Wouxun KG-805G, FCC ID WVTWOUXUN16, and blanket 95E approvals

[JeepCrawler98]

So we all know that the Wouxun KG-805G is a modern manufacture good quality radio has type acceptance for Part 95E, making it legal for use on GMRS. I have no beef with this radio; it seems like a solid unit that's well thought out, in fact I just ordered one myself to add to the collection, and am excited to get my hands on it even though I have a good collection of commercial gear laying around.

 

In doing a bit of digging around; I found that while its FCC ID is primarily based on the KG805, the application lists a plethora of other models and certifies them to be 'electrically similar' and are therefore included under a blanket 95E certification.

 

SAR Evaluation Report: https://fccid.io/WVTWOUXUN16/RF-Exposure-Info/SAR-Report-4695713.pdf

Declaration of electrical conformity: https://fccid.io/WVTWOUXUN16/Letter/Product-Similarity-Declaration-4695702.pdf

 

This can all be found on the FCC ID listing: https://fccid.io/WVTWOUXUN16

 

The certification by this blanket approval includes the following models: KG-805G,KG-703E,KG-801E,KG-879,KG-869,KG-659E,KG-978,KG-939,KG-998,KG-918,KG-828,KG-988,KG-958,KG-959,KG-969,KG-968,KG-928,KG-UV8H,KG-UV9DPlus,KG-UV9P,KG-839,KG-979,KG-989,KG-999,KG-916,KG-926,KG-936,KG-956,KG-966,KG-976,KG-986,KG-996,KG-826,KG-836,KG-856,KG-866,KG-876,KG-886,KG-896,KG-838,KG-858,KG-868,KG-878,KG-888,KG-898

 

I found similar results under a listing for the Retevis RT97 repeater; again the primary certification is based on the RT97 portable repeater: https://fccid.io/2ASNSRT97

 

The RT97's test report: https://fccid.io/2ASNSRT97/Test-Report/Test-report-4720800.pdf

 

Where lab testing thereby certifies the following additional listed models: RT90, RT92, RT93, RT94, RT95, RT98, RT99, RT9000D, RT9550

 

The above models are even more interesting as these are all DMR radios, in fact some are DMR/LTE/Wifi integrated repeater systems.

 

Does this mean that if any of the above models come with Wouxun's and Retevis' labels that include the FCC ID (WVTWOUXUN16 or 2ASNRT97) that they're legal to use on GMRS? I find this odd because many of these are full-on ham radios with no 'locked down' special firmware or completely inapplicable commercial equipment, in fact a couple models are VHF only. They shouldn't have part 95E certification, but per the above FCC-ID's somehow do?

 

This seems like an oversight; but with Wouxun and Retevis swallowing the "we promise its the same radio" pill and the liability that comes with it, it makes me wonder if you're in the clear as a licensee for using them so long as you use them within the rules of Part 95E to which operators are bound; after all the FCC granted all these radios the certified status?

 

Anyways, fuel for the fire... happy new year!

[mbrun]

JeepCrawler, good job catching this. You are doing your homework.

 

You ask some very good questions, questions that perhaps a legal scholar may need to answer.

 

I do believe the FCC, just like the FAA in regards to the Boeing 737 Max plane, has fallen short. The way they are doing things is like the fox guarding the hen house. I do not believe they are validating the information submitted, let alone putting their hands on equipment and performing any of what was submitted.

 

While I do like this radio, and the FCC did certify it, I do not believe it complies with their own rules (my opinion of course). I have already confirmed that this radio can do things, without hacking, that it should not be capable of doing and at power levels it is not authorized to do it at. At a minimum, I hope BTWR is reading MyGMRS posts and at least taking silent action to remedy the situation.

 

 

Michael

WRHS965

KE8PLM

[SUPERG900]

Interesting questions indeed.

