The thread regarding the new Uniden update has raised many questions about its effectiveness. There are many reports of system specific problems. It would be a good idea to discuss its effects on local systems. Please report your experiences with the update on CT systems.
Uniden update associated with CT systems
- Thread starter ems170
- Start date
- Status
jfr454
Member
I installed the upgrade into a 996 and have not noticed any significant change to CSP. I do not have a good antenna setup and currently do not have it installed in a vehicle.
MarkB513
Member
BC996T Firmware Update
I installed it last night. The two updates took a little longer then I had planned. Since I'm able to hit my wireless from my driveway, I went through the whole process inside my Dakota without having to take the radio out. I was getting a little concerted when the laptop battery level went to half at the beginning of the second (major) update....
I believe I notice a slight, but not major difference with the CSP, and I still seem to get better results with manual P25 settings, rather then automatic.
Cheshire PD's UHF frequency on the other hand has greatly improved. I live in Cheshire, the signal is obviously good, but I've always had a hard time getting a clear digital transmission. That's all I've had time to test so far...
I installed it last night. The two updates took a little longer then I had planned. Since I'm able to hit my wireless from my driveway, I went through the whole process inside my Dakota without having to take the radio out. I was getting a little concerted when the laptop battery level went to half at the beginning of the second (major) update....
I believe I notice a slight, but not major difference with the CSP, and I still seem to get better results with manual P25 settings, rather then automatic.
Cheshire PD's UHF frequency on the other hand has greatly improved. I live in Cheshire, the signal is obviously good, but I've always had a hard time getting a clear digital transmission. That's all I've had time to test so far...
bobmich52
Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2004
- Messages
- 581
I Am Of The Theory "If It ain't Broke, Don't Fix It"
I Have A 796/396/996 & Have Not Done Any Of The Updates.
Monitor All CSP & Various PD/FD/Ems East Of The River, Various Bands With No Problems At This Point, All work Fine Reception Wise Etc
The Day Will Come For Rebanding Especially For CSP & Then I Will Have To Do It, And Since I Have A Small Computer, I Will Take Them To J&S In Willi To Have It Done.
Might Co$t A Few, Much Le$$ Than Screwing Up 3 Scanners & A Computer I Suppose
I Have A 796/396/996 & Have Not Done Any Of The Updates.
Monitor All CSP & Various PD/FD/Ems East Of The River, Various Bands With No Problems At This Point, All work Fine Reception Wise Etc
The Day Will Come For Rebanding Especially For CSP & Then I Will Have To Do It, And Since I Have A Small Computer, I Will Take Them To J&S In Willi To Have It Done.
Might Co$t A Few, Much Le$$ Than Screwing Up 3 Scanners & A Computer I Suppose
andy404ns
Member
I just installed the update yesterday and have not noticed a whole lot. The volume and squelch indicators are a nice new feature. Also, I'm thinking that the P25 delay is working quite well. I used to get a loud static sound for about a second before some of the digital transmissions (conventional) in the next town over. The new 400ms delay is supposed to fix that and thus far I have not heard it. I read that you can adjust the delay up to 1000ms but hopefully i wont have to play with it as the default seems to be working just fine.
Volume and squelch indicators?
Have not heard that one yet, on which scanner?
Manny
Have not heard that one yet, on which scanner?
Manny
Done Updating!
Well, I finaly did it!
I updated the 996 to the latest and greatest software. I like the volume and squelch indicators. I just dont understand something with that though. Why cant the volume and squelch pots be tighter? I mean after 4 clicks the volume starts to be heard. After 7 clicks the squelch knob works. Why not less? Thats a lot of play. Other than that, I have noticed no difference in the CSP.
Manny
Well, I finaly did it!
I updated the 996 to the latest and greatest software. I like the volume and squelch indicators. I just dont understand something with that though. Why cant the volume and squelch pots be tighter? I mean after 4 clicks the volume starts to be heard. After 7 clicks the squelch knob works. Why not less? Thats a lot of play. Other than that, I have noticed no difference in the CSP.
Manny
I have the same results as Mark on my bc396t...Manual was better...Uniden no help I called them twice for help and they hung up on me...And I was very nice. So what is one to do?
CSP comes in fine for Troop L, H, and F.
the CC is acquired much faster, and goes onto the next system quicker also.
not scientific measurements, but noticeable immediately.
seems to decode the digital data a bit better in weaker signal areas.
the CC is acquired much faster, and goes onto the next system quicker also.
not scientific measurements, but noticeable immediately.
seems to decode the digital data a bit better in weaker signal areas.
andy404ns
Member
scanernutt said:
Yeah I don't really know why the threshold is set the way it is. I guess they figure you'll never be closing the squelch all the way (for most applications) so why have it start at zero? who knows though. unfortunately i dont see updated firmware for the remote head so I can't see the volume and squelch indicators on the remote head when im using it. anyone have any info on new firmware for that?
