D
darunimal
Guest
It's probably the most important question to be asked, and yet to be answered, it's valid until it's dealt with by the manufactures, just because you don't have it occur, doesn't mean it's any less valid, I now know you are NOT currently experiencing the situation. What isn't valid is: suggesting the "non-scanner solutions" to "consumer scanner purchasers". While the solution to Scanners Users is in fact a Scanner Manufactures responsibility to fix the LSM issue, in fact: TV's deal with a relative similar problem, but the solutions already inside that product, and it is funny how most of their consumers never use it (meaning they never use their TV connected to an Antenna). We, consumer scanner purchasers, are not R&D and never should be thought of as such. We have helped form a very large community here on RadioReference (with a lot of thanks to Lindsay Blanton and many more) from many smaller enclave communities, to support our listening habits and now we support 2 scanner manufactures and we support them fixing LSM and all the future endeavors, we are literally the architects of future scanners and the manufactures are the engineers that bring those things to reality.
Consumers are not the same as beta-testers, consumers are also not R&D, and the implications of they are is a complete misrepresentation of purchaser, users, owners; maybe this is due to the fact of: for 50 years of it being done this way, but it by no means should it be considered the normal way forward, as consumer grade electronics in todays' era could take not only a PHD in Electrical engineering but also Mathematics & Computer coding and many more specialty's. There has been many to experiments and many offer advice, but the problem has yet to be solved, and the cost is a guess, without a cost benefit analyses being done, no one truly knows.
The DVSI vocoder is where a good amount of received signal is delineated and dealt with. Now, maybe the scanner manufactures has either received poor code or poor support from DVSI of, "how better to implement" "it's own chipset", that same chipset line is in use by Motorola’s, and other manufactures such as Harris and Unication. Both Whistler and Uniden could do themselves a favor and contact DVSI for support, as well as, buy to their hearts content: APX's and TV's (with tuners), G4s & G5s and other professional portables & mobiles, at least to better understand: how numerous other manufactures have dealt with multipathing signals (or users could donate theirs to Uniden and Whistler). I only mention TV's because it also a semi-wide band receiver that has to deal with Multipath quadrature signaling with the difficult 4 phase high bit count, interpretation & decode of the longer dwell periods than the previously utilized FM signaling but yet the DVSI is supposed to be able to decode C4FM from CQPSK signals without problems or hiccups. Filtering is another part in these scanners, not only does it have to be linear for some bands, but also has to cascading for others and also only part IQ, and soon enough analog monitoring may need only some of the filtering some of the time or may need to be completely abandoned in future scanner releases (yea I said it).
These are products with Radio Reference and it's Data Base as major support, which entails not to incongruously apply ‘importance’ to a consumers (members) request on the forum, that is for the scanner manufactures to create in THEIR office, THEIR list of importance. Just the illusion of impropriety is never a good thing and precautions should be taken to never allow that to happen, but cutting, coping, and pasting and relegating threads to the Rant section is just one of those things that leads to this (for a forum that can't even fix example: Model alpha-numeric misspellings like BC496HP (and then the OP begins to talk about Favorites and 3 comments come in about correct model no.)). LSM isn't my problem or your problem to FIX, its the manufactures. How this got all twisted around as: unimportant or less important, buy a SDR, buy an APX, send an email, don't talk about in post (status), deleting post and the such, is complete and utter insanity, and by the way, just possibly what the manufacturers could wish us, as a community, would do, and this objective shouldn't be furthered by A's or M's, members should be allowed to comment either way, of course minus the flaming and spamming. If people would like to Publicly announce on RadioReference in Make and/or Model specific threads, their displeasure with how LSM is or is going to be dealt with by either UNIDEN and/or WHISTLER, it's mileage could certainly out weight what 1 Private email could carry. Constructive comments could be productive, but, no where on here (RR), are unproductive responses "censored and deleted" (as unnecessary. I mean, sometime I wish they were, but I understand why they aren't, I also wish some people didn't quote 5 paragraph posts and would just put post numbers and/or combine all 3 of their 3 reply's, into 1 reply, but no one cleans those up).
The question about LSM will continue to be prudent because as newer Phase I and Phase II systems continue to come online, more and more jurisdictions may well begin to use the proprietary Motorola Solution: LSM, but is also right on line with how nearly all "Simulcast" sites are to be utilized in the near future, so improving LSM reception and decode-ability, will also have the added benefit of improving all digital simulcast sytems with or without a user experiencing distortion in ‘non-LSM’ sites. Multipathing and ghosting didn't start yesterday and shouldn't be thought of as such, but it’s no longer an echo (analog), it's a complete loss (half of the time) of voice decode-ability (digital) don't you guys understand that, I'm sure if you could receive your system but could only understand every other word or phrase, you'd better understand the implication on future scanner use. The following is an example " i... this.... little .... posts ... r ... r .... quoted ..... others, .... they .....n't be ..... out of .......t." This shouldn't be thought the same as "stop the encryption complaining" because in actuality it's the total and complete opposite on every level (yea, I know it shares listening & decode but that's where it ends) and moderators should consider that.
He likely leverage some past code in writing a demodulator for OP25.
