All Activity

The Frida 700 Station Has Never Been Built Out Or Put Into Service. Some Folks Like To Post A Station To Mark A Geographic Area They Are Considering For A Repeater Someday. The Problem Is That "Someday" Doesn't Seem To Happen. You're Welcome To Put In A Request For My Niles 725, As It's In Service & Has A Good Footprint For South Western Lower Michigan & Northern IN. You Will Also Receive The Indiana Osceola 600 As Well........

I have definitely listened and have heard nothing. I have no idea how to message the owner.

"Driver install failure!" is what I get when I click on install.

Thanks a lot for your reply. It is helpful…... my bad for posing a question that must have been beat to death here.

I'm sure if it was possible that's what would have been done. Some of the comments I've read said the DVSI code was selected also due to it's low bandwidth requirements, a feature of the algorithm used. That allowed decent sound quality in the allowed bandwidth. At the time some felt it wasn't possible even using digital methods. The simple version of DVSI's algorithm involved a quick analysis of a snapshot of a small time slice of the audio. The resulting info was used to derive variables that were then transmitted. Those variables then were inserted in an algorithm that "simulated" the human vocal track as a filter for multiple sine wave and noise sources. The output of the filter is a simulation of original human speech. That's why it sounds a bit weird because its NOT a compressed direct digital conversion of the original voice. One of the main complaints is the simulated speech lacks some of the subtle nuances of the original speaker, thus for some people making it difficult to tell who it is they are hearing, even though the speech is very readable. One other problem is the algorithm is highly optimize for human speech ONLY. Back ground sounds, like wind noise, sirens etc confuse the crap out of the the process. I was reading a long thread on another forum years back where firefighters were VERY concerned about this. The radio manufactures had to implement various solutions in their radio's audio path to mitigate those issues. Some did a better job that others. This likely accounts for the comments where people claim some digital modes sound better even though they use the SAME EXACT codec. The sound quality likely even varies between manufactures using the same digital voice mode and codec. Also don't forget that modes like DMR uses time slicing, i.e. TDMA slots, so the number of available bits that could be used for improved sound quality are missing verses a mode like P25 which has a higher bit rate I believe. Each digital mode has a fairly complex signaling scheme for communications, which of course consumes bits which could be used for better sound quality by transmitting more parameters to be used in the voice reconstruction process. Some of those bits are used for error correction. Also when Motorola grafted encryption on to MotoTrbo they had to use some of the error correction bits for the encryption info. Some have noticed when DMR enhanced encryption is used the voice quality can degrade a bit. One can really go down the rabbit hole on this topic. It's not as simple as it first appears.

Probably, and in most cases, yes - but as @SteveShannon pointed out, there are many other factors - and, as he also mentioned, you need to try it in the real world - and you should listen to him because he is an official & licensed H.E.R.D.

Message the owner? Listen on simplex. That will tell you if it’s active.

Can you give the exact wording, or a screenshot of any errors or messages you received?

Regarding the Red's repeater controller: first, nice job of testing it out. Seems like it has some nice features. Question: As I see in reviews of the Surecom, there is a practical problem where when recording audio (on the incoming transmission) if there is a pause in the speech the controller will think that is the end of the transmission and then start the repeat playback. When in fact the incoming transmission is not yet finished and thus only part of the statement will get repeated. How did you find that the Red's behaves under such a condition? thanks for any info.

It's located near me in Michigan. I put in a request a month ago and haven't heard anything back. I don't know if it's still active or not. Any info would be appreciated.

Did Yoo Mama teach you how to spell

Drive will not install. It failed.

Of course it makes sense to do it this way. After all it is just voice communications, not audiophile quality needed for land mobile service. I just hate the compression it causes. A lossless CODEC would help sound quality at the expense of bandwidth.

Thanks i will do that. I wish I knew I would of given you a tour of the ranch & range.

And the audio quality is excellent.