 

So noting that a Retevis RT95 is identical to an Anytone AT-778UV.... I see the Anytone does have an FCC ID... but I can't find any information on the RT95 - every available picture or video that I attempted a blow-up on to peek at the label - well, apparently they're only labelled for CE compliance and no reference to an FCC ID.

 

It's a hundred dollar question: that's price of buying one to find out if an RT95 actually has a FCC ID on it's label... Are they being imported illegally...?

[MacJack]

If I'm remember correctly reading that FCC is relying on certification test of the radio by other independent firms not related to the manufacture.  I could not find where I saw that so mark this comment as IMO.  I have worked in the pharmaceutical field and all FDA submission where based on all independent firms test where we where seeking FDA approvals.  FDA would review documents and that just it.  I did look at JeepCrawler98 links and seems that way as well... 

Jack

JeepCrawler, good job catching this. You are doing your homework.

You ask some very good questions, questions that perhaps a legal scholar may need to answer.

I do believe the FCC, just like the FAA in regards to the Boeing 737 Max plane, has fallen short. The way they are doing things is like the fox guarding the hen house. I do not believe they are validating the information submitted, let alone putting their hands on equipment and performing any of what was submitted.

While I do like this radio, and the FCC did certify it, I do not believe it complies with their own rules (my opinion of course). I have already confirmed that this radio can do things, without hacking, that it should not be capable of doing and at power levels it is not authorized to do it at. At a minimum, I hope BTWR is reading MyGMRS posts and at least taking silent action to remedy the situation.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

[mbrun]

Good Day MacJack.

 

I do agree with you, hence my comment regarding the fox watching the hen house. While the fox may not be the manufacturer directly, I doubt the testing company is going to report defects (liberties if you will) that their client took when they are being paid by them (the manufacturer) and their scope of service is limited to making and reporting measurements results in a standard way per FCC requirements. Verifying things the FCC does not require them to verify is outside their scope. It is sort of like a defense lawyer that is expected to defend the client paying their bill in accordance with the law the way it is written, even if they question the integrity of their client. If the FCC were doing some of their own testing they would certainly identify for themselves what defects exist in their rules and procedures and I would expect them to make the necessary modifications to close the loop-holes.

 

Of course all of this is conjecture. The FCC may want it just this way, so who am I to say.

 

 

Michael

WRHS965

KE8PLM

[MacJack]

Glad you and I are seeing this correctly.... So how do we take back from the bureaucrats taking control of our airways.  Yes, I have several guns and ex LEO guy who supports the Constitution of America that I've had to sworn to uphold several times....  

Jack

Good Day MacJack.

I do agree with you, hence my comment regarding the fox watching the hen house. While the fox may not be the manufacturer directly, I doubt the testing company is going to report defects (liberties if you will) that their client took when they are being paid by them (the manufacturer) and their scope of service is limited to making and reporting measurements results in a standard way per FCC requirements. Verifying things the FCC does not require them to verify is outside their scope. It is sort of like a defense lawyer that is expected to defend the client paying their bill in accordance with the law the way it is written, even if they question the integrity of their client. If the FCC were doing some of their own testing they would certainly identify for themselves what defects exist in their rules and procedures and I would expect them to make the necessary modifications to close the loop-holes.

Of course all of this is conjecture. The FCC may want it just this way, so who am I to say.


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

[berkinet]

So we all know that the Wouxun KG-805G is a modern manufacture good quality radio has type acceptance for Part 95E, making it legal for use on GMRS.... ...In doing a bit of digging around; I found that while its FCC ID is primarily based on the KG805, the application lists a plethora of other models and certifies them to be 'electrically similar' and are therefore included under a blanket 95E certification.... .

 

..Does this mean that if any of the above models come with Wouxun's and Retevis' labels that include the FCC ID (WVTWOUXUN16 or 2ASNRT97) that they're legal to use on GMRS?...

 

I think the answer to your question is, unfortunately, no.  There are several factors that lead me to this view. Notably...

