berkinet

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.

Thank you for doing these tests and putting together a comprehensive report. However, I have to wonder whether the test setup truly provided an opportunity to take advantage of the supposedly better quality receivers in the Part 90 radios. My concern is this: The maximum distance over which you could hold usable communications was just 0.6 miles (~1000 meters). That would indicate that the signal was strongly attenuated by something in the signal path. Based on your description of the terrain being flat, the source of the attenuation would most likely be foliage. But, the actual cause of the attestation is not as important as its impact on being able to detect differences in reception. Let's assume, for a simple understanding of the issues involved, that differences in receiver quality appear as a percentage of the usable signal. That is, a good receiver might have 10% greater range than an average receiver. At 10 miles the good receiver would be able to receive a signal at a distance 0.10 mile (160 meters) further than the average receiver. This is an obvious difference and easily noticed by even casual observation. However, at a distance of 0.6 miles, the actual difference in distance is only 0.06 miles (<100 meters). A much shorter difference and one much more likely to go unnoticed. Also, as you have noted, the human ear is not a particularly good device for scientific measurement. So, I would suggest that the conclusion of the tests you conducted should be amended to say that with strongly attenuated signals, the difference between the Wouxun and Part-90 radios was not significant.

I have read that companding can also be used to reduce the impact of a narrowband to wideband conversation. Though, at the moment I do not recall how it would be applied. Though, I think it may have been as a repeater option on a GR1225,

I think many people coming from the CB world may have different expectations. Better audio quality and reliability of communications, but still with a fairly disorganized group of people looking to chat with others nearby. It is certainly within the capability of the equipment. But, as you point out, it is not the general nature of the community.

What @Radioguy7268 said ++

Make sure they are not trunked radios. Or, if they are, make sure they can also operate standard direct uhf. But be wary... a 16 channel trunked radio may operate standard uhf, But only on a couple of channels.

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.

Just to make sure you understand... all repeaters are privately owned and it is up to the owner to decide if, who and how people get access. Some may be “wide open” with no permission required, while others may indeed be private and only for the use of a family or small group of friends. So, when asking for permission, which is fine and proper, just keep in mind that the owner is under no obligation to even respond to your request. Though, it would be nice for them to at least send a note back saying, “no, but thanks for asking.” They do not have to.

It will be interesting to see if either the MXT500 or MXT575 will allow configuration via external software. The problem with Midland is that are just really just resellers of other manufacturers products. So, these two new radios could be based on the previous 275 & 400 (which were unlike each other), or some totally different platform(s).

Reynolds Wrap Heavy Duty aluminum foil. Ok, seriously, simple a/c cords do not usually present an RFI problem unless you have some devices that require a ground, but that are not grounded. Motors can be a source of noise. But, at the signal levels you are looking for, the frequencies you are listening to (uhf) and the use of FM rather than AM, your local environment is not likely to have a significant impact on your reception. The case where you might find problems would be trying to receive very weak “short wave” signals on a small radio with the built-in antenna. If you want better reception, the best thing you could do would be to setup an outdoor antenna, and the higher, the better. You do not need anything fancy or expensive, even a DIY 1/4 wave dipole would make a huge difference. (google for build a uhf antenna)

So, if I get this right... You purchased a radio without really looking into its capabilities, features and limitations. Even though those are well discussed in many sources, including Amazon and this forum. Then, when the radio does not allow you to use it in a manner it was not designed for, you want to return it. And finally, you threaten to give the radio a bad review if the manufacturer will not support your attempt to modify their product in a way that would cause it to operate in a manner for which it was not intended and is not certified. (BTW, this is technically called extortion.)

iOS App Beta Testers

Absolutely yes.

1. I doubt you would be able to make that modification as it is controlled in the firmware. BUT 2. DO NOT DO THAT. There is a reason some of the channels are restricted to low power. There have a narrow channel spacing and use of high power would bleed into adjacent channels. Also, those channels are designed for nearby communications with the ability for channel re-use in adjacent locations. Running 50 watts would stomp all over everyone else on the channel. As for modifying a ham radio to run on GMRS. That is possible, many people do it, but operating a non-GMRS certified radio on GMRS is against the FCC regulations. But, if that is what you wanted, perhaps you should have purchased the UV-50X2. Should you decide to do buy a ham radio and use it on GMRS, please continue to respect the power, bandwidth and channel spacing specifications for GMRS.

Could it be the squelch settings? Some radios have fairly complex settings that can only be changed in software.