Uniden X36 Phase II TDMA Voice Decoding Performance Thread

[redburgundy]

We use site to mean:
The repeater tower location for non-simulcast.
The coverage area for multi-tower simulcast.

Where it needs to be differentiated, "Simulcast Site" or "Simulcast Zone" would be appropriate in prose, but for programming the scanner, a single-tower site and a multi-tower simulcast site/zone are programmed identically from a frequency standpoint. The only programming difference between the two are how you handle the geographic location settings.

This is the same terminology as RadioReference has used since inception.

Sorry for attributing the confusion to Sentinel.
For simulcast systems, while the scanner programming might be the same, when folks start talking about using directional antennas, that's when the term "site" becomes confusing.

 

[nr2d]

Well I just got a recording of TDMA received audio on a project that was worked by my group at work. The audio sounds almost the same. Has a muffled sound also. I guess I'm still too use to analog audio. Please don't ask but I can't post the audio file from work.

 

[KevinC]

Sorry for attributing the confusion to Sentinel.
For simulcast systems, while the scanner programming might be the same, when folks start talking about using directional antennas, that's when the term "site" becomes confusing.

The proper term for the individual transmitting locations of a simulcast site is subsites. As you stated, for scanner programming the location of those isn't necessary, but for "optimizing" it may come in handy.

It would be nice if we didn't have to worry about that, just like "real" radios don't have to.

 

[phask]

In RR's location reports does it show each simulcast "actual tower locatio" or just one "site" for all.

I have none close that I'm familiar with to discern.

 

[cellphone]

Radio Reference does not provide the tower locations of each simulcast site as part of the DB. Callsigns are often associated with the site that contain the tower locations. Often the list of call signs in the DB are not complete or accurate. This also assumes that FCC data is correct too. The Search tab in the DB provides a very easy way to query the FCC DB to gather the information. I also encourage you to submit information to the DB if call signs need to be updated for sites.

Some systems have more information about simulcast transmitter sites included in the Wiki too.

We are drifting a little off topic, and this should probably be a different thread if there are more discussions about Simulcast Tower locations for a “site”.

 

[doctordave]

Md FIRST 700mhz

Tested the MD statewide (still evolving) Phase II - 700mhz system today with a 536 radio and a mobile VHF 1/4 wave whip. From a position at the top of a highly elevated parking garage in Baltimore, excellent signal strength on the nearby towers but horrible decoding - maybe 30 % was readable. Poor tracking, also. Presume that multipath difficulties were maximized due to my altitude.

Driving through the city - from the Inner Harbor on up to Towson (Central Baltimore County), I monitored some busy TGs. Very good or better reception 80% of the time. Fair reception 10% of the time. Garbled but discernible transmissions ......5% Heavily distorted and / or lost transmissions 5% of the time.

Overall, this is notably better that my GRE 800's performance along the same route.

 

[SCPD]

Phase ll TDMA decoding

Have been testing my new 536 on the Mississippi 700 system. In a side by side comparison with the PSR 800, the Uniden doesn't decode any better than the GRE, it just simply has softer audio on Phase II transmissions. During this week's winter storm, more agencies were using the MSWIN system, therefore heard a good bit more Phase ll TDMA decoding than one might normally hear on that system. All things being equal, the Uniden 536 is an excellent radio and perfectly capable of optimum Phase ll TDMA decoding. The softer audio on Phase II from the Uniden is certainly welcomed, but other than that, can't say that the radio tackled Phase ll any better than the GRE.

 

[SCPD]

thanks

Have been testing my new 536 on the Mississippi 700 system. In a side by side comparison with the PSR 800, the Uniden doesn't decode any better than the GRE, it just simply has softer audio on Phase II transmissions. During this week's winter storm, more agencies were using the MSWIN system, therefore heard a good bit more Phase ll TDMA decoding than one might normally hear on that system. All things being equal, the Uniden 536 is an excellent radio and perfectly capable of optimum Phase ll TDMA decoding. The softer audio on Phase II from the Uniden is certainly welcomed, but other than that, can't say that the radio tackled Phase ll any better than the GRE.

