
Condition Before: poor, choppy decode intermittent
Condition After: poor, no real change. Seems to scan slower. Hangs on site longer then before with no real improvement.


I also when in that area, monitor this: Waterford Trunking System, Waterford, Connecticut - Scanner Frequencies

My first system is a Motorola Type II Smartzone while the second system is a Project Phase 1. The second system seems to work great with out any adjustment.

 

[WaveJam]

Results so far can be seen here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AicXZBl5UfpjdEYzZDM4dGM4VHZmc25VTEV6ZzE1d3c&usp=sharing

Hi Upman... A quick spreadsheet update for you.

On line 42, my site is 001 (1) Simulcast

Under "Other" you have "Live Feed. Unknown Setting" Let me know what setting you need.

Thanks.

 

[UPMan]

FM or NFM on the live feed.