Leaderboard

Keep an eye open for sales. Sign up for the Radioddity and Midland announcements. Black Friday is just around the corner. Last week Radioddity had a 20% off sale. I picked up two of the DB-20G radios. They’re usually $110 each but I got both for $175 total. They’re pretty slick looking but I haven’t had a chance to power them up yet.

FFS, are you still arguing over this? 4 pages of trying to prove who's smarter over something that the FCC (based on their history of action) doesn't even care about? ..."some people" .... Need to go outside more often... Just sayin...

Hey I just came in from doing yard work and it’s 71, sunny and warm, time for a cold one ?

65° and sunny over here ?

Wimp. I've gone out and started my car at -42 so I could drive to work.

Actually this is one of the times that MDC is actually a really good thing. If you hear the MDC burst, then you know they unkeyed letting you key up and talk and POSSIBLY not be talking on someone else in the process. Yes, I too run my busy channel lockout on SOME repeaters. Unfortunately, I can't run it on the MIDWEST link due to the fact that when a discussion gets going the repeater may be transmitting for 5 or 10 minutes without a break. But my local repeaters that aren't linked, I do use it.

That is actually much better and clearer than what the FCC gives as a definition. And you managed to do it without using "Fixed Station" as part of your definition. ? As an aside I give you all this from the office of the federal register pulled from the website of the federal archives. It's a guide on writing definitions for regulations. If you read through it then read through the definitions in the FCC's regulations you will very quickly see that the FCC itself has a hard time following guidelines. ?. Pay close attention to #4 ? And of course for those that don't like following links I quoted it below. Now I hope with the answer to the question finally out in the world we can allow this thread to go the way of the Dodo.

It had been answered several times, all in the same way, whether quoting the definition directly or paraphrasing. Here’s an example: Fixed stations are radios in fixed locations that may only transmit analog signals directly to each other, using no more than 15 watts output power. They are allowed to transmit on either the 462 MHz main channels or the 467 MHz main channels.

Tune in next week when we discuss Volume, how much is too much… can you pass the pretzels please ?

If this is similar to my 935 -- I found I had to assign it to a (short-press) side button. Note that CTCSS and DCS are /separate/ scan functions, and if you want both readily accessible you'd need two button assignements.

<sigh> Compare to GMRS was always a wide bandwidth service prior to the addition of the 467MHz "FRS" Interstitials. GMRS did not undergo the mandated narrowbanding that LMR (business/public service) underwent some years back. The 462MHz interstitial frequencies were created before FRS and were wide band. In my view, the only justification for going NFM on the 462MHz set is that everyone else is using bubble-pack FRS radios (and no licenses) and one wants to reduce the tonal quality mismatches between (w)FM and NFM (and since the only frequencies not permitted to FRS now are the 467MHz repeater inputs -- one could argue that they might as well set all the frequencies to NFM). .

So, we're all waiting with bated breath: what mobile are you going to buy?!?

“Fixed station.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fixed station. Accessed 20 Nov. 2022.

For as smart as you seem to be I cannot believe that what I said went over your head the way it did. A definition should not include in it the word/term/object being defined. Thats what the FCC did. That makes the definition clear as mud. That definition tells you what a "fixed station" can or cannot do, not what it is. If I ask you to define what a door is you can define it without using the word door in the definition can u not? Ok then so lets define a fixed station or give an example that would be a bit easier to understand rather than just keep regurgitating the same FCC definition that doesn't actually define what it is, but only tells us what it is allowed to do or not do. @UncleYoda I found this on an old thread on radioreferance.com forums thought i'd share it with you maybe it will help you a bit.