• The letter is not well written (several errors) possibly due to a poor translation, suggesting the letter may not mean what you (or they)  think it does.
• The radios listed are clearly not identical to the KG-805G
• More importantly. It was only a request.
• And, most important, the request does not appear to have been granted. The grant clearly states:
  • EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZATION is hereby issued to the named GRANTEE, and is VALID ONLY for the equipment identified hereon for use under the Commission's Rules and Regulations listed below.
  • WVTWOUXUN16

[MacJack]

Good eyes berkinet.  

 

I think the answer to your question is, unfortunately, no.  There are several factors that lead me to this view. Notably...

• The letter is not well written (several errors) possibly due to a poor translation, suggesting the letter may not mean what you think it does.
• The radios listed are clearly not identical to the KG-805G
• More importantly. It was only a request.
• And, most important, the request does not appear to have been granted. The grant clearly states:
  • EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZATION is hereby issued to the named GRANTEE, and is VALID ONLY for the equipment identified hereon for use under the Commission's Rules and Regulations listed below.
  • WVTWOUXUN16

 

[JeepCrawler98]

 

I think the answer to your question is, unfortunately, no.  There are several factors that lead me to this view. Notably...

• More importantly. It was only a request.
• And, most important, the request does not appear to have been granted. The grant clearly states:
  • EQUIPMENT AUTHORIZATION is hereby issued to the named GRANTEE, and is VALID ONLY for the equipment identified hereon for use under the Commission's Rules and Regulations listed below.
  • WVTWOUXUN16

 

Agree with all topics at a fundamental and practical level - to play the other hand though; the Grant of Equipment Authorization doesn't identify the KG-805, the name of Grantee is "Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co, Ltd" and the identified equipment is "WVTWOUXUN16"

 

So the question remains; what equipment is WVTWOUXUN16? I would argue its whatever the manufacturer labels it as such on the sticker and are consistent with their approved filings. This is why type accepted radios require the manufacturer affixed label bearing the FCC ID, and you can't just rely on the model number. The primary model is of course the KG805G, I assume it comes with the WVTWOXUN16 sticker, but the approved application submitted to the FCC for WVTWOUXUN16 includes the laundry list of other radios as well.

 

I suspect the FCC certification covers the whole submittal package from the manufacturer and testing agency, and the whole thing would be rejected if they disagreed with this approach or some other portion of the paperwork filed. It remains to be seen what ID's the other radios come with from Wouxun. I suspect it's likely Wouxun doesn't sell these other radios with the WVTWOUXUN16 ID affixed which makes them not model WVTWOUXUN16 in the FCC's eyes and thereby non certified. From a business standpoint; they may very well have the same basic transmitter circuitry even though the radios physically differ, and they want to reserve the right to sell these others units under their GMRS approval that they've been granted should they retool a few things to make them "KG805G like". This would avoid having to go through more certification processes then otherwise required; and the liability on this remains with Wouxun if they over-reach and release a radio who's emissions and operation does not qualify the way the KG805G has.

 

Another fundamental question; if the radio is capable of transmitting outside of the GMRS frequencies, power levels, and emissions but is not front panel programmable, does it disqualify for part 95E certification? The 95E rules only prevent the radios from operating in other services for which no certification is required (amateur radio bands) and doesn't necessarily land-lock them to GMRS alone; case in point is the historical dual 90/95A certified radios, which have always been able to operate in excess of GMRS' regulations and it's up to the licensee to ensure their equipment operation and programming complies with the cut-and-dry restrictions of GMRS when using that service. The FCC has publicly stated that its intent is not to limit manufacturers from dual certifying 90/95 radios as is the case for commercial surplus gear.

[berkinet]

Agree with all topics at a fundamental and practical level - to play the other hand though; the Grant of Equipment Authorization doesn't identify the KG-805, the name of Grantee is "Quanzhou Wouxun Electronics Co, Ltd" and the identified equipment is "WVTWOUXUN16"

 

So the question remains; what equipment is WVTWOUXUN16? It's whatever the manufacturer labels it as such on the sticker and are consistent with their approved filings, which is why type accepted radios require the manufacturer affixed label, and you can't just rely on the model number. The primary model is of course the KG805G, I assume it comes with the WVTWOXUN16 sticker, but the approved application submitted to the FCC for WVTWOUXUN16 includes the laundry list of other radios as well...

