RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Scanners, Receivers and Related Equipment Forums > Uniden Forums > Uniden Prospective Owners


Uniden Prospective Owners - A discussion area for those interested in purchasing specific models and have questions about them.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 06-14-2018, 8:13 PM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 228
Default SDS100 CT Missed transmissions (video)

First off, I am open to suggestions to improve the performance but let me state the following has been tried. The attached video shows the SDS missing almost 50% of the transmissions. Sometimes the TG will flash on the screen briefly with no audio and other times it will not do anything. The radio receives conventional analog fine. It is a bit slow on conventional p25, only by about 1/2 a second. I have tried multiple antennas, locations, and systems and the performance remains the same. I like most things about this radio but its trunked performance on the three systems I have tried are not acceptable. I really don't want to return it, but I do not want the return window to pass with it working this poorly. I am pretty sure it's a software issue as it is reproducible based on the type of use and receives the signal from distant stations fine.

-Non-stock antenna 7/800 specific
-both units shared the same power source
-I have cleared user data and reloaded it
-firmware is up to date
-I have tried the database and custom FL
-I have tried different locations and different sites on the systems
-problem is consistent on p25 phase I/II, SmartZone, EF Johnson Atlis P25.

Video on the CT State Police system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0pqeRp4vLU

See attached log file with multiple failed messages.
Attached Files
File Type: zip log0170003.zip (5.2 KB, 10 views)

Last edited by ems170; 06-14-2018 at 9:21 PM.. Reason: attach log file
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 06-14-2018, 9:29 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Stamford CT
Posts: 72
Default

I think you need to hold on the site that's carrying the troop G dispatch talk group. Being in the northwest part of the state, I don't think all of those sites are going to have it. Others have complained about this as well, and I forget the explanation UPMan had for it. In that 1-2 seconds it takes to scan the other sites, reacquire and decode the control channel that has troop G dispatch means you miss the replies. Maybe setting the channel delay to 2 or 3 seconds would help? Also have you tried monitoring on the new 700 MHz system (CSERN) where troop G is also active?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 06-14-2018, 9:43 PM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 228
Default

mkt853,

Thank you for your advice. I have tried putting it on site hold with minimal to no improvement. You are correct that not all the sites broadcast all TGs. I have the sites set up with GPS and the only sites it was even looking for in the video was site 1 and the ERV site if it was around. I have tried it on the state p25 system as well. It may do a little better but still nowhere near an acceptable level. I also tried it on Waterbury's P25 system. It had near perfect RSSI levels and still missed many messages while the 536 and 436 was picking them all up. I had the APX sitting there in the video because I was testing the SDS on the 700 system and also to make sure the 436 wasn't missing any messages. It didnt miss any. Thanks again for your input. Hopefully, this will be resolved soon as the form factor and UI on this radio is nice, and its perfect as long as the radio receive part isn't important to you.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 06-14-2018, 9:54 PM
scosgt's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,340
Default

FWIW years ago I drove through CT from the beginning of the Merrit Parkway all the way up to West Springfield. I had a BC296D and a 396T. The296 was chattering away and the 396 was silent! I stopped at Lentini Comm on the way back and they verified the programming on the 396 was correct.
Never did figure it out.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2018, 2:28 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,487
Default

Program the frequencies of the systems as analog conventional FM in a new favorite system and open the squelch fully and listen thru the frequencies if they sound nornal without any interferencies that reduce the noise level or have artifacts in the audio. Then try and move the SDS100 away from any electronics.

