Trouble monitoring Clear Talk DMR Connect Plus

[NM9X]

The company I work for uses radios on the Clear Talk DMR motorola connect plus system and I'm trying to program my TRX-1 to receive this system. Our radios are set up with five talkgroups. However, when I transmit on the radio on any particular TG the scanner will only pick up on the first transmission - if I release and re-transmit, the scanner will not receive subsequent transmissions. This happens on all five TGs.
I imported the system from the RR library and set up the TGs.

I am trying to monitor site 015 which I notice has LCNs 01,02 and 04 and an unidentified LCN as 00. Not sure if this is my problem? I programmed my scanner several different ways including simply importing the Clear Talk DMR (491) system from library. I also tried setting up a separate system for each site. But still getting only partial conversations. I've noticed that on the transmissions it does pick up it will show slot 1 and slot 2 and show color codes but it seems hit and miss picking up traffic. Signals are generally high like 4 or even 5 bars.

Interestingly, when I power on our Motorola radios during startup the screen will identify the site number which usually reads 15. Sometimes though it reads site 5 which isn't registered on the RR database... I wonder if site 5 is actually Congerville registered on RR as site 006?

Thanks

 

[TAbirdman]

it seems you entered them in as a trunked system, correct? Have you tried programing them as conventional and include all the know frequencies and leave the color and slot as "Any"?

 

[NM9X]

Yes it's entered as a trunked system. I'll try entering as conventional dmr and report back.

 

[NM9X]

So I programmed the site 015 frequencies as conventional DMR and am still getting the same results as in my original post. Any ideas?

 

[Gilligan]

Just an idea but if you think your radio may be on a different site, it may be worthwhile to put your scanner into Close Call mode and key up your two-way (from a short distance away -- not right next to it) several times. That way you can see what frequencies it is transmitting on and those frequencies should match up as input frequencies for specific sites on your system.

To add to this, you have the unique situation of being a user on the system. It could be that the frequency labelled as zero is LCN 3 or another LCN, and if it's not programmed in correctly in your scanner, you likely won't hear any traffic that comes over that channel/slot. Because you have access to the system, you could theoretically gather a few people to help you key up multiple radios on separate channels -- this would trigger separate slots on the system and perhaps give your LCN finder a chance to determine the LCN of the extra frequency.

 

[NM9X]

Just an idea but if you think your radio may be on a different site, it may be worthwhile to put your scanner into Close Call mode and key up your two-way (from a short distance away -- not right next to it) several times. That way you can see what frequencies it is transmitting on and those frequencies should match up as input frequencies for specific sites on your system.

To add to this, you have the unique situation of being a user on the system. It could be that the frequency labelled as zero is LCN 3 or another LCN, and if it's not programmed in correctly in your scanner, you likely won't hear any traffic that comes over that channel/slot. Because you have access to the system, you could theoretically gather a few people to help you key up multiple radios on separate channels -- this would trigger separate slots on the system and perhaps give your LCN finder a chance to determine the LCN of the extra frequency.

I'll give the close call a try... I think on my whistler it's spectrum sweeper. Since I know it should be in the 860MHz range I should be able to pick it up. I'm also going to set up my SDR and see what I can find out. Thanks for the tips!

I was listening to the system on another site (004) today and I was following complete conversations. So I think the site database entryfor Normal (015) may be missing a frequency. Another thread said Connect Plus scanning doesn't use LCN but does require all the site freqs to be programmed. Do this sound right?

 

[Gilligan]

I forgot that you mentioned you were using a Whistler radio. In that case, LCN doesn't matter. So what I would do is program a search range (same as the other frequencies for that site) and lock out the known frequencies that are already programmed in with correct LCN. Then run a search when you're transmitting and see if there are other frequencies in use that you are not aware of. Again, Spectrum Sweeper may be easier to accomplish this.

The key is to determine whether the two-way system you are using actually changes frequencies during those times when you can't hear the 2nd transmissions or if it is a glitch in the radio that it can't follow the conversation on the same frequency.

 

[JD21960]

Clear talk DMR 491

I have a WS1080, picked up Clear Talk 491 perfect back in July in LaSalle Co IL and parts of Marshall County till I got over by Lacon IL. I heard LaSalle Co Sheriff conversations with no trouble. After that? Whistler put out Fware 4.1 - 4.3. I wasn't able to get the United Airlines DMR at nearby Ohare Airport until 4.4 firmware came out. Same things were going on. No come-backs, only one side of the conversation. Had to resort to listing it as a conventional object which did help a bit but as soon as the scanner moved on I'm listening to an entirely different conversation. I just wanted to hear a trunked one. FW 4.4 fixed it. ONE thing I did do to missing so many comebacks was to add a 6 second dwell time. That worked wonders. Giving people time to answer only makes sense, no delay or a 2 second delay won't keep it around to hear anything. Also the range of the system was only 5 miles and a better antenna in the 420-500 range locked it all in the best. You can find the RANGE of the tower you're listening to at the RRef website by clicking the blue SITE names which takes you to the range Map. This topic should be in the IL forum. I've seen this exact topic and system discussed there. Several people listed newer frequencies they hadn't seen before for Clear talk. Check there, I'm sure they might have a better answer than the Whistler radio forum.