 

The KG-805 (WVTWOUXUN08) is a base model designed to be released with customization as several other radio models, as you previously identified - though I am not sure all of those radios belong on that list). Take a look at Wouxun's own page for the KG-805:  https://www.wouxun.com/radios/KG-805.aspx

 

The KG-805G has a separate FCCID: WVTWOUXUN08

 

I also recall that at the time it was discussed extensively on redit (Read the entire thread). It explains how a new radio has the FCCID of a 2012 radio,

[JeepCrawler98]

The KG-805 (WVTWOUXUN08) is a base model designed to be released with customization as several other radio models, as you previously identified - though I am not sure all of those radios belong on that list). Take a look at Wouxun's own page for the KG-805:  https://www.wouxun.com/radios/KG-805.aspx

 

The KG-805G has a separate FCCID: WVTWOUXUN08

 

I also recall that at the time it was discussed extensively on redit (Read the entire thread). It explains how a new radio has the FCCID of a 2012 radio,

Yeah it looks like the WXVTWOUXUN08 includes the KG805; I assume with KG-805G you mean WXVWOUXUN16 since they've pulled it out separately as you pointed out, but the KG-805 appears to have 95A (prior to the rule change) as well. Both the 08 and 16 application seems to take the same approach of including multiple models. It's my understanding that manufacturers are allowed to revise their radios so long as it's not a major deviation from the original design; at who's discretion is a major deviation made? I suspect it's probably the manufacturer's best judgement, which doesn't necessarily ensure good judgement.

 

The question always remains is what label comes with it; that's the crux of all these import radios - it can be hard to determine before hand that what you end up with even has any FCC ID imprinted on it somewhere, let alone the one you need; the 16 application lists a lot more models, and they could take the approach that Retevis does on the RT97 repeater where depending on what 'option' you select it comes with a different FCC ID even though the basic radio is model number remains the same. Motorola does this too with some of their radios which often have shared 'marketing' model numbers (I can think of the Radius radios at the moment) the only way to identify what you're getting is to look at the part numbers, but often the FCC ID label is easier. Kenwood on the other hand has a different model number for every radio variant.

 

I'll see if I can dig up the reddit thread on the WVTWOUXUN08 discussion. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/gmrs/comments/e9ytiy/new_wouxun_kg805g_professional_gmrs_radio/

[berkinet]

...I'll see if I can dig up the reddit thread on the WVTWOUXUN08 discussion. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/gmrs/comments/e9ytiy/new_wouxun_kg805g_professional_gmrs_radio/

It was linked in my post, but somehow got deleted.

[mbrun]

I was doing some looking into the FCC ID ‘WVTWOUXUN08’ and it appears to be used in 2012 by an early attempt at a GMRS radio. Model KG-833. Here is a link to the FCC site where a variety of exhibits can be viewed:

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=XoiQvROpmh5jYQobT9xwkw%3D%3D&fcc_id=WVTWOUXUN08

 

As can be seen in the photos they have a similar appearance but no front panel LCD or front panel buttons.

 

Here is a link to the FCC ID ‘WVTWOUXUN16’ and its exhibits:

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=BWRElos6j3AMthgYUFsLOA%3D%3D&fcc_id=WVTWOUXUN16

 

All documents for this one are dated 2020 and the primary product reference is the KG-805G.

 

I do find it interesting in what appears to be an outright lie in the following document where they assert to the FCC that “all the models are electrically identical” that are listed after the KG-805G. What a load of crapolla.