Thank you sir,I appreciate your response.

 

[doctordave]

Did some more testing of the MD Phase II 700mhz system - this time in Kent County ( flat terrain and minimal development ). The 536 is only a tad bit better than the GRE800 in overall decoding, while mobile. Side by side, in the shadow of one of the county's 4 towers, they were performing about the same. Neither was perfect. Audio on the 536 is quite fine - but I still prefer the crisp sound of the GRE 800. It is interesting to note that these results are remarkably different than my results in monitoring the same radio system in Baltimore City and parts of Baltimore County - and both areas are a bit hilly / quite developed with plenty of tall structures. I'm speculating that the 536 has a hotter front end and benefitted from more signal attenuation of competing 700mhz system towers in the hilly/developed metro areas.

In Cecil County MD (adjacent to Kent.... and quite hilly), the 536 was reasonably outperforming the GRE800..... and the performance margin was consistent with my test results in the Baltimore area.

The next time I do some field testing over in Kent/Cecil, I'll try using a less resonant antenna and/or the radio's attenuator.

I did encounter some surprising difficulties in monitoring a few digital type II Motorola trunked systems and will report that in another thread.

 

[whsbuss]

I did encounter some surprising difficulties in monitoring a few digital type II Motorola trunked systems and will report that in another thread.

Seems you are not the only one. I've seen others having less than stellar results on Motorola type II systems. And for me that's the main system for my county.

 

[Russell]

wrong thread ...

 

[whsbuss]

I am thoroughly impressed with this radio's handling of Plano PAWM and Dallas P25 Simulcast systems. Prior to this radio I had almost given up trying to monitor these systems with the x96XT and the PSR800. The x36HPs monitors these difficult simulcast systems extremely well. Uniden definitely got it right.

Russell

Glad things are working for you on those systems. However neither are Motorola Type II P25 systems which some of us have issues with the new scanners.

 

[Russell]

Glad things are working for you on those systems. However neither are Motorola Type II P25 systems which some of us have issues with the new scanners.

Do you mean P25 Phase II?

 

[whsbuss]

Do you mean P25 Phase II?

No. This Montgomery County PA Trunking System, Various, Pennsylvania - Scanner Frequencies

 

[markab]

Works for me..

Glad things are working for you on those systems. However neither are Motorola Type II P25 systems which some of us have issues with the new scanners.

It's worth noting, I'm currently monitoring this system:

Bell FleetNet - Ontario Provincial Government Zone 1 Trunking System, Southwest Zone, Ontario - Scanner Frequencies

on my new 586 and it comes in loud and crystal clear. It is a Motorola Type II P25 system.

Mark

 

[Russell]

No. This Montgomery County PA Trunking System, Various, Pennsylvania - Scanner Frequencies

I see. So that's not a Phase II TDMA system, either. I guess we're both in the wrong thread.

 

[whsbuss]

It's worth noting, I'm currently monitoring this system:

Bell FleetNet - Ontario Provincial Government Zone 1 Trunking System, Southwest Zone, Ontario - Scanner Frequencies

on my new 586 and it comes in loud and crystal clear. It is a Motorola Type II P25 system.

Mark

That's great. Maybe because the system I monitor is 800 mhz while your's vhf. Propagation always plays a part in reception.

 

[mikewazowski]

It is a Motorola Type II P25 system.



Mark

That's just a Motorola Type II system with P25 and analog voice.

It's also non-simulcast.

 

[whsbuss]

That's just a Motorola Type II system with P25 and analog voice.

It's also non-simulcast.

Good catch.... thanks.

 

[markab]

That's just a Motorola Type II system with P25 and analog voice.

It's also non-simulcast.

While its true that it's not simulcast, if you look down to the South West OPP section (which I typically monitor) you'll notice that they are digital.

Mark