There is a tremendous amount of benefits with Amateur Radio vs. GMRS. First, lets just talk about voice.
On GMRS simplex, the absolute very best you can expect from a perfect setup, is going to be about 70 miles. Likely less. That would be mobile or base.
With Amateur Radio VHF and UHF, the power limits are 1500 watts with no radiated power restrictions. That means with a little elevation, you are talking coast to coast on the higher portions of VHF and the lower portions of UHF. On the lower portions of VHF, you can talk to Europe, Mediterranean, Northern Africa, etc. Even in my mobile, I can talk to NY from Virginia on VHF simplex.
With things other than voice... there is no limit to what you can do beyond no encryption. If you can dream it, you can do it on amateur radio. There is APRS, which provides transceiver location services. There FLDigi which is used for texting and simple messaging. There is WinLink which is a 100% radio-based email service that allows you to email other operators as well as people on the public internet. And much, much more.
The benefit of HF and MF is, the ease of global comms as you drop in frequency. I was driving around in my Jeep today on an HF frequency that Tech license holders have access to. I talked to people in 3 different countries on 2 different continents with a simple 100 watt mobile radio and a whip antenna. It's really a lot of fun.
As far as a base station goes, I don't use mobile radios for base a station. I have base station radios that I use for VHF, and a VHF/UHF repeater. I talk on VHF on the base for several hours a week, sitting in my executive desk chair.
As far as the quality of conversation... I can't really say much about that. I would assume there are plenty of people to talk to without getting into religion, politics, etc. I avoid them like the plague.
With regard to if it's worth it... that is a personal choice that each person needs to decide for themselves. I think it is. I held my Tech license for 17+ years before I got my General and had a great time. I also think the GMRS and FRS are great radio service and fill a nice niche.
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. . 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.
I've had the same problem but in my case the GPS was OFF! It seems that even when off the Garmin GPS still consumes a trickle of power keeping the internal battery charged...
...so after a few weeks it's drained enough to keep the engine from starting. Fortunately I carry a battery booster in my car so I can pop the hood, connect it up and start the car. It's especially bad during the sub-zero temperatures we've been having here in NW Indiana!
With so little use in my area I keep mine in SCAN as well. Hear some chitchat on the lower channels and business (hotels and retail stores) talk on the upper channels. I keep the squelch at level 1.
A 1/4 wave 6 inch 'hatpin' antenna every day of the week. If you don't like chrome, get one in black. Get a spare or two in case she runs through the car wash. Cost is about $6. Retail.
Pretty much my thoughts on the 805G. Named repeaters, front panel prog for the most part, and simplicity of single band. Reach local repeaters with factory antenna and work well off-road simplex. Still like my TK-3170 and the new Retvis 76 is ok also, but dual band takes some getting used to.. great price and good performance so far, but had fixed antenna. Will likely hand off to young grandsons for off-road use.
Interesting read for a new person such as I. I'll comment that as a Bow-fang, MXT400 and Wouxun 805g owner, the feature-set of the 805g is perfect for what I want. With the software and cable I have, the radio was super easy to configure for me and is set for all the normal channels (including repeater channels) and several other "extra" channels I customized as copies of the repeater channels but with the tones I want and a corespondent NAME label which is intuitively recognized by me. Separate tones are easy as can be. There is nothing confusing nor anything exotic. Once programmed for our use, my wife or anyone else can pick it up and use it. If my midland MXT400 had that functionality it would be fantastic. The other CCR has way to many bells, whistles and associated buttons, displays and who-haas for me to remember when I'm doing anything. I just don't like it but it's fine I suppose (it's a "part 0" radio anyhow).
I'll be checking into the midland software. If it is certified for one company it should be certifiable for another.
If you live in a very rough terrain area, high gain will be very detrimental. I found that going with lower gain (as in Laird FG4500 unity gain antenna) gave me overall better performance than a 4dBd Hustler G6.... so keep that in mind.
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.)
Heh - my pair of "garbage" Retevis RT76P's are kicking @ss here in New Mexico - and they're on sale for under $30 dollars. You can spend more on a used set of commercial HT's that won't make a dirt spec of difference in the real world - except maybe lull you into thinking you've got some bragging rights. It's your money.