/Ubbe
__________________
TRX-2 BCD536 HP1 BCT15 BC246 BC346 BR330 UBC3500 Pro2006 Pro2042 Optocom OS545 Scout PCR1000 ICR2500 IC75 DX394 AR8200 IC-R2 IC-R10 UBC780 MD380 CS580 CS750 Pro96 Perseus ADCR25 AcecoSC1plus RTL-SDR
Reply With Quote
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2018, 8:35 AM
cellphone's Avatar
Member
  RadioReference Database Admininstrator
Database Admin
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ahwatukee, AZ (Phoenix)
Posts: 1,356
Default

Add the noise field on the display. That has been my main problem. High noise levels kill reception on the SDS100, but does not affect the 436.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2018, 10:15 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Central Connecticut
Posts: 51
Default

I have similar results with SD100 when compared with my 396XT & 996P2 in CT.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:33 AM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 228
Default

I checked the noise levels and they are not very high. I am generally seeing the noise levels bounce between 200-500. I have been trying as many configurations as I can and the results are consistent. I have placed it near electronics, with no electronics within 50ft of it, inside, outside, different antennas, and different electrical sources. I am still thinking it is a software issue, maybe its associated with the auto digital thresholds. The 436, 536, 396t/xt, were never great at decoding unless a manual setting was used. I am wondering if this has to do with the radio poorly self-adjusting (if with the new technology it still performs similar processes). I am willing to give it another week or so of trial and error. hopefully, in that time a software update will be released. then probably shipping it back. As I had said earlier, I would like to stick it out and wait for improvements, but I don't want to be stuck with a unit that cant perform its primary function after the return timeframe.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:49 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 151
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ems170 View Post
I checked the noise levels and they are not very high. I am generally seeing the noise levels bounce between 200-500. I have been trying as many configurations as I can and the results are consistent. I have placed it near electronics, with no electronics within 50ft of it, inside, outside, different antennas, and different electrical sources. I am still thinking it is a software issue, maybe its associated with the auto digital thresholds. The 436, 536, 396t/xt, were never great at decoding unless a manual setting was used. I am wondering if this has to do with the radio poorly self-adjusting (if with the new technology it still performs similar processes). I am willing to give it another week or so of trial and error. hopefully, in that time a software update will be released. then probably shipping it back. As I had said earlier, I would like to stick it out and wait for improvements, but I don't want to be stuck with a unit that cant perform its primary function after the return timeframe.
My noise level fluctuates between 4000 and 20000 and I don't notice any missed comms.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2018, 11:56 AM
KR7CQ's Avatar
Member
  Shack Photos
Shack photos
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 498
Default

I have the same problems with missed transmissions / scanner not switching from data to voice channel. From all that I've seen and heard it does seem like this scanner has issues in certain high-RF areas, where the 436 didn't have those issues. I've even met with a beta tester / other owners and saw the same issues on their SDS100's. The scanner seems to get confused when a lot of RF / interference is hitting it.

Cellphone is right, you want to watch "noise" on the display. I've seen numbers as high as 30000. Once the noise gets much over 500-1000 it seems that transmissions start getting missed at least here in the Phoenix area on our simulcasts.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:21 PM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 228
Default

KR7CQ,

Good observations, I have tried it in both RF extremes, 30 miles outside of NYC and also in rural CT. Unfortunately, I am seeing the same results when it comes to trunking. I have set up the local site as conventional and obviously it is impossible to follow a single TG, but it is interesting to see how well it decodes sometimes and then how some transmissions come over only as undecoded digital noise. I am going to post another video and log file with the site being monitored in conventional.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2018, 12:58 PM
Member
  Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 564
Default SDS100 CT Missed transmissions

Looks like Uniden/Upman just posted a beta firmware (SDS100 Firmware 1.02.05a for Open Beta) update to try to correct the issues with missing transmissions some are having under "Uniden Tech Support" section. Good luck... Mine is coming tomorrow.

Mike
__________________
kb8rvp
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-15-2018, 1:45 PM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 228
Default

The video linked below is of one of the trunked sites being monitored in conventional mode. The voice traffic decode is improved, but still not as good as the 436. I also attached a new log file.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=um9l9bqu7co
Attached Files
File Type: zip log1465405.zip (100.7 KB, 4 views)
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 06-18-2018, 7:29 PM
Member
  Audio Feed Provider
Audio Feed Provider
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 228
Default

I have loaded and tested the beta software. There may be some improvement but definitely not enough to say its close to being fixed. Hoping for another beta release soon. I am going to file a report in the beta review thread.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2015 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions