Leaderboard

This is the follow-up report based on findings in my environment from a set of side-by-side comparisons. If you are looking for a short read, I suggest you move on now and not look back or forever hold your piece. [emoji23]. You have been warned. Before I begin, I want to give special thanks and credit to RadioGuy7268 for his graciousness and the trust he placed in me with his equipment for this effort. It would not have been possible without you. Thank You! What was the comparison all about and why did I undertake it? Manufacturer specifications really are an important thing to review when purchasing a radio. Most humans don’t ‘think’ numbers however. Instead we think about and relate to real world outcomes. What we want to know is if a product will or will not meet our expectations and ‘what can I reasonably expect.’ Sadly the manufacturer’s marketing information, by design, can lead folks into a fantasy world that may have one believing we can have the sky and life will be rosy if we only purchased and used their product. Everyone reading this can relate to the absurd advertising claim on the Midland (and other’s) radio package of a 36 mile range for their top-end GMRS hand-held radio. They do this conscientiously knowing no soul on earth will ever achieve this range in practical use. Sadly though, fantasy sells, even in radio. The more technical the person, the more numbers have meaning. They gain more meaning when they can be related to real life. For example: To the uninitiated, if I ask them how loud something might sound if I doubled the sound power of something they were listening too they might say it would sound twice as load. But that would not be the case. In real life testing researchers found that if the power was doubled (3dB louder) it would be just barely noticeable to the average human. In reality, the power would actually need to increased by 10dB (10-times the power) before the person (on average) would subjectively conclude the level had actually doubled. It is through this type of learning that gives meaning to the various numbers that appear in technical specifications a manufacture may publish. Then we have experiences and opinions. Both are yours, neither of them may be the same as mine. If I shared with you (and I have) that I have communicated successfully well via a GMRS repeater 50 miles away, you might start to believe that if you switched to the use to the same equipment as I then you would be able to do the same. Maybe, maybe not. In the same way, when I read the experiences (or opinions) of others I may start to thinking I too could experience much better results if I switched to the equipment they use. Maybe, maybe not. My conditions are different than yours. When I purchased my current and now primary GMRS handheld I had high hopes for its performance. I bought it because I wanted simplex capability substantially better than I had. I also wanted repeater support, and ability to use it with an external antenna. Imagine my surprise when I experienced only marginally (barely noticeable) better simplex distance over the model it replaced. What a disappointment! I spent 2-3/4 times the price and ended with a radio that, in my environment, achieved maybe 5%-10% increase in range (HT-HT). While disappointed, I am pleased with my purchase and have publicly admitted I would buy the radio again. The features and qualities of the radio that are currently meaningful to me more than justify the additional price. But I really did want much better simplex distance. Like many of you I have read the posts of others sharing their opinions and experiences with regards to the use of ‘commercial’ part 90 radios. Many great experiences (or opinions) have been shared, and some very bold statements have been made (e.g. ‘10x the range’). Such comments caused me naturally to think that perhaps I too should consider such options. Maybe then I could achieve my simplex goals. The commercial prophets had sowed their seeds and thus I have been seriously considering obtaining higher priced commercial-grade stuff. However, my knowledge and life experiences have provided me enough wisdom and little angel on the other shoulder whispering in my ear saying “trust but verify”. Would this equipment really make a difference ‘in my environment?’. I have never owned nor operated ‘commercial grade’ radio equipment for any extensive use. Instead I have always owned consumer grade and ‘amateur’ stuff. As a consequence of my experience I could not say first hand if commercial performs obviously better in practice like others have said it does. I do admit that I almost blindly accept that commercial equipment will likely be built to last longer, stand up to more rigorous use, perhaps even in harsh environments, but before I am willing to make a greater investment for personal-use, I really want to know that the equipment will result in noticeably better outcomes material to me. It is hard to image a scenario again where I find myself investing 2-10 times as much and getting nothing more of what I really want in return. So that leads us to here. I reached out to this community for some assistance, and assistance is what I graciously received. I sought the opportunity to do