marcspaz

That's because there is nothing left to say. All things are self-evident.

@WSAK691 I have been sitting back reading and I've noticed that I don't have to share any pictures of anything because you have already shown us your ass. You are gravely mistaken in believing anyone here, especially me, has anything to prove to you. I don't care about your opinion. I'm fairly sure no one else here cares about your opinion. With the exception of providing some mild and waning entertainment as you continue to show us your ass, your incessant posting is doing nothing beyond solidifying your place in purgatory of the internet.

Oh boy... I guess this conversation is over.

Dude... I have no idea how you would even do what you wrote. That doesn't make sense. I performed a 12 dB SINAD sensitivity test using a signal generator, testing at 462.55 MHz and 462.725 MHz on both radios. I also performed SQ4 opening and closing tests. The Midland SQ4 opening was -120.7 and closing was -124.4, but the Yaesu SQ4 was at -116.7/-121.

I'd wouldn't have asked, otherwise. What are you saying is not real?

What's not real?

Did you not read my post? My MXT500 had measurably better performance than my FTM-300DR. Saying a receiver is "unquestionably superior" just because it's a superhet is foolish. Especially when I just shared measured proof that your statement is not correct. While superheterodyne receivers are traditionally better performers when compared to direct-conversion receivers, that is only a generalization. There are plenty of instances were DCRs are fantastic performers, and some superhet receivers are trash. You can say it isn't true or its anecdotal, but I have bench-tested hundreds of transceivers in my lifetime. There is definitely a correlation between similarly equipped DCRs and superhets at the same price point having similar performance.

I completely agree with OffRoaderX. I am of the exact same opinions. I have owned just about every GMRS radio there is to own and my two favorite purpose built, OTC GMRS radios, are the KG-1000G and the MXT500. The KG-1000G is feature packed and is reliable. The MXT500 is simple to use, water/dust resistant (huge plus for Jeepers who offroad) and reliable. As far as Superhet v Homodyne, I wouldn't get too wrapped up in that at these price points. My Yaesu FTM-300DR double conversion superheterodyne receive sensitivity is -120.88 dBm, and my MXT500 (ROC/direct-conversion) receive sensitivity was -124.0 dBm... much better than the superhet Yaesu. Their handhelds do fall short with the lack of repeater capability.

I literally cried.

Good choice, for sure. I had a specific need I was trying to fill and battery life is not a concern for my case. That said, I think unless you have a specific need to fill such as mine or you're a pro outfitter/offroad racer, the 67 is the best one to buy.

I started off with the Mini 2, but with all the offroading we do, I upgraded to the Montana 700 after about a year. With the Expedition plan, it turned out to be a great unit for day-to-day use, as well as offroading. I was thinking about the 67 due to the price difference vs. all the extra sensors and features of the 67, but ultimately I opted for the 700 for added screen size, better resolution, more storage, durability improvements and the touch screen.

I am a huge fan of InReach and think everyone should have one, but if I could only pick one, it would be HF. And it would be for the very reason you cite as a shortfall of HF. People put way too much faith in satellite communications. Per a survey by the Satellite Interference Reduction Group (SIRG), 93% of satellite communications suffer from satellite interference at least once a year. More than half experience interference at least once per month, and 17% see interference continuously during the day. Often, equipment failure or malfunction, operator errors, even the antenna being block by terrain can cause failures. There is even interference that can be generated by aircraft between the base station and the satellites. I typically recommend both SatComms and HF, especially if you are using some kind of transportation (truck/SUV, horse, bike, etc.). When SatComms is working, it is much faster and can provide details much easier with things like text and beacons. However, an all-band HF radio and a wire long enough to adjust for each band from 80m to 10m is a fantastic solution because if there is interference one one band, unlike an InReach, you can change bands to one that is working. Also, unlike InReach, I don't have to worry about my device being properly ID'ed by the network or if my plan is actually configured and working (going back to operator errors).

I read it the way you intended. I just provided the info I did in the event someone just wanted to read the questions and answers. West does a good job, but they cost money. LOL

The ARRL manages the testing process, as the FCC decided we should be self-regulated. The ARRL shares all of the official test questions and answers, exactly as you would see them on the test, including the correct and incorrect questions. So not only do you get to memorize the correct answer, you get to use pattern recognition to learn to avoid the wrong answer. http://www.arrl.org/question-pools The only problem I see is with the Extra Class... with 621 possible questions and 10 schematic diagrams, you may be more likely to pass the test if you actually know the material, rather than trying to memorize it all.

As a child of the '70s, I approve! LOL

On occasion, I have dropped remote repeater at much higher elevation then where our group was spending time for this very reason. As long as the HTs are repeater ready, it makes all the difference in the world.