 

[NM9X]

Problem solved

I forgot that you mentioned you were using a Whistler radio. In that case, LCN doesn't matter. So what I would do is program a search range (same as the other frequencies for that site) and lock out the known frequencies that are already programmed in with correct LCN. Then run a search when you're transmitting and see if there are other frequencies in use that you are not aware of. Again, Spectrum Sweeper may be easier to accomplish this.

The key is to determine whether the two-way system you are using actually changes frequencies during those times when you can't hear the 2nd transmissions or if it is a glitch in the radio that it can't follow the conversation on the same frequency.

I found the missing frequencies for the Normal site using a limit search on my whistler and also watching my sdr. TRX-1 is following conversations perfectly now.

 

[NM9X]

I have a WS1080, picked up Clear Talk 491 perfect back in July in LaSalle Co IL and parts of Marshall County till I got over by Lacon IL. I heard LaSalle Co Sheriff conversations with no trouble. After that? Whistler put out Fware 4.1 - 4.3. I wasn't able to get the United Airlines DMR at nearby Ohare Airport until 4.4 firmware came out. Same things were going on. No come-backs, only one side of the conversation. Had to resort to listing it as a conventional object which did help a bit but as soon as the scanner moved on I'm listening to an entirely different conversation. I just wanted to hear a trunked one. FW 4.4 fixed it. ONE thing I did do to missing so many comebacks was to add a 6 second dwell time. That worked wonders. Giving people time to answer only makes sense, no delay or a 2 second delay won't keep it around to hear anything. Also the range of the system was only 5 miles and a better antenna in the 420-500 range locked it all in the best. You can find the RANGE of the tower you're listening to at the RRef website by clicking the blue SITE names which takes you to the range Map. This topic should be in the IL forum. I've seen this exact topic and system discussed there. Several people listed newer frequencies they hadn't seen before for Clear talk. Check there, I'm sure they might have a better answer than the Whistler radio forum.

Ended up finding freq.s that were missing on the Normal site last night. Now I am hearing what appears to be all traffic on the site (all other sites locked out) I have the system programmed as a trunked DMR in the TRX1 and it seems to be working well now.
I was thinking about raising the dwell time but never tried it... makes sense like you said though.

 

[troymail]

I found the missing frequencies for the Normal site using a limit search on my whistler and also watching my sdr. TRX-1 is following conversations perfectly now.

That's an interesting not surprising finding (not to me anyway).

Except for what I'll call "power users" (those who use DSD+, etc. and.or other tools), today's scanners make people believe that with RR and on-board SD libraries, etc. coupled with "easy to program" functionality, everything will "just work". However, given various factors - multi-site systems, systems that vary in coverage areas (1-2 miles verses several counties or states, etc.), reliance on the data that users/hobbyists supply, "subtle" differences in the way difference systems are set up by the system owners and providers, it's no wonder many believe there is always a problem with the scanner itself (Note: this is my own personal general observation - not directed at you or anyone else in particular).

That's not to say the scanners don't have problems in some cases -- they do and will - particularly with these DMR and NXDN business systems that all seem to have their own little "quirks".

Luckily for us, we have a place (these forums) to present and discuss these types of things. From there, we all do what we can to help one another sort through them and resolve what we can. From there, I'm sure the scanner makers (both major players) monitor for problems that go unresolved and work to find solutions. They know they cannot stay in business without addressing issues.

It's all about patience.

 

[NM9X]

That's an interesting not surprising finding (not to me anyway).

Except for what I'll call "power users" (those who use DSD+, etc. and.or other tools), today's scanners make people believe that with RR and on-board SD libraries, etc. coupled with "easy to program" functionality, everything will "just work". However, given various factors - multi-site systems, systems that vary in coverage areas (1-2 miles verses several counties or states, etc.), reliance on the data that users/hobbyists supply, "subtle" differences in the way difference systems are set up by the system owners and providers, it's no wonder many believe there is always a problem with the scanner itself (Note: this is my own personal general observation - not directed at you or anyone else in particular).

That's not to say the scanners don't have problems in some cases -- they do and will - particularly with these DMR and NXDN business systems that all seem to have their own little "quirks".

Luckily for us, we have a place (these forums) to present and discuss these types of things. From there, we all do what we can to help one another sort through them and resolve what we can. From there, I'm sure the scanner makers (both major players) monitor for problems that go unresolved and work to find solutions. They know they cannot stay in business without addressing issues.

It's all about patience.

I agree... esp. when it comes to trunking systems. We are more or less reverse engineering the layout of some of these systems. Also, these systems may be upgraded or modified any time without notification to us. One day things just don't come through on our scanner and we may tend to think our hardware is at fault.