How are you measuring SWR? How sensitive is the measurement device to reflected power? What kind of coax are you using? How long is that coax? What power are you testing at? Where are you measuring the SWR? All of those questions must be considered in order to understand what you’re actually measuring. But again, a low SWR doesn’t mean an antenna is good for transmitting or receiving. A good dummy load will always provide a good SWR measurement. Nor does a slightly high SWR measurement mean an antenna is bad. A high SWR antenna with no transmission line still gets the power out. What kind of antenna is it? How does it work in actual real-world tests involving transmitting and receiving? Try it.

Another good one is the Melowave Shadow. It works just as well as the Midland Ghost. And both work better than the Nagoya UT-72G that I have.

here are the frequencies used. It tested similarly on two different mounts, a magnet mount and a hood mount. GMRS 462.562 1.5 Marine 156.8 1.01 VHF 443.45 1.06 UHF 146.73 1.56 MURS 151.82 1.32

Those SWR readings are good, but SWR readings alone do not make an antenna good. Also, measuring SWR at the radio end of a lossy coax cable will always give SWR readings that are artificially low.

Does it transmit where you need it to? How does it sound at 100miles? 200miles? I’d like to see actual frequencies used in this test. Seems fishy it works that well for all those bands. But remember gmrs is uhf and murs is in vhf. Need more and better info gathered by some one that understands radio bands. Where was it measured? What radio, coax and antenna are you using? In the end I’m going to go out on the limb I live on and say I’d bet no It’s not a good antenna

So I found an antenna that is testing great with several radios and several different bands. I realize its placement and the limitations of its size and design type are considerations but wanted to know if good SWR results are something I should be happy with? It is the size and format that I want and am getting these readings with my VR-N7500. Similar results with the UV PRO, AR-5RM and VX6R GMRS 1.5 Marine 1.01 VHF 1.06 UHF 1.56 MURS 1.32

WRONG! Bullies don’t like to be called:”Bullies!”

Umm my mother taught me to look stuff up first then ask intelligent questions. My mother told me to help my self first before asking the most basic questions. I’d have to actually get out books, look over manuals, might even have to go to the library. THEN and only then could I go down to the local shop and ask questions. Some times I was told by the old guys to go back home and read some more. Id have to try things out first myself. Many failures later and I’d have it down pat. Now we have the interwebby thingy and we have the most uneducated lazy generation ever in history. Imagine how good it would feel to use the internet information available to one’s self to gain knowledge your self before asking questions.

Unfortunately just about everyone uses some form of a digital voice encoder. The leading favorite is the AMBE, previously IMBE, by DVSI. Their proprietary codec is based on early work done at MIT. The link below is a short description from DVSI, which doesn't really revel much. https://www.dvsinc.com/papers/iambe.html A much more in-depth description can be found here from a report published by MIT for the US Air Force in 1987. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA181146.pdf My understanding is when the FCC forced the commercial radio services to move to narrow band FM, which was done by reducing the FM deviation, also resulted in a reduction in the signal to noise ratio I believe. At a 12.5KHz bandwidth it's not severe, however at narrower bandwidths it is. The FCC stated at one point they intend to move to a true 6.25 KHz per voice channel width. That's why the major radio manufactures introduced various digital voice technologies. For the moment the FCC seems to be OK with various digital voice technologies that can achieve an "equivalent" voice channel width of 6.25 KHz, example DMR 2 slots in a 12.5 KHz channel. However at some point they may force a move to a true 6.25 KHz channel width, but no official date has been given. This is stated in chapter 1 of the FCC's narrow banding guide. https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/docs/clearinghouse/guidelines/Narrowbanding_Booklet.pdf In the mean time there are ways to license a true 6.25 KHz channel per the FCC. See attached paper. Splitting 6.25KHz Channels.pdf

I've only tested the Midland Ghost, but it did provide at least as much range as the UT-72G with a clearer signal. I know you aren't a fan of the UT-72 series, but IME, if you don't need a lot of range, they work just fine. However, I'd still be running the Ghost if I didn't need an antenna that will also be resonant on 70cm and 2m. There are some similar antennas which purportedly are dual-band in a similar form factor to the Midland Ghost, but I'm highly skeptical that a $15 Bingfu or Anina will do the job. My experiences with their antennas haven't been positive, for the most part. However, I've spent more than $15 on dinner, so maybe I will get one and test it.