Whether Still Junk, UPMan?

[PiccoIntegra]

It does work very nicely on DMR transmissions.

It will work equally as well on the Uniden and Whistler scanners. They will add it someday, it's only a matter of time.

 

[Voyager]

I'm not at all the miserable type. I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.

Let me draw the lines:

Some people are just miserable, and can only feel better by trying to make everyone else miserable, too.

Some are disgusted because they don't know the scanner, and refuse to learn how to use it. They think scanner knowledge should just "come to them" and want instant gratification. Then, they end up being the above type.

The "above type" refers to the type described in the first paragraph.

You replied to that quote that:

To my defense(since I'm lumped in with "the above type"),

Now, if that was a misunderstanding, so be it. You don't seem like "the above type" to me. You appear to be the type who post issues without the criticism that others have - such as saying Uniden should die. And THAT is how issues are resolved - not with baseless accusations.

Yes, are correct. I now remember that coming up once or twice before. Just one of many times that memory has failed me. I heard it gets worse with age...

I heat that.

I don't buy the "it's the system" defense either.

Please note I said "might" be the system. I wasn't saying it definitively was.

It was posted in another thread that some systems are intentionally mistuned to lessen the effectiveness of scanners. I'm not debating the merits of that statement - I'm only passing along that the statement was made by someone who has a "problem system" in their area. It's plausible, albeit perhaps unprofessional.

The reason being is because I have two linux computers running OP25(one laptop to move about the house and outside) set up to decode this troublesome system. It does not matter one bit where the antenna is located, I get excellent copy of all transmission and no missed calls or drop-outs. There are occasional blips, but more often then not, the SU is asked to repeat their transmission.

I would bet most any modern PC has more processing power than a scanner, so it's a bit like comparing applies and oranges. The PC can sample the waveform at a much higher rate and compensate for anomalies.

BTW, your last statement proves that the system can be responsible for some issues, but I'm not going to harp on that.

I did admit that I believe the hardware could be better, and the result of your statement proves that. But, how reasonable is it to design such capability into a scanner? Again, design is about compromise to meet a certain price point.

Well, ten years ago I might have agreed with you. But here we are today, with the same basic design they've always used.\

<snip>

Meanwhile, I'm enjoying the hell out of SDR stuff.

I agree that the design could be better, and I don't know how much it would take to change the design. The return has to cover the expense.

As for the current generation, it handles my local LSM system fine - about equal to my XTSs. That proves to me that it CAN work well. Maybe it takes more work than the PC/SDR combo, but SDRs can do a LOT that scanners cannot dream of doing.

As for enjoying SDRs, 100000% agreed. They are wonderful devices - even the cheap ones that have their own issues (granted, they were never designed to do what they are doing).

 

[byndhlptom]

" I have two linux computers running OP25(one laptop to move about the house and outside) set up to decode this troublesome system."

doesn't quite seem fair to compare a "full blown PC" dedicated to decoding a system to a scanner with a small uP and associated hardware...... That's a pretty good MIPS difference

$.02

 

[Voyager]

It will work equally as well on the Uniden and Whistler scanners. They will add it someday, it's only a matter of time.

I would have been suspect of that a few months ago, but since the release of ProVoice, that gives hope. Historically, Uniden has never added features to their products.

 

[KA1RBI]

It was posted in another thread that some systems are intentionally mistuned to lessen the effectiveness of scanners.

It seems that for now, we might just as well say that scanners are intentionally mistuned to lessen the effectiveness of LSM systems.

I would bet most any modern PC has more processing power than a scanner, so it's a bit like comparing applies and oranges.

Correct, modern PCs do have a lot more CPU power than any scanner. However I doubt anyone is offering to bet you on that point - because it misses the point.

It is interesting to examine to the Kenwood TS-590 in this context. (I am not a spokesman for nor affiliated with Kenwood in any way, BTW). Kenwood is not at all shy about advertising the IF DSP in the TS-590. It uses a second intermediate frequency (2nd IF) of 24 KHz. This IF has also been found (in OP25) to be an ideal value when sampling and digitising a single P25 (both phase I and II) signal.