Hi @OffRoaderX, If your question is actually "How do I get drivers for my radio software to run on Windows 11 emulated in Parallels on MacOS with M1 hardware?", then you might be in for a bit of trial and error and I'm excited to know what you or someone else in our group can find! If I read your question slightly differently, as "How do I get radio software which only runs on Windows (7/8/9/10/11) to work with drivers for radio software to run on may MacOS M1?" I may have an alternate solution from the open source emulation community. I'm also curious, are you using the Windows 11 ARM preview or the x86 version of Windows 11 inside the Parallels Virtual Machine (VM) environment? Issues with driver versions and binary compatability If you're runing the ARM version of Windows 11, it stands to reason you'd need an ARM version of the driver. If you're running an x86 version of Windows 11, its stands to reason you'd need an x86 version of the driver. Trying an alternate solution: For the alternate solution, have you considered using UTM (https://mac.getutm.app/) for the emulator on the M1 mac? It uses QEMU under the covers which emulates x86 on the M1 ARMs. Is the parallels solution going thorugh Rosetta as a translator? That may be a good question to help perform a situation apprasial on if the problem is driver related, guest operating system related, or x86 driver on ARM related. According to Parallels, "To run Windows 11 and its applications on a Mac with Apple M Series Chip, you need to install Windows 11 on ARM that can run the majority of Intel-based Windows 11 applications by using a built-in emulator." (Parallels, 2022) I could see where an x86 driver might not operate on the ARM version of Windows 11. If the goal is, "programming radios with Windows based software running on a Windows based Guest OS, on a MacOS host OS, running on Apple M1 hardware", the UTM approach may better meet your needs. I've come across lots of issues with the cables on certain radios, for example the cable for the Radioddity DB-20G on Windows 11 has well documented driver issues, there is a developers version of Windows (10 day temporary license for x86 version of Windows 7, 8, 10 that may be of use) if you need that magical version of the prolific driver on x86 or if you need a version of windows old enough to run the driver you are using to temporaily identify the problem on. There have been some issues where an older prolific driver may work, this is only known to work on x86 versions of Windows 7,8,9,10 (Duffy, 2022) If you choose the alternate solution, or have any successes with the path you've chosen I'd like to hear about it! Good luck! References: Parallels. (n.d.). KB parallels: About parallels desktop for mac with Apple M Series Chip. Virtual machines created on Intel-based Mac computers have that is fundamentally . Retrieved November 19, 2022, from https://kb.parallels.com/125343 Duffy, O. (n.d.). Prolific PL-2303 problems. Retrieved November 19, 2022, from https://owenduffy.net/software/ATB/PL2303.htm

Agreed there, now is the time of year I've picked up a number of radios, the DB-20G is a reasonable priced radio that works well for the feature set.

But the way they used the words in the definition doesn’t make it confusing. Saying that a Fixed Station may only communicate with another Fixed Station. They could have just as easily said “A Fixed Station may not communicate with mobile stations, base stations, control stations, or hand-held portables.”

This is why you should never use the word/term that you're defining in the definition of it... You would think the FCC would stay away from doing such things to avoid confusion. But then again government agencies aren't known for doing things that make sense...

That is not a solution, nor an answer to my question. Quick update for anyone following along: I've got most of the different manufacturer's software to run and after finding an installing the Si CP-210X ARM(64) driver for my (red Wouxun) cable(s) I am able to read and write all radios EXCEPT for my Motorola XTS2500, XTS5000, & XTL5000 - they need an FTDI ARM(64) driver that I have not yet been able to find/get working.

Changing to a different processor doesn’t necessarily fix the fact that Microsoft adopted a different model for drivers with Win 11.

Can any of those be remotely controlled using DTMF? Especially #2 - Transit Function?

It's possible, but not cost effective. A good quality commercial UHF amp is about $1,000 on the low side, and you may need to either attenuate the the repeater output for a 1w-5w input of a 50w amp or attenuate the amp output, as most commercial amps I have seen that take 10w in, normally make 100w out. After buying an amp, power supply, attenuator, and associated cables and misc. supplies to make it work, it would definitely be way more money than just buying a Quantar repeater for ~$1,200. Also, as others mentioned, I am not aware of any type approved amplifiers... so you run the risk of a "no-no" letter from the FCC, if they were to check your repeater site.

The biggest issue with what you are asking is finding an amplifier that will take the little bit of power that repeater puts out and amplifying it to 50 watts. One of the issues you will run into is the amp will need to be type accepted for GMRS and I don't believe there are any that are. Second issue is amp's typically don't have a 10dB gain number. Meaning 5 in for 50 out. it's less than that. Most of what I have seen in the commercial world was 6 dB of gain. which would be 5 in and 20 out. BUT 20 isn't bad with a good antenna, feedline and height of the mount for the antenna. Unless you are having specific coverage issues where the repeater can hear users that can't hear the repeater, the increase of output power does nothing except stroke your ego that you have 50 watts instead of 5 watts. And if the receiver in that repeater is not up to the task of hearing as far as 50 watts will transmit, then you end up with an alligator that's all mouth and no ears. Which leads to interfering with other repeater owners or prospective owners that can't use that pair because of interference.

That question has been asked a few times. You would need to bypass the built in duplexer and replace it with a duplexer capable of withstanding the greater output power. Technically it might be done, but practically it probably isn't worth it.

It was -6 yesterday morning. Going out wasn’t an option. ?