some side by side field comparisons between my current GMRS HTs (KG-805G) and some ‘commercial’ grade HTs. I had hoped for perhaps one or two premium models. I ended up being blessed with 5. All Motorolas. I told myself that if I could double or nearly double the range in my environment I would plan to switch. So in full disclosure, I tell that when I went into my comparisons cautiously optimistic that I would achieve confirmation of the following: 1. Commercial Part-90 Radios will exhibit notably greater range, in my environment, than any equipment I own. 2. Commercial Part-90 Radios will exhibit the continued ability to receive and produce intelligible audio at notably increased distances than any equipment I own when receiving in the presence of adjacent channel interference. Now, let me set the stage for comparisons. I live in a semi rural area about 20 miles southeast of Cincinnati. My elevation above sea level is just about 875’ which I believe to be in higher-most percentile of the region, and on par with the ground elevation of one of the highest profile repeaters in the area. The terrain around me is mostly flat to slightly rolling. I estimate that within a few miles of my home the land is 60% or more trees with the rest a mixture of residential, open fields and light single story commercial. When I walk down my street using my existing GMRS HTs I experience simplex coverage that goes from perfect (full quieting) at the home and out to a distance of 4/10 miles. Thereafter, noise emerges but communications remains 100% reliable out to about 6/10ths mile. Beyond 6/10ths mile and out to 1.4 miles, communication is unreliable at best. Within this unreliable zone communication quality ranges from noisy but intelligble to very noisy and partially copiable, to non-existent. All this within 1.4 miles distance by way the crow flies. Range or “Sensitivity” Testing Because my street allows me to experience everything from great to nothing, it offers a great initial test bed. I theory that any radio with notably better receive capability will pop its head above the rest while operated in the unreliable (fringe) area between 6/10 and 1.4 miles. My plan was that when I identify radio(s) that stand out I will perform more extensive distance testing at greater distances and in different directions. For my range tests, all operations were HT to HT, theoretically enabling the ability to spot notable sensitivity differences in a short physical distance. My wife operated an HT on the coach near the front window of our home while I went pedestrian. Where model-matched pairs of radios were available, my wife and I each operated two models, a KG-805G and another identical model. Where we did not have identical models for both ends, my wife used a single radio at the house (KG-805G) for consistency, while I carried a KG-805G plus another model. For each comparison, I would walk on the street while walking and talking with her on the radios. I would stop about every 200-300 feet. We would communicate using identical models, then perform cross-model communications. If we could communicate, we noted that location and moved on. When we entered the unreliable (fringe) area we continued with the pattern. When neither receiver would receive a signal at the location we moved on. When we encountered a location where one radio opened up and the other did not, we spent a little more time. Heavy noise on one or both models was an indication we were at the fringe for that radio. When presented with this his condition I would alternate between both models on my end while my wife consistently used the same radio on her end. I would hold each radio in the air in the same way (overhead and in front of me, with my body out of the receive path). I would move each radio around slightly looking to see if minor repositioning made a difference in the ability to receive and in quality of audio. If we found a model that worked in a fringe area where another would not, even after minor repositioning, we would know that we had found a candidate that exhibited more effective sensitivity and that would probably work better in many other environments as well. See the summary below. Adjacent Channel Interference Testing. The next set of tests were practical adjacent-channel selectivity tests. The intent of these tests was to ascertain which radios where obviously less subject to desense in the presence of adjacent channel interference, based on the use of a common desense source. The hope was to identify, in relative terms, how much further a given receiver could receive satisfactorily when subjected to a consistent level of adjacent channel interference. For this test, one additional radio was added to the mix, a Midland GXT1000. For these tests, my wife operated a single model radio in the house for the duration of the tests. For this test her radio was hooked up to a Ed-Fong roll-up J-pole antenna hanging inside at the front picture window. I went pedestrian. I took 7 models of radios with me to evaluate each back to back at each location I stopped. My wife read from the US Constitution while I confirmed I had reception on each model. Once good reception was confirmed I would hold each radio overhead at about 45 degree