Baofeng uv-5r

[couger100101]

ok. So from what I can tell by reading some of the discussions on here, the uv-5r is not part 95 for HT even though i have a gmrs license? does this still stand if I use it as a base radio? I'm still green on these things so please be patient with me. I'm am trying to learn and understand so I can pass the right info to my family and friends. I have read through the part 95 rules but still a little confused. Basically I need layman terms.  

[Radioguy7268]

The trouble with Baofeng (and a bunch of the other cheap chinese radios) is that they have poor specs and no consideration for actually keeping their transmission on frequency - and not throwing out spurious energy onto other adjacent and nearby frequencies. The specs that they do publish are at best optimistic, and when you compare them side by side on a service monitor with an actual well built radio, you see that they're nowhere close to what a real radio can do.

 

You will also see that the receiver is easily overloaded if you key up with another nearby radio on a different frequency. Search "direct conversion radio" on Youtube and you'll see a few videos showing the effect.

[jwilkers]

ok. So from what I can tell by reading some of the discussions on here, the uv-5r is not part 95 for HT even though i have a gmrs license? does this still stand if I use it as a base radio? I'm still green on these things so please be patient with me. I'm am trying to learn and understand so I can pass the right info to my family and friends. I have read through the part 95 rules but still a little confused. Basically I need layman terms.

No. You cannot use that radio at all on GMRS. It doesn't matter how you use it.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[chiefeis]

The trouble with Baofeng (and a bunch of the other cheap chinese radios) is that they have poor specs and no consideration for actually keeping their transmission on frequency - and not throwing out spurious energy onto other adjacent and nearby frequencies. The specs that they do publish are at best optimistic, and when you compare them side by side on a service monitor with an actual well built radio, you see that they're nowhere close to what a real radio can do.

 

You will also see that the receiver is easily overloaded if you key up with another nearby radio on a different frequency. Search "direct conversion radio" on Youtube and you'll see a few videos showing the effect.

 

This is getting off topic and should probably be moved to the Ham area - however I have to call BS (sort of) on this. The BaoFengs and other brands work just fine.  I've watched them on a spectrum analyzer, and while a little sloppy compared to a high end radio, they were certainly not as bad as YouTube would have you believe.  There are always those who look down on inexpensive radios, most of them have no actual experience using them.  IOW they are "experts by proxy", passing along information they heard or saw on the Interwebs.

 

If you don't like cheap radios, fine.  But they work, they are a great entry point for new Hams, and don't deserve the reputation they get.

 

IMHO, YMMV, HAND.

 

73's.

[Radioguy7268]

In disclosure, I sell both Motorola and Kenwood brands for a living. Motorola used to be the King, high on a hill above all others, but they haven't had that prominent of a position since the 1980's IMHO...  There are plenty of pretty good brands out there besides those 2. Baofeng isn't one of them.

 

Now, the question asked was not about Ham  - it was about Part 95 GMRS, which actually has some specific standards. Baofeng doesn't meet those standards. If you've seen one on a Service Monitor, you've seen that for yourself. It's not even a question of how close they come - it's how far they still are. They don't hold a center frequency with stability, they generate spurious emissions with every transmission, and they have lots of hum and audio distortion in analog mode - which is what we're using for GMRS.

 

Now, I've got some of those cheap radios, and they're good for portable scanning, and they have a few capabilities that some of my $800 DMR radios don't have. I've used them. Ten or 15 years from now, we'll probably remember when those brands were just young upstarts. They'll be building some decent equipment. They're not there yet.

 

Experimental, sure. But that wasn't the question that was asked.

[chiefeis]

In disclosure, I sell both Motorola and Kenwood brands for a living. Motorola used to be the King, high on a hill above all others, but they haven't had that prominent of a position since the 1980's IMHO...  There are plenty of pretty good brands out there besides those 2. Baofeng isn't one of them.

 

Now, the question asked was not about Ham  - it was about Part 95 GMRS, which actually has some specific standards. Baofeng doesn't meet those standards. If you've seen one on a Service Monitor, you've seen that for yourself. It's not even a question of how close they come - it's how far they still are. They don't hold a center frequency with stability, they generate spurious emissions with every transmission, and they have lots of hum and audio distortion in analog mode - which is what we're using for GMRS.

 

Now, I've got some of those cheap radios, and they're good for portable scanning, and they have a few capabilities that some of my $800 DMR radios don't have. I've used them. Ten or 15 years from now, we'll probably remember when those brands were just young upstarts. They'll be building some decent equipment. They're not there yet.

 

Experimental, sure. But that wasn't the question that was asked.

 

Part 95 has specific standards?  Wow, who knew?

 

I've got a box full of 888s that are setup to provide comms to a local neighborhood in the event of an emergency.  They are what we call "good enough".  Yes, the signal is not as clean as an ICOM etc. But they meet Part 90 (I mention this because there was another thread about how no BF in the history of forever was certified for anything ever, or something).

 

Here's a video with a comparison between an 888S and an ICOM.  You'll see there is a noticeable difference in signal quality. But you'll also notice that it's nowhere near as bad as some have claimed.

https://youtu.be/-DGXyaDSv9I?t=4m23s

[WRAF213]

The BF-888S isn't horrific -- there's a mod to fix the audio problem, and it managed to get Part 90 acceptance (though I'm highly suspicious of the exact testing done since it earned a 3K81 bandwidth). You do, however, need to make sure they're staying on frequency. Less than half the units I have seen on the air have maintained < 4ppm error, and some were approaching 20ppm.

 

Harmonics radiation is a problem mostly on the dual-band models, where the third harmonic on VHF lands within an allowable VFO frequency on UHF. I measured 7mW out on UHF while transmitting on VHF. Lowpass filtering makes this less of an issue for the 900 MHz second harmonic while transmitting on UHF. I don't know exactly how bad the BF-888S is with this, as I don't yet have one; I would imagine performance (or lack thereof) is comparable to the UV-5R and UV-82. Do bear in mind that the BF-888S desensitizes rather easily -- it doesn't play nice with other transmitters nearby.

[coryb27]

I have no issues with any of the inexpensive Chinese radios as long as you keep them off my GMRS repeaters.  After trying to diagnose some audio issues for weeks it came down to a few operators on Baofeng's. Second hand part 90 equipment is easy to find and is inexpensive, some of it is even part 95 approved. Every radio has its place and Baofeng's place is not in GMRS service.

 

Just my $.02

 

Corey

[chiefeis]

Except, of course, the GMRS V1.