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=4695702

 

I happen to own one of those that is asserted electronically identical. It has true dual receive, 10 watts of output power, Rx coverage in 7 bands (not 1) and transmits in 2 bands(not 1) and has features out the ying-yang, including full keypad that IMO make it far from electrically identical. The TDR capability alone I suspect would disqualify it from being ‘electronically identical’ to the KG-805G unless behind the scenes it too is a TDR (7) band transceiver.

 

 

Michael

WRHS965

KE8PLM

[dwmitchell61]

This website you are referencing is not the FCC certification grant search database.

 

The proper link to the actual FCC database is:

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/tcb/TcbHome.do

 

I would search for the FCC IDs there and get the REAL information on them.

 

Just saying....

 

 

 

[dwmitchell61]

I was doing some looking into the FCC ID ‘WVTWOUXUN08’ and it appears to be used in 2012 by an early attempt at a GMRS radio. Model KG-833. Here is a link to the FCC site where a variety of exhibits can be viewed:

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=XoiQvROpmh5jYQobT9xwkw%3D%3D&fcc_id=WVTWOUXUN08

 

As can be seen in the photos they have a similar appearance but no front panel LCD or front panel buttons.

 

Here is a link to the FCC ID ‘WVTWOUXUN16’ and its exhibits:

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=BWRElos6j3AMthgYUFsLOA%3D%3D&fcc_id=WVTWOUXUN16

 

All documents for this one are dated 2020 and the primary product reference is the KG-805G.

 

I do find it interesting in what appears to be an outright lie in the following document where they assert to the FCC that “all the models are electrically identical” that are listed after the KG-805G. What a load of crapolla.

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/GetApplicationAttachment.html?id=4695702

 

I happen to own one of those that is asserted electronically identical. It has true dual receive, 10 watts of output power, Rx coverage in 7 bands (not 1) and transmits in 2 bands(not 1) and has features out the ying-yang, including full keypad that IMO make it far from electrically identical. The TDR capability alone I suspect would disqualify it from being ‘electronically identical’ to the KG-805G unless behind the scenes it too is a TDR (7) band transceiver.

 

 

Michael

WRHS965

KE8PLM

Right?! Danny Chen may be jeopardizing the KG-805G certification with that letter. Ugh....

[dwmitchell61]

Yeah it looks like the WXVTWOUXUN08 includes the KG805; I assume with KG-805G you mean WXVWOUXUN16 since they've pulled it out separately as you pointed out, but the KG-805 appears to have 95A (prior to the rule change) as well. Both the 08 and 16 application seems to take the same approach of including multiple models. It's my understanding that manufacturers are allowed to revise their radios so long as it's not a major deviation from the original design; at who's discretion is a major deviation made? I suspect it's probably the manufacturer's best judgement, which doesn't necessarily ensure good judgement.

 

The question always remains is what label comes with it; that's the crux of all these import radios - it can be hard to determine before hand that what you end up with even has any FCC ID imprinted on it somewhere, let alone the one you need; the 16 application lists a lot more models, and they could take the approach that Retevis does on the RT97 repeater where depending on what 'option' you select it comes with a different FCC ID even though the basic radio is model number remains the same. Motorola does this too with some of their radios which often have shared 'marketing' model numbers (I can think of the Radius radios at the moment) the only way to identify what you're getting is to look at the part numbers, but often the FCC ID label is easier. Kenwood on the other hand has a different model number for every radio variant.

 

I'll see if I can dig up the reddit thread on the WVTWOUXUN08 discussion. Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/gmrs/comments/e9ytiy/new_wouxun_kg805g_professional_gmrs_radio/

Is this an example of "SDR - Software DEFINED Radio"? All having the same PCB and circuitry, just different firmware program loaded and different externals to fit the regs?

[gman1971]

Yep, another one-chip wonder (or not so wonderful)... dubious Part certification on anything... is this another scanner with a PTT?

 

G.

[JeepCrawler98]

This website you are referencing is not the FCC certification grant search database.

 

The proper link to the actual FCC database is:

 

https://apps.fcc.gov/tcb/TcbHome.do

 

I would search for the FCC IDs there and get the REAL information on them.