elevation in front of me, while below and behind me I held and keyed up a 1/2 watt ERP radio. I always made sure that my body was between the two radios I held and that my body was out of the RF path from my wife to the device under test. Separation between the radios I held is estimated at 6 feet (two arm lengths). Tests were performed at various distances along the same 1.4 mile stretch of my street. Findings from my Comparisons I found only minor (but not notable) differences between (4) of the Motorola’s and the KG-805G on the day of the tests. (2) Models, the EVX-S24 and VX-261, both seemed to exhibit the same sensitivity compared to the KG-805G, but struggled to open squelch just a hair more when in the fringe area. Both of these radios also seemed to exhibited a bit more audible noise when squelch did open up. (2) Models, the XPR-6550 and XPR-7550, both exhibited just the opposite. These two models seemed to open squelch just a bit sooner than the KG-805G, but on par nearly the same. (1) Motorola, the EVX-534 exhibited only about 1/2 mile of usable distance (A1 on Map) which suggests it was not functioning properly or perhaps its squelch setting was too high. Although two models appeared to open squelch a hair better and two a hair less, there was never a case (except for the EVX-534) where one radio opened squelch and the others did not when held in the same or nearly identical location (+/- 6 inches). My results suggests there is insignificant difference in the effective sensitivity between the KG-805G and the (4) Motorolas, as none of them reproduced audio at a spot in the fringe area where the KG-805G did not receive and reproduce audio. Since no radio demonstrated better sensitivity in the fringe area I concluded that no further range comparisons were warranted. So this concluded my sensitivity comparisons. Findings from my Adjacent Channel Interference Comparisons Findings here are significant in that it was observed that in the presence of my adjacent channel interference signal, not a single radio (KG-805G or other) opened squelch nor would reproduce audio under test conditions beyond a distance of about 3/10 mile (B1 on map). At 3/10 of a mile and less, all models tested, except the GTX1000, opened squelch. Even as close as 1/10 mile (B2 on map) the GTX1000 would not open up squelch, showing a significantly reduced usable distance compared to the other models. It was noted that when the radios opened squelch that the quality of audio through all the radios was significantly degraded. Even with the audio degraded, with carefully listening, the words could be understood from all radios that did open squelch. As the radios moved closer and closer to the home, the degree of audio degradation decreased. Subjectively speaking, I ranked the radios in the following order in terms of intelligibility when subjected to the interference condition at the 3/10 mile. XPR7550, XPR6550, KG-805G, VX-261, EVX-S24, EVX-534. Then again at 1/10 mile I ranked that as follows: XPR7550, XPR6550, KG-805G, EVX-534, EVX-S24, VX-261 at 1/10 mile. Conclusions Staying within the bounds of what I set out to do, here are my conclusions. In my physical and RF environment, given the objective of maximum simplex range (HT-HT) there is was no material benefit to switching to commercial grade part 90 radios from my current KG-805G radio. No part 90 radio model demonstrated any materially better sensitivity nor increased range under static RF conditions; no radio demonstrated a materially increased range under adjacent interference conditions. All were equally as effective and I found zero increased range benefit to justify a model change. Saying it another way. In my environment, with locally strongly attenuated signals, the difference between the KG-805G and the part 90 radios was not significant. The GTX1000 radio, Midland’s long-time flagship bubble-wrap radio, while reasonably sensitive, is an inferior performer in the presence of adjacent channel interference, giving credibility to the many assertions that radio-on-a chip radios can/will have limited usability in high RF environments. Opinion The cost difference between the KG-805G and Midland GTX-1000 can be justified considering the KG-805G outperformed it by a factor of 3 when exposed to adjacent channel interference as was the case in my comparisons. Users of the GTX1000 (or any like performer) at high-occupancy public events may find their usable range substantially and undesirably reduced compared to users of better models when there are a lot of GMRS and FRS radios in active use in the vicinity. The cost difference between a KG-805G and a new Motorola radio is not justifiable when the key objective is maximum range (HT-HT), while it may be justified when other qualities are deemed more important. For those interested, here is a google earth image with annotations of where the tests were conducted. I personally found this effort very beneficial. Nothing like getting your feet wet and experiencing something first hand. If you made it this far, thanks for sticking with me. And once again, Thanks to RadioGuy7268. Best regards to you all. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM Edited for spelling. Edited to amend conclusion.

