Whistler WS-1095 P25 performance reports HERE....

[APX8000]

Please post reports in this thread regarding decode quality for P25 Phase I, Phase II, LSM etc. HERE....also, please post the trunked system you are monitoring and if you've had better reception with this model or other models/manufactuers.

 

[trentbob]

... thanks Mod... maybe we will get all the1095 forums in one place (I know that's not your job/area)... on Bucks Co., Pa and Burlington Co., NJ (P-1)... sound is clear and crisp... on Phila. (P-2) also clear and chrisp unlike my x36's that are muffled and garbled... I use VHF/UHF/800 ground planes on the roof with low loss coax... now that all programing is done, ID tags the way I want them and scan list strategically placed the radio will go in the car today (the remote head is so small and light).... 73's... Bob...

 

[trentbob]

... just a follow up... installed in car today... was far away from Bucks and Burco P-1 systems and even with 2-3 bars sound was still clear and crisp... the 536 I had in the car before would not have worked or if so would have been distorted with 2-3 bars... full bars or not it was always hard to understand, muffled and garbled (even with remote speaker, NFM to FM and update)... I couldn't see the display any more even at night so the 1095 came out just in time... was in center city Philly today and P-2 system was crisp and clear with 1095... would be nice if it had a keyboard to change scan lists but remote head is so small and light I mounted it on the steering column behind the wheel were I can see and control it with ease... if we ever get a "post- release" forum I will write a detailed review... Bob...

 

[APX8000]

Glad to hear Philly Phase II is working good. I know a lot of listeners have LSM issues with that particular system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TAbirdman]

... just a follow up... installed in car today... was far away from Bucks and Burco P-1 systems and even with 2-3 bars sound was still clear and crisp... the 536 I had in the car before would not have worked or if so would have been distorted with 2-3 bars... full bars or not it was always hard to understand, muffled and garbled (even with remote speaker, NFM to FM and update)... I couldn't see the display any more even at night so the 1095 came out just in time... was in center city Philly today and P-2 system was crisp and clear with 1095... would be nice if it had a keyboard to change scan lists but remote head is so small and light I mounted it on the steering column behind the wheel were I can see and control it with ease... if we ever get a "post- release" forum I will write a detailed review... Bob...

Bob,

Just so others in your area may know: are you running the unit with all the factory settings or did you tweak it some? If so, what setting did you change and to what values?
thx

 

[trentbob]

... I did some customizing for general use (ie... lowered beep tones, contrast, brightness ect) but nothing with regard to p-25... in Burlington, NJ (P-1) I programed different sites in different SL because there are so many the radio may try to latch on to a site that is further away from a closer one... on Bucks County, Pa I put the south county TG on the south site and the north TG on the north site... Philly (P-2) has 2 sites and I put all TG on both... on NJSP (non digital hybrid 800) I used central site... it seems AGC goes on conventional channels by default but not talkgroups...

 

[APX8000]

Any other reports?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SCPD]

if someone can post a video with the WS1095 doing phase 2 would be cool!

 

[KB6KGX]

If you go to YouTube, there are several videos posted by K4DPS showing the new Whistler WS1095. At this point, I don’t know how much better it is than the BCD536HP, if at all. I would have gotten the Whistler, because I liked the remote head feature, but I wanted the WiFi and Siren App for Uniden more.

 

[AA6IO]

I appreciate Doug's (K4DPS) YouTube videos very much. Thanks Doug also for these early 1095 videos.
The videos so far have been analog stations. Here in Los Angeles, my WS1080 performs quite well on analog stations, and performance is on par with the 436HP, perhaps a bit more sensitive on high VHF.
However, where the WS1080 falls apart for me is on weak P25 digital decoding. Sometimes it will open the squelch on P25 channel/TG earlier than the 436HP, but the P25 channel has to be quite a bit stronger than on the 436HP to get decent decoding. What I would like to see is a comparison by Doug, or someone else, of the 1095 vs the 536HP on different digital channels/TGs both weaker and stronger.
Also, despite the well-known issues with the 536HP, I think most folks on RRDB give them the edge when it comes to simulcast digital decoding (I know there are some exceptions). I would certainly consider getting a 1095, but am waiting for the newer units to have the disc IF output function. That is important to me. Anyway, glad that the new 1095 has finally hit the market, and will be interested to hear reports and comparisons over the next several weeks.

 

[marksmith]

I appreciate Doug's (K4DPS) YouTube videos very much. Thanks Doug also for these early 1095 videos.
The videos so far have been analog stations. Here in Los Angeles, my WS1080 performs quite well on analog stations, and performance is on par with the 436HP, perhaps a bit more sensitive on high VHF.
However, where the WS1080 falls apart for me is on weak P25 digital decoding. Sometimes it will open the squelch on P25 channel/TG earlier than the 436HP, but the P25 channel has to be quite a bit stronger than on the 436HP to get decent decoding. What I would like to see is a comparison by Doug, or someone else, of the 1095 vs the 536HP on different digital channels/TGs both weaker and stronger.
Also, despite the well-known issues with the 536HP, I think most folks on RRDB give them the edge when it comes to simulcast digital decoding (I know there are some exceptions). I would certainly consider getting a 1095, but am waiting for the newer units to have the disc IF output function. That is important to me. Anyway, glad that the new 1095 has finally hit the market, and will be interested to hear reports and comparisons over the next several weeks.

One of those videos (albeit analog) seemed to indicate the 1095 was more sensitive than the 536.

Mark
536/996P2/HP1e/HP2e/996XT/
396XT/PSR800/PRO668/PRO652

 

[KB6KGX]

Since I have the 536 and not the 1095, I can’t comment on which is better overall or better for what. I would be very interested in seeing some video comparisons between the two, with both radios side-by-side, same antenna, same frequency being monitored and look at which receives it better.