 

Just saying....

Sure; fccid.io is a data aggregator though that farms out of the FCC database - it's easier and quicker to navigate and has sources you can link, and I've found it accurate. But yes, the FCC database itself should be considered the primary source in case of discrepancies.

 

 

Is this an example of "SDR - Software DEFINED Radio"? All having the same PCB and circuitry, just different firmware program loaded and different externals to fit the regs?

The KG-805G is a superhet design though; if the other models given are 'radio-on-chip' designs (direct sampling / SDR) it just further discredits that conformance letter on the application, unless the transmit side is somehow set up with that ROC design that most the other CCRs use and it's just the receive side they've tweaked. If you look at the exhibits for the interior photos it doesn't look at all like the other single chip designs, but I'd need to do some digging on the model number of that chip that everyone's using these days, maybe someone else has sharper eyes.

 

The other possibility is that Wouxun has a standardized transmitter design that's not a radio-on-chip but is still used in all their listed radios - it's a reach to call all their radios identical this way, but I guess that's left up to some engineer's or officer's discretion? I can't directly verify either condition first hand.

 

The question still remains whether Wouxun is issuing any other radios with the "WVTWOUXUN16" ID outside of the KG805G - that ID is going to be the only thing that makes it that particular type-accepted radio in the FCC's eyes.

 

edit: the single chip transceiver that Baofeng likes to use seems to be an AT1846S or RDA1846. I'm sure there's others.

[mbrun]

For what is worth, the Wouxun KG-UV9P that I own has an FCC ID of WVTWOUXUN12, despite it being listed as electrically identical on the KG-805G documents in question.

 

 

Michael

WRHS965

KE8PLM

[gman1971]

Here we go again, the superhet buzzword had to come up... superhets are useless without a proper tuned front end... so, does the radio have any front end filtering? how many tuned varactors are on that radio?

 

G.

 

Sure; fccid.io is a data aggregator though that farms out of the FCC database - it's easier and quicker to navigate and has sources you can link, and I've found it accurate. But yes, the FCC database itself should be considered the primary source in case of discrepancies.

 

 

The KG-805G is a superhet design though; if the other models given are 'radio-on-chip' designs (direct sampling / SDR) it just further discredits that conformance letter on the application, unless the transmit side is somehow set up with that ROC design that most the other CCRs use and it's just the receive side they've tweaked. If you look at the exhibits for the interior photos it doesn't look at all like the other single chip designs, but I'd need to do some digging on the model number of that chip that everyone's using these days, maybe someone else has sharper eyes.

 

The other possibility is that Wouxun has a standardized transmitter design that's not a radio-on-chip but is still used in all their listed radios - it's a reach to call all their radios identical this way, but I guess that's left up to some engineer's or officer's discretion? I can't directly verify either condition first hand.

 

The question still remains whether Wouxun is issuing any other radios with the "WVTWOUXUN16" ID outside of the KG805G - that ID is going to be the only thing that makes it that particular type-accepted radio in the FCC's eyes.

 

edit: the single chip transceiver that Baofeng likes to use seems to be an AT1846S or RDA1846. I'm sure there's others.

[JeepCrawler98]

Here we go again, the superhet buzzword had to come up... superhets are useless without a proper tuned front end... so, does the radio have any front end filtering? how many tuned varactors are on that radio?

 

G.

So what? We can't say superhet now? Doesn't change the fact that it's using heterodyning on the radio as opposed to direct sampling (Where DS has a much wider passband and why a lot of the CCR's that have massive desense problems). Could the receive and transmit filtering be improved? Of course; so can that of all major brand radios. Besides; the discussion was regarding electrical conformity between different radio types as it pertains to a granted FCC ID, not some philosophical debate about the best way arrange an RF stage.The 805G meets the FCC's requirements for emissions at 4-5W per the testing and is perfectly legal to use regardless of if the filtering could be improved to match that of a 'real' radio - end of story.