The deficiency is the inability to create and use all available memories in the radio (aka ‘Channels’) to store your choice of valid, legal, combinations of frequencies and tones. In contrast, the Wouxun radios allow you to assemble and store as many legal combinations as you want, up to the limit of total memories available. The BTECH further limits you to storage of valid Rx/Tx combinations in only certain memory slots. This is the same issue that Midland owners face. So the problem comes into play when you live in an area or travel into areas that have many repeaters on the same frequency and need different tones to access them. With the BTECH you cannot preload your radio with all combinations you know you will need. Instead must stop and reconfigure your radio in the field rather than just select a new pre-made memory. An inconvenience at best. Hope that helps. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

First off, you are welcome. Second, you make a very fair statement. There is no doubt that the signals in my environment are in fact very much attenuated. That is why I believe the unreliable/fringe zone from 6/10 to 1.4 miles to be such an important zone. Agreed too that if the fringe area were known to be say, 5 times larger, that finer differences would have been able to be detected. I also believe under laboratory conditions small differences would be detected. But this test was all about the practical, in my environment. In the end, I take no exception to amending the conclusion to clarify. Thanks for your feedback. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

I’m a pretty green GMRS guy and was hoping someone could explain the programming deficiencies with this model. It comes with a programming cable and I’m assuming can be programmed via chirp?

You are correct. Turn off your privacy codes (DCS or CTCSS), turn your squelch down low, and monitor ch 15-22. If there is a repeater near you, you should be able to hear it on one of these channels. Your radio may have a scan function which might make it easier to just leave the radio scanning until you find an active channel. A repeater will likely have some sort of automated ID. Enjoy!

I'll PM you I have experience with these radios so I can take a look and see if I can find something.

Just started to set up my Radioddity GD-77 this weekend. I've only added a local repeater and did add TG310 but have yet to hear anything. Very new to DRM so still figuring out keying up to active a group??ect...ect... and just plain how to use the software for my radio. I have gotten a contact so I'm doing something right...lol I'm cutting out on the repeater too so I need to get an antenna on the roof for this HT.

This is not JUST a repeater issue. Where I live we use GMRS/FRS channel 7 with a PL code for comms from cottage-cottage or golfcart-golfcart. At my hunting property we also use channel 7 BUT with a different PL code. So with my Midland 275 I have to stop and change PLs when en route from one place to the other. All of this is on simplex.

Well, since you seem to know more than the people who have responded to your post, why bother asking in the first place? Perhaps, instead of telling others they are wrong, you might ask yourself what circumstances might explain what, at least to you, looks like a dichotomy. BTW, there is a perfectly good reason, sample size and sampling methodology.

All radios were programmed Wideband, and performance verified prior to shipping with an Aeroflex/IFR 3920.

You’re welcome. Certainly not a lab-grade experiment, but very practical. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

The report can be found here. Side-by-Side Range Comparison (KG-805G vs Part 90) - The Findings https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic?share_fid=112680&share_tid=2536&url=https://forums.mygmrs.com/index.php?/topic/2536-Side-by-Side-Range-Comparison-%28KG-805G-vs-Part-90%29---The-Findings&share_type=t&link_source=app Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Try putting 031N on the TX side. I believe Icom the <- should indicate it is using the same as the RX code. I see an option for Talkaround, check to see if you can select "Off" and see if that helps. Outside of all that, it would seem you have all of the information entered in correctly.

I would offer one tip, and there is bound to be disagreement on this, but... As you read how different groups have put together their emergency communications plans, be very wary of those with a layered structure and in particular those that have a hierarchy like: FRS -> GMRS -> ham. Those plans inevitably are built on some level of unproven assumptions (i.e. prejudice). On the other hand, pay heed to plans that start with an analysis of need and and capability and then match the plan to that. The El Dorado California plan seems to be a good example of what to look for. BTW, keep in mind that since a good plan reflects local abilities, needs, finances, etc., what works in one community may not work in another. But, those one-size-fits-all plans are unlikely to work well anywhere. So, if you see a plan that sounds good to you, you might want to ask how they came up with that plan. The answer to that question could be worth far more than the plan itself.

Travel Tone is when a repeater enables 141.3 Hz as an open tone for travelers to use when in the area. For example, you could tune your radio to each GMRS repeater channel with 141.3 as your tone, and the repeaters with a Travel Tone are open for temporary use without permission. Good for when you don't have time to program each repeater along your route. ORI stands for the Open Repeater Initiative which was created by Popular Wireless many years ago. It was a way to indicate a repeater is open for any licensed GMRS operator to use without having to ask the owner's permission. These repeaters you can just jump on and use as long as you follow GMRS rules and use your callsign.