For me, right now, to compare the two makes as much sense to me as to compare camera brands, Nikon vs. Canon, for example. Both are great. Both are better at some things than the other is. But both are good.

 

[APX8000]

My biggest concern (as well as others based upon the numerous posts to the forums) is how it decodes P25 LSM, particularly Phase II TDMA. I'd like to see some of those reports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BenScan]

My first impression of the WS-1095 is that it sounds better than the Unidens on P25 trunked systems., especially on Phase 2(Irving site on Fort Worth Regional Radio System Trunking System, Tarrant, Johnson Counties, Texas - Scanner Frequencies). The Phase 2 audio is not as muffled like on Uniden BCD536HP and 9962P.

Unfortunately, it doesn't receive any better, and frankly under performs(just like the Unidens) on the most important simulcast system in the area (Layers 1 and 2 on Fort Worth Regional Radio System Trunking System, Tarrant, Johnson Counties, Texas - Scanner Frequencies).

My main reason for getting this was to have a remote head scanner in the car that can do Phase 2, since Uniden does not offer one.

The other big disappointment is that you have to turn it on, and wait a long time, before it actually starts scanning, unlike the Uniden 996XT that could be turned out automatically when you start your car.

I've drifted off topic a bit. If I find that my first impression is not fair, after further installation, tweaking, and use, I'll gladly report back more positive findings.

My biggest concern (as well as others based upon the numerous posts to the forums) is how it decodes P25 LSM, particularly Phase II TDMA. I'd like to see some of those reports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[marksmith]

My first impression of the WS-1095 is that it sounds better than the Unidens on P25 trunked systems., especially on Phase 2(Irving site on Fort Worth Regional Radio System Trunking System, Tarrant, Johnson Counties, Texas - Scanner Frequencies). The Phase 2 audio is not as muffled like on Uniden BCD536HP and 9962P.

Unfortunately, it doesn't receive any better, and frankly under performs(just like the Unidens) on the most important simulcast system in the area (Layers 1 and 2 on Fort Worth Regional Radio System Trunking System, Tarrant, Johnson Counties, Texas - Scanner Frequencies).

My main reason for getting this was to have a remote head scanner in the car that can do Phase 2, since Uniden does not offer one.

The other big disappointment is that you have to turn it on, and wait a long time, before it actually starts scanning, unlike the Uniden 996XT that could be turned out automatically when you start your car.

I've drifted off topic a bit. If I find that my first impression is not fair, after further installation, tweaking, and use, I'll gladly report back more positive findings.

Now that we are in the age of SD cards, I think the days of turning the key in your vehicle and having it scanning right away like the 996xt are over, for better or worse. It's one of the reasons I picked up a 996p2 because it has the solid traits of a inboard memory system, even though it is plagued by shortcomings of those systems, like limitations on UID's etc. Since the 996p2 was based on the solid operations of the 996xt, especially after enduring the problems with the 536, I find it solid as well. In a quirky way, Uniden's introduction of the x36 radios with their problems, have made the rehashed 396/996 phase 2 radios look good.

I expect there will be limitations to the 1095 in terms of it being an SD card radio, but my experience with the psr800/ws1080 is that it works with few issues. I also find it decodes P1 and P2 digital in a way that is cleaner and more understandable than my Unidens, with the possible exception of the HP-2, an underrated radio in my opinion. Looking forward to the 1095 and possibly interesting installation options it presents.

Mark
536/HP1e/HP2e/996P2/996XT/396XT/PSR800/PRO668/PRO652

 

[szron]

Would love to see Simulcast performance video if anybody would make one.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[jpmn4ayv]

Choppy audio / varying levels

Just received my WS1095. Here are my installation details:
- Antenna: ScanTenna, 40' elevation, 75' RG-213 coaxial cable.
- Stridsberg Multicoupler feeding two other scanners (GRE PSR-500 and PSR-410).

I am monitoring the Loudoun County, Virginia Phase 2 TDMA system.
The scanner is running the latest firmware, downloaded as soon as the scanner was placed into service.
Tweaks: DSPLevelAdapt is set to 128, squelch set to 1.

The P25 decode quality varies all over the place. Some talkgroups come through loud and clear, while others are choppy and sometimes unreadable. I've tried several attempts to resolve this, most of which have included tweaking DSPLevelAdapt from lower values to higher ones and have found 128 to work well. I've also switched to the stock whip antenna (thinking that I've been getting front-end overloading), but the issues persist. Signal levels on voice channels are full-scale with either the stock antenna or the ScanTenna.

Audio quality is good, but levels and tonal quality between talkgroups can vary quite a bit. However, this is probably due more to the source rather than the scanner itself.

If anyone has any suggestions on improving the decode quality, please let me know!

 

[whisper16]

Threshold Levels?

Can you adjust the threshold levels in the Ez Scan software?

 

[APX8000]

jpmn4ayv...how was the Phase II performance with the default 64 ? Have you tried going the opposite direction ? I've had good results on my PSR-800 with 16.

 

[jpmn4ayv]

Choppy audio / varying levels

Thank you for the suggestions!

I've tried adjusting DSPLevelAdapt to 16 and I set the mode for this system from FM to NFM. Haven't noticed any improvement yet. Some traffic sounds perfectly clear, some robotic, and some still unreadable. I find it interesting that some traffic is perfectly clear and sounds great. It's just not consistent from one talkgroup to another, nor one voice channel to another.

I cannot adjust the threshold levels (as far as I know) since Loudoun County is a single site system. Threshold levels seem to be valid only for multi-site systems.

The tinkering continues...