 

I don't expect the 805G to perform as well as the commercial radio equipment I have - I'd hope not, it's a $79 brand new radio with inexpensive accessories (batteries and chargers), the expensive ones better offer an improvement or they'd be missing their mark. This one just 'should' be better than the GMRS-V1 or Retevis RT76P as they're all entry level. If it's affordable, doesn't upset me if it gets lost or grimed up dragging around the dirt by me or my family, is legal, and performs as well or better than others in it's price range it's doing its job.

[gman1971]

Emissions? what good are legal (or the lack thereof) emissions if the radio can't hear its way out of a paper bag?...  and as for these things being FCC approved, they are the same who allowed Part 15 radios to be operated with a PTT with impunity... so, please, spare me the FCC sermon. I am not the one buying substandard equipment here... I did, and I regret every bit of it... it was a mistake.

 

A superhet doesn't make a radio good by default, I guess you believe it does... so, tell me, how do explain the XPR7550e using a direct sampling receiver? because it does, you know? 

 

Desense is not the only problem receivers can have to suck, there are radios that won't desense much (like my EVX-5400 mobiles), but still are unable to produce a usable signals, whereas the XPR5550e still produces voice that isn't garbled, or riddled with RF noise. Read on how the IF frequencies mix with strong off channel signals on a superhet... and then you'll see that even if the receiver doesn't have a desense issue, the radio will be still be unable to produce a usable signal... the only way to fix this is with a tuned front end, which nearly all those CCRs lack, and the ones which have one is "insufficient" at best.

 

"something can be made with better filtering"? Well, news flash: there is already something made like that, dirt cheap too, which have a proper tuned front end. Someone on another thread found an ICOM FS2000 for about that price, the specs on that FS2000 blow away anything garbage CCR made. Kenwood LMR radios are similarly good, too, and are also quite affordable too. Some of older Motorola radios, like the HT1250, etc.... also have pretty impressive receiver specs and can be found for next to nothing. There is the Vertex EVX line, the EVX531 portables can be found for <60 bucks on eBay, superhet and a 5 varactor tuned front end, not a piece of garbage (still gets blitzed in some of the high traffic areas around where I live). Similarly, if you look hard enough you can find EVX-539 portables, with the enhanced display for <90 bucks... on eBay. Heck, another member here got a super deal on an EVX-539 with the enhanced display for like <60... or something inexpensive like that. XPR6550 can also be found for <100 if you look around. There is also the older XTS radios, from Motorola too, which have even more impressive specs than the XPR radios... those can be found for cheap, and for the performance they offer, some models are quad band too...  

 

Entry level should not be confused with garbage. An EVX-531 is an entry level radio, an RT76P is a piece of garbage.

 

Enjoy your purchase.

 

G.

[JeepCrawler98]

...[some radios are better than others and one should strongly prefer quality commercial gear, some of which is more affordable than what people tend to believe. A basic design philosophy does not necessarily equate a proper radio]...

Truth; but what's your point for this thread? The reason superhet came up in terms of the 805G was to discuss electrical conformity with some of the liberties taken in the WVTWOUXUN16 application in the sense that we at least know it's not fully a radio on chip design; do any of the other listed models use RoC DS designs? If so we can at least say they're not the same radio even when looking at what makes a radio circuit identical in the abstract sense.

[gman1971]

My point is how really valid are those part 95E "blanket approvals"... are those part15 scanners with PTTs? are those really certified Part95? "blanket approval" doesn't inspire much confidence... 

 

G.

[JeepCrawler98]

Agreed - and that’s why we’re having discussion in the first place; there’s some really odd listings in that approval - especially the liberties taken in what they proclaim to be electrically identical radios, but the FCC has accepted this application regardless.

 

Question is: *should* Wouxun start shipping these model with the WVTWOUXUN16 ID - are there any ramifications for licensees using any of these radios if they crack down at some point in the future?