mbrun

Fair question. The KG-805G was operating wideband. As for the Motorola’s I will have to confirm with RadioGuy, but at present I believe them to have been configured for wideband. As for the channel used for comparisons 462.6500 was used for all communications between devices under test. 462.6250 was the adjacent channel interference frequency used. The GTX1000 was not evaluated for distance in this round of tests, except for the adjacent channel interference test, as the difference is already known by me. 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

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.

If all radios involved in communication used complementary companding circuits it can have the effect of improving the signal to noise ratio of your audio. However, if both sides of the communication chain not using it communications may not sound as good to you or to others. If you have every heard the term ‘Dolby’ or ‘DBX’ with regards to audio recording noise reduction, both of these were variants of ‘companding’ circuitry/algorithms. Both squashed the dynamic range on the input side and expanded it to normal dynamic range on the output side in an attempt to decrease the effect the noise native in the audio recording medium. I would advise not to use it unless the only people you are communicating are equipped with compatible companders and you have little or no need to talk with anyone else.

If you and your buddy both have access to (and permission to use) repeaters that are both actively connected together by way of some network, and both of you can successfully communicate through the repeater locally with other local repeater users, then both of you will also hear one another via your local repeaters because they are connected together over the network. Linked repeaters are not always linked so communication will not always be possible. The repeater owners control that. I will let some of the linked repeater owners on this forum jump in and give you a sense of when and how they choose to link to other sites. Depending upon the network and repeater owners, some may give licensed individuals the ability to access a repeater by way of a smart phone app such as Zello or other. In this case one person could be using their smart phone while the other user could be in their vehicle or pedestrian using an HT. I have only communicated over a GMRS network about a 1/2 dozen times, more for novelty than anything else. Presently it does not fill a communication need I have. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Since the KG-1000G is a GMRS radio, I would focus first and foremost on optimum GMRS performance, after all that is why you bought the radio correct? One of the most universal antennas for use with a scanner is what is called a Discone antenna. They can have super wide bandwidth and can provide fairly uniform performance across the bands if you get the right one. However, these are relatively low gain and may not be an ideal candidate for your 2-way GMRS needs. But if listening elsewhere is truly a high priority, you could add one of these antennas, along with an A-B switch, and go back and forth between the Discone antenna and your properly tuned GMRS antenna. Hope that helps. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Hello Mike. Having used scadacore quite a bit now, I personally have landed on just moving the colored dots when I need a quick ball park check. However, when comparing doing multiple sites I find it easier to use google earth or google maps to get exact coordinates of where the antennas are probable to go, same them out to a document for later reuse. Then I can just copy and paste them as needed to run the different scenarios. One of my biggest pet peeves with this tool is that even the slightest change in position of a dot causes the antenna height to be reset to the default. I wish it would retain it. You are correct that there is no guarantee that you will or will not have coverage. But the probability of one or the other increases. Onsite testing is the one sure-fire way to know for certain, no doubt about that. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

If your feed-line loss is high, your SWR appears artificially low. Add enough loss and ever the worst case real-world SWR will appear perfect at the radio. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