The PC can sample the waveform at a much higher rate and compensate for anomalies.
.

In SDR there is zero benefit in using any sample rate that exceeds the Nyquist rate. If we want to choose to limit ourselves to one frequency at a time, we can use a low-KHz IF as above. However OP25 (and others) can allow you to receive and record an *entire trunked system* - all conversations and channels at once, simultaneously.

How long before the current scanner vendors can do that? BTW, how long before scanner vendors allow you to see your receiver's complex constellation pattern diagram - letting you put that fancy display to use ? Why don't they offer any visual tuning aids to perform the always-mysterious-and-terrifying voodoo-dance that's needed to aim your expensive Yagi antenna - even though the signal strength is full-scale at your location?

73

Max

 

[PiccoIntegra]

Now, if that was a misunderstanding, so be it.

More like an assumption on my part. I really had no clue if you were including me in that type or not. I just wanted to make it clear that I don't have any issues in regards to how to operate a scanner. I don't think that make me smart or anything, I just don't have any problems understanding their functionality.

It was posted in another thread that some systems are intentionally mistuned to lessen the effectiveness of scanners. I'm not debating the merits of that statement

I think it's complete nonsense. I saw the same posts, and they nearly sucked me in. I was successful in resisting such suckage.

I would bet most any modern PC has more processing power than a scanner, so it's a bit like comparing applies and oranges. The PC can sample the waveform at a much higher rate and compensate for anomalies.

Fair point. If Uniden continues along the same path as they have over the last decade, using a single CPU solution for everything, it will never work in this configuration.

It's going to require a CPU and separate DSP chip to overcome the obstacles. There is no other way. By doing this, they could use a lower end CPU to handle peripherals and offload the heavy lifting decode stuff to the DSP. I doubt that the cost would be much different in the end product. GRE/Whistler has been using this combo for a while now, and they're not any more expensive. I just think they're not using the raw IQ method. Maybe they're using a low end CPU as well a low end DSP? The biggest cost is likely R&D.

BTW, your last statement proves that the system can be responsible for some issues,

Nooooo... this system is working exactly as it was designed to work. If scanner manufacturers want to stay competitive and reliable, they will have to adapt to ever changing technology. Staying the course isn't going to cut it in the long term.

As for the current generation, it handles my local LSM system fine - about equal to my XTSs. That proves to me that it CAN work well.

Sorry, but the only thing your statement proves is you're just one of the lucky ones.

 

[Voyager]

I think it's complete nonsense. I saw the same posts, and they nearly sucked me in. I was successful in resisting such suckage.

That's why I said I wasn't debating the merits. But, I HAVE seen more stupid things done by techs, so I place it as "plausible".

As for the scanners being mistuned, no - they work on the vast majority of systems - even many LSM systems. That tells me it can work. But, there are just so many factors that can throw things off, it's not a simple solution to make it work on all. And yes, I realize the design change is one option, but that won't fix existing units.

Fair point. If Uniden continues along the same path as they have over the last decade, using a single CPU solution for everything, it will never work in this configuration.
It's going to require a CPU and separate DSP chip to overcome the obstacles. There is no other way. By doing this, they could use a lower end CPU to handle peripherals and offload the heavy lifting decode stuff to the DSP. I doubt that the cost would be much different in the end product. GRE/Whistler has been using this combo for a while now, and they're not any more expensive. I just think they're not using the raw IQ method. Maybe they're using a low end CPU as well a low end DSP? The biggest cost is likely R&D.

Actually, they have two chips in some of the newer models. I don't know (more accurately I don't recall) if it's two CPUs or a separate CPU and DSP.

Sorry, but the only thing your statement proves is you're just one of the lucky ones.

It also proves it can work without firmware or hardware changes. Note the use of CAN. That doesn't mean it will always work on all systems for a variety of reasons.

 

[buddrousa]

PiccoIntegra my judgement on the LSM was from the side by side philly video on you tube . I do ont buy the mistuned system either. To get the features most are wanting compaired to the AOR price we are looking at a scanner priced in the $1000.00 plus range.