Has anyone been issued a copy of the 2.01 software, and has it made the CT systems sound better?
hey all, i updated my 396t on Sunday, have noticed significant performance in the CSP, i travel from shelton to greenwich everyday (route 8 to i95) and from the factory, the CSP would be very weak and cut off very much, since i have upgraded i hear most of the transmissions in their entirety! am very happy with the update
I am in Norwalk and go to Stamford for work and I can say that I do see an improvement on Stamfords EDACS system even with that system being as poor as it is. As for CSP I have not seen a big difference. I have checked the error rate and it varies from between low 30's and high 40's which seems a little high to me. I have a great signal too. I would be interested in trying the 2.01 firmware to be able to adjust the P25 levels again and see if I could lower the error rate. We will just have to see if it is released to the general public.
Sorry to sound ignorant!
Version 2.01? I just did the upgrade on my 996. I thought I was up to date. There is yet another one? What is it supposed to improve?
Manny
Version 2.01? I just did the upgrade on my 996. I thought I was up to date. There is yet another one? What is it supposed to improve?
Manny
MarkB513
Member
Uniden Update
Although I'm not surprised, it seems a mixed bag as far as whether the CSP has shown some improvement since the upgrades. At the same time, don't forget about the leaves returning to the trees that can have some effect as well. I still say I haven’t noticed much of a difference, except for the amount of time it takes to scan a trunk system before it resumes conventional scanning is much quicker. Besides going back in time and taking the individual channel delay away, the trunk scanning time was one of the things I noticed right away when I switched to the 996. As far as conventional digital, I believe I’ve noticed a big difference in clarity, although I’m judging by Cheshire’s UHF only. I read some place someone was questioning whether the AGC tweaks were still worth doing and I would have to say definetly. I don't think the firmware updates had anything to do with AGC. Besides the fact that the CSP system has spotty reception at times because of the large (statewide) terrain it covers, I think my main problem is that I'm using an all band antenna (Antenna Specialist), instead of one specifically tuned for 800 MHz. I still want to be able to monitor everything else, including low band (30-54), which isn't that easy with the scanner antennas available today.
Although I'm not surprised, it seems a mixed bag as far as whether the CSP has shown some improvement since the upgrades. At the same time, don't forget about the leaves returning to the trees that can have some effect as well. I still say I haven’t noticed much of a difference, except for the amount of time it takes to scan a trunk system before it resumes conventional scanning is much quicker. Besides going back in time and taking the individual channel delay away, the trunk scanning time was one of the things I noticed right away when I switched to the 996. As far as conventional digital, I believe I’ve noticed a big difference in clarity, although I’m judging by Cheshire’s UHF only. I read some place someone was questioning whether the AGC tweaks were still worth doing and I would have to say definetly. I don't think the firmware updates had anything to do with AGC. Besides the fact that the CSP system has spotty reception at times because of the large (statewide) terrain it covers, I think my main problem is that I'm using an all band antenna (Antenna Specialist), instead of one specifically tuned for 800 MHz. I still want to be able to monitor everything else, including low band (30-54), which isn't that easy with the scanner antennas available today.
2.01 is a "beta" version that is being sent by uniden to a few people to test out on the 396.
I believe it restores the abillity to adjust the P25 audio.
Thats all I know about it.
Dave
I believe it restores the abillity to adjust the P25 audio.
Thats all I know about it.
Dave
I traveled over to Danbury today. Like all digital systems, if the signal is low, it sounds like crap. When I got a three bar or better signal, yes, CSP sounded a lot better than it used to before the upgrade.
2.01 update
That is correct Dave the 2.01 restores adjust of p25. I find CSP works best on 12. It does help unless u have a crappy signal then...well u know what it sounds like.
That is correct Dave the 2.01 restores adjust of p25. I find CSP works best on 12. It does help unless u have a crappy signal then...well u know what it sounds like.
I am in Norwalk and I have a very good signal. Any idea if uniden is going to make 2.01 part of the next release? I could live with 2.0 but I would like to try 2.01
Thanks
Dave
Thanks
Dave
After several weeks with the new updated, I am very unhappy with CSP reception. I have followed threads and made small changes with no improvement. Troops C & D that I have monitored with my two 396’s for 2 years has gone down hill with update. Anyone in Windham County that is doing fine with the change, I would be interested in seeing there setting. This is what I have set. Hold Time 2 / Delay Time 2, Control Channel only
End code = Ignore, I-Call = Off, P25 Level Auto/manual makes no difference. Modulation = FM, Attenuator= OFF. Radio Shack 800MHz antenna (used for years). ARC 396 to load frequencies ECT. Any locals with input good or bad would like to hear from you. I would love to step back to last firmware, it had the best reception for CSP since I purchased them.
End code = Ignore, I-Call = Off, P25 Level Auto/manual makes no difference. Modulation = FM, Attenuator= OFF. Radio Shack 800MHz antenna (used for years). ARC 396 to load frequencies ECT. Any locals with input good or bad would like to hear from you. I would love to step back to last firmware, it had the best reception for CSP since I purchased them.
- Status