The base simplex channels (1-22) and repeater (23-30) are preloaded. The channel named "rpt19" (it will be preset 27)is the one that equates to a 462.650 output. Tune to that channel using the channel knob or arrows, then hit menu. Scroll to "t-ctc and hit menu again, and use the arrows or channel knob to scroll through the list to the appropriate ctcss code. Hit menu to confirm....you can also go back a couple options in the menu and set "r-ctc" as well using the same method, if you want to filter incoming traffic to the repeater only. Hit exit, and you should be good to go.
Have programmed Kenwood TK-3170 and 880, I now have 2 8180s pre-programmed from used-radios (16 channels) but will get in add some repeaters and other goodies just the same. As stated above, lots of options with the free Kenwood software. Mine will go in my SxS and my Cherokee XJ. Had a blast yesterday wheeling with a gang; handed out HT and have them convinced to ditch the CB and go GMRS, especially with a few open repeaters in the area.
Tried Chirp for the first time today and struggled. More novice errors than anything I suppose.
If you don't want to use the cheaper handheld radios from companies like Midland (which I do) I would recommend the Wouxun KG-805G. It's just becoming available and is FCC approved. Personally, I've done A LOT of careful tests on GMRS, and putting the ruggedness and durability aside, Handheld radios are all pretty limited - the differences in performance are small. The difference between say 3 watts, as in the Midland radios, and 5 watts on the Baofeng, is negligible in all but the worst environments. If you're on the move, and not walking, you should have both mobiles and hand held radios. Mobiles get out further, and more importantly, can listen from a lot further away. Listening is always good in emergencies.
My Devices & Printers folder was showing Com Port initially but not lately. Digging deeper in to the Device Manager, confirming Com 9 in my case, and choosing equipment type in the software solved the issue. Which it was I'm not sure and don't care.. lol
Thanks to you and to Mark @ BlueMax for reaching out to help. Your solution worked before I tried his, which is nearly the same..
I use FTDI cable from bluemax49s. We know him and we love him.
1. Go to Devce Manager, Expand "Ports (COM & LPT)". You should see "USB Serial Port (COM3)". COM3 is on my laptop, yours could be different. Remember the port number. 2. The setting of the port do not seem to matter, apparently KPG-101D changes them as it sees fit, however: Right click -> Properties -> Port Settings. I have the following: BPS: 115200, Data bits: 8, Parity: None, Stop bits: 1, Flow control: None. 3. Start KPG-101D, go to Menu -> Setup -> COM Port. Make sure that the correct COM port is selected from #1. In my case it's COM3. 4. Plug cable into TK-3170, turn the radio on normally. 5. Menu -> Model -> Product Information. Choose the correct model. That step seems to be optional. I do not see any difference between my TK-3170 and TK-3173. If you have 16-key model, you may need that. 6. Menu -> Program -> Read Data From Transceiver, hit "Read".
So for the 5th wheel I would use a standard base style antenna. I run the Laird omni. Its only 20" tall and I use the provided brackets on my ladder on the back of the MH when i get on site. I have also used it on my fiberglass flagpole but found I didn't gain much range even going up 15'. Its the FG4500 below is one place that stocks them.
I have a 25' piece of RG213 that is N Male on both ends. I connect it to the antenna and drop it down behind the ladder. I run it to my compartment that has a GR1225 currently. It works really good at campgrounds and the NASCAR tracks I frequent. I used it at JJ2020 but other than me on it I never heard another jeeper.
I really want to swap out to the RT97 mainly because I dry camp at the NASCAR tracks and the GR is a power hog. I pull the fan power when I am not on AC but still at 10 watts it uses more power than I want. My hope is to swap to the RT97 also so I can jsut wire it to a switch and power on, vs swapping from power supply to battery every time I use it.
You could probably use the same antenna with a 3' jumper if you can carry it to a high place and strap the antenna to something to keep it up. An old camera tripod may be perfect for that combo. Not sure how much battery you would need. Remember the more you talk the more battery needed.
Extreme reacted to marcspaz in If GMRS, Then Why VHF/UHF Amateur?
Extreme got a reaction from jwilkers in BTECH GMRS-50X1
Extreme got a reaction from n4gix in FCC Report & Order - GMRS License Fee Lowered to $35
Extreme got a reaction from SteveC7010 in Phantom vs 1/4 wave
Extreme got a reaction from 8nannyfoe in Phantom vs 1/4 wave
Extreme got a reaction from NCRick in FCC Rules - NOT!
Extreme got a reaction from berkinet in BTECH GMRS-50X1
