• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

West Metro Fire Channel

Status
Not open for further replies.

RISC777

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
935
Okay, I heard a new one and am curious...
FD Dispatch said to use TAC 8.
What ID is TAC 8?

I know of 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. (Is there also a TAC 6?)
 

jfab

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,461
Location
Broomfield/Aurora, CO
I don't have either on my radio and I used RR database to program them in. Dispatch could have made a mistake or it's a new ID they have added that no one knows about!
 

RISC777

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
935
It was repeated and emphasized three times, so it made me notice it. And, yes, it could be a new TGID, and I didn't have time to do a search at that point to try to identify it.
 

jfab

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,461
Location
Broomfield/Aurora, CO
RISC777 said:
It was repeated and emphasized three times, so it made me notice it. And, yes, it could be a new TGID, and I didn't have time to do a search at that point to try to identify it.
I'll do some research and keep my eyes open!
 

cl

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
62
Question West Metro FD Dispatch
What is with them? Especially at night the dispatch channel sounds like they cut the power down to 1/2. The mobiles come in fine. Anyone and everyone on the FG/TAC channels come in fine. But not the Dispatcher. Is it just me?
Hey, this is from another thread, but I've noticed this personally, and wondered if anyone else has.....

Tks
 

cl

Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
62
From what I've heard here in littleton (kipling/c470) area, the voice is almost inaudible, but you can hear the background hiss..... that's how you know something is happening...
 

eyes00only

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
2,448
Location
Denver Colorado
RISC777 said:
:lol: I love how some IDs get mixed around.
There are never any tg's ending in 8 or 9 in an EDACS system that I have seen. I'm sure there is a 'digital' reason for this, but I'm too stewpid to understand it :roll: .

Jerry
 

skipshark773

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
376
Location
Stuck in traffic on I-25
cl said:
From what I've heard here in littleton (kipling/c470) area, the voice is almost inaudible, but you can hear the background hiss..... that's how you know something is happening...
Strange, I have never heard it do that before. Ill give a listen this evening and see if i can duplicate it.
 

datainmotion

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
2,268
Location
Colorado
eyes00only said:
There are never any tg's ending in 8 or 9 in an EDACS system that I have seen. I'm sure there is a 'digital' reason for this, but I'm too stewpid to understand it :roll: .

Jerry
Could those be possibly reserved for another purpose?
 

scanlist

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2002
Messages
2,032
Location
Greeley, CO
Here's the deal.

Real EDACS radios are programmed in decimal. The binary world revolves around hexadecimal (16) in the trunked radio world. There is a pattern of blocks with EDACS as in 0-15 for Agency, Fleet & Sub-fleet.

For some reason when the BC245XLT was designed by uniden they went with the idea that sub-fleets were in blocks of 8 (0-7) which was the case in early PST 16 EDACS systems at the time as opposed to 16 (0-F) which was the case in the final G.E. version that Denver and practically all existing EDACS based systems use now.

One of the claims in the late 90's was that the 245 and 895 scanners could not display A-F properly so they went with blocks of 8 subfleets for the display. This limitation, if this really was the case back in 1999, is carried on with the current line of scanners for continuity.

If you really take a close look at how Denver has each Police district setup on their system each district has a block of 16 TG's. The Same goes for Aurora PD.

So no there are no hidden, reserved secret squirrel TG's. Just a carryover of early scanner limitations from the first EDACS capable scanners.

Phil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top