I second the use of the scadacore tool to determine whether you can achieve line of sight. Round up the exact geo coordinates of your 5 proposed sites, and then two at a time plug them into their tool. Then enter the proposed elevation of antennas at each site and see what you get. If the graph that results shows an uninterrupted line then there is reasonable chance of success. You will need to try all combinations to see who will have trouble reaching who. Take a screen capture of each combination you try for further reference. https://www.scadacore.com/tools/rf-path/rf-line-of-sight/ It is funny reading your post about a 5 site project. I have a neighbor actively working on doing exactly that. Since they live next door, I was recently able to facilitate some tests for their family network since I have the tools and equipment available. We started with scadacore to initially confirm it was probable, then we mocked it all up and demonstrated it viable. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Welcome to the Forum. I hope you enjoy your stay and will share your knowledge. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Hello JAS, Kb2ztx is correct, SWR nearly always varies with frequency. The high numbers I see for the repeater channels on the ghost antenna are a bit of a concern in light of the fact that some GMRS radio manufactures, it has been said, may only warrant there radios when exposed to SWR conditions of 1.5:1 or less. The results of your MXTA26 antenna are very good, and they mirror the one I have and use regularly. That antenna performs really well for me. Enjoy. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Hello Michael WRFS927, As far as current generation in production models that are type certified your choices are limited. Of the two you listed, I would choose the 1000G. The programming options for the 50X1 are too limiting for me. Midland’s radios are the easiest of all to use, and they have the greatest selection of models, but like the 50X1 programmability is limited. It has been reported on this forum by a couple of folks that midland is coming out with a new models (MXT500 and MXT575) with features reportedly that overcome the programmability deficiencies of their current products. Some on this forum choose to buy used equipment. Some use product that was certified before the rule changes under part 95a and some choose to use the higher quality, better performing commercial radio equipment certified under part 90. I hear that the FCC seems to turn a blind-eye to part 90 radios, perhaps because they are higher performers. I personally own (4) current generation Wouxun Radios. I started with 2, added 1, then added another in just the last couple of weeks. I have chosen to stay part 95e legal. Overall I am pleased with the performance of each the models in my environment. I only wish Midland made a radio with the features and performance I wanted. Regards, Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Agreed, and that is not commonly understood, so it deserves mentioning again. While you will find locations and individuals that do use GMRS for rag chewing, if that was or became the dominate use of GMRS, it could find itself useless for family comms. There are just not enough frequencies available. But admittedly, it is nice to meet, connect and chat with other licensees for short periods on the radio.

Welcome to the Forum Diego. There is a lot to learn here. Use it well and pay it forward. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Welcome to the forum Rutman. We hope you will learn a lot, and share it forward. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Welcome to the group duncan. Learn much and share it forward. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Words of wisdom. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

You know, I can’t imagine having just one radio for GMRS, if for no other reason that to be able to confirm that other radios in the arsenal are operational. For me, given that GMRS is first and foremost a second means of family comms, having multiple radios is a practical necessity. There is always a spare radio around to use for verifying the others are working. Welcome to GMRS. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Welcome to the world of GMRS David. Berkinet gives good advice. If it is at all possible, setup your antenna outside, and as high as you can practically get it, even when using a hand-held indoors. I personally have and regularly use an Ed-Fong roll-up J-Pole antenna with my HT while indoors. I use it mainly when I know I will be talking, rather than in listen-only mode. This antenna is easy to move and gives me the flexibility to move from room to room. In each room I have a hook immediately in front of the window on which to readily hang the antenna. The hook is always there but is merely a heavy duty tie-wrap (actually off a bag of coffee) in the shape of an S-hook that slips over the curtain rod. I do have an outdoor antenna as well, which is dedicated to the base radio. But since the base is not portable, the HT with that Ed-Fong continues to see daily use. I even take it out to the garage. I do experience elevated noise pickup from different radios when they are located on the computer desk and I am using only the rubber duck antenna. However, when I set the radio on the window sill or switch to the Ed-Fong the offending noise goes away. Regards Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

Hello JAS. It is wonderful to learn of such differences contrasted in the same environment. I have recently contrasted hand-held radios in my environment. Write-up to come. By the way, I have been quite pleased with the MXTA26 and have the same issue as you when entering the garage. I do leave the NMO mag-mount on the vehicle, just step up and unscrew the antenna and the throw it in the back seat. Admittedly about a dozen times now I have forgotten. Thanks the spring base it has survived each incident. Thanks for the nice write up. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

I searched for your call sign using main search page and received the same results as you. Then I performed the search from the advanced search page and had success. See below. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

I can confirm that I just performed a successful search on the ULS using Safari for iOS. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

So sorry to hear of their loss. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM

It does not help either when the battery in my Ford Escape is about the same size and capacity as my John Deere entry level garden tractor. [emoji23]. You’re right there is a draw, both for charge as well as the super-bright blue power indicator on power plug. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM Edit for spelling.

Just an update. With the most gracious help of Radioguy7268 I have been able to complete some practical side-by side comparisons between 7 models of radios, include 5 Motorolas, a Wouxun KG-805G, and a Midland GXT1000. I am preparing my summary and will follow-up here with a post when it is complete. I am not going to bore you with numbers, but instead bore you with a narrative, my findings, and perhaps a map to give you context. Michael WRHS965 KE8PLM