Eh... that is kinda of hard to say. It's situation contingent. It's mostly going to be when your need to penetrate trees or buildings are part of your range challenges. In an emergency, having the ability to turn up power to get through woods or building, or increasing scatter and refraction density beyond the RFH can make the difference between communicating or not. My 1,500w setup (solar, batteries, cabling, etc.) not including any actual comms gear, just power, was about $2,400. It's all portable and can bet setup from a "storage" state in under an hour. Though developing the initial design took a few days. I 100% agree. Though, I do try to coach operators into better practices. Also, completely agree. You made some excellent points. I didn't mean to seem I was debating that point. If it did seem that way, my apologies. I was more sharing some thoughts for the practical thinker. I feel like you have a good grasp on things and just tried to reflect my opinion that people (presumably like the both of us) both understand and are on the opposite side of "all the power all the time" mentality, but rather see the benefits and practical application on both sides of the conversation.

@WSAK691 I want to touch on the EmComm stuff a bit. I have a 50w UHF station, a 110w UHF station, 50w VHF station, three 50w VHF/UHF repeaters, a 300w VHF station, and a 100w HF station. I have solar and batteries delivering enough power to run at 100w with a 50% duty cycle, 24 hours a day for the life of the batteries (translate to many years). And the reality is, in a real emergency, which I have worked many, I promise you are not going to be anywhere near 50% duty cycle. All of my stations drop to 5w, except my HF radio which will go to 0.4w. Even with no batteries, I can run any one of my radios on low power and pure solar for peak direct light hours. That can be 5 to 7 hours a day, depending on the time of year, weather, etc. I mention all this to highlight the fact that just because a radio can produce 50w, 100w or more, that doesn't mean you have to run them that high all the time. In fact, the FCC rules and generally good practice for not causing interference, is to use the least amount of power required for reliable communications. I would rather have the power in case I need it, rather than not having the option. If you're going to spend the effort and money, there is very little cost or time difference when building a 40w power source and a 1,500w power source.

I'm with Randy on this one. Falls into the old category of "nothing is impossible but definitely improbable."

Someone actually turned my transmitter off on one of my repeaters last year. They were using DTMF 1111 as a quick burst preamble and that was the default combination for the disable command on the repeater. I also had someone have a DTMF code setup as a roger beep and coincidentally happened to be the same combination I made up to stun the repeater. I had to drive to the repeater site to reset it on the panel.

Do roger beeps confuse repeaters? My opinion... it's possible. Depends on the controller. Most repeaters have a controller for remote control (required by our overlords at the FCC to be 'in control' of the repeater at all times). Many of the modern controllers use digital signals for remote function, but near all of them still have analog function, typically done with DTMF codes. Depending on what your roger beep sounds like, you could risk partially triggering a remote command, putting the repeater in an unknown state, making it so the owner or admins can't manage it. Then they need to drive to the repeater site and either reboot the controller or the repeater. That said, I think the number one reason is because a good portion of the people listening, including the owners, don't want to hear a stead stream of beeping all day on the repeater. It gets pretty annoying and people clearly have no idea what a roger beep is for... which is to send a quick blip to acknowledge the previously receive transmission without actually saying anything. Especially for conditions when the two stations are on the fringes of their range and voice comms are difficult. It was never intended to be used on every transmission. Though, Sad Hams will tell you a different story.

There are many exemptions waving station identification for Part 90. Especially digitally encrypted communications where the ID is embedded in the signal, when the Commission is provided keys sufficient to decipher the data transmission.

There is so much that can make one radio appear to be better than the other. First, UHF waves travel through things (trees, building, etc.) much better than lower frequency radio waves. Then there are other differences, such as in antennas, variations in power, etc. The reality is, even if you had both radios with the same antenna and GMRS frequency, the Yaasu is tuned for a lower frequency. As you start to move more and more out of the range the radio is designed and tuned for, the worse the performance will get. I am a huge fan of both brands, but in this case, I think you discovered more of a point that you found one tool is more appropriate for the conditions than the other. Not necessarily that one is better than the other as far as design, function, sensitivity or other RF performance specs.

I got a new repeater a few days ago and started pricing hardline for the new setup... it's going to cost me about $1,300 for 250 feet and a couple of connectors. I only paid $350 for the repeater. It's wild... but if you want it to work...

I like you as a person and don't want to have you think less of me, and I definitely don't want to spark a political debate, but as a Constitutional Conservative with a few Libertarian leanings, I could not disagree more. I'll skip the politics part for now, but we haven't even identified if the "kids" are adults in college or not. I'm a grandpa and my offspring are in their 30's, but I still call them "my kids". LOL This drastically modifies what is considered acceptable behavior for all parties, if they are grown-ups.