Got My New MXT500 - Not Impressed

[MichaelLAX]

[deleted by poster]

[marcspaz]

On 2/3/2022 at 6:47 PM, mbrun said:

Apologizes in advance if this is double posted here.
 

 

 

Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

 

 

 

I only have one problem with this video. He said it doesn't receive as well because it's a ROC. Not only that, he went on the say that every other type approved radio is better than the Midland, but did nothing to demonstrate that.

 

I'm a little confused by this guy (and others I have seen) complaining about the Midland and others being a ROC instead of a superheterodyne.  There are ROC systems that outperform some superheterodyne systems all day long and cost as much as $10,000 for amateur transceivers. Flex SDR is a great example. 

 

There are POS superheterodynes and POS ROCs.  The style of tech shouldn't be automatically discounted as junk or awesome based on design style alone. 

[gortex2]

I watched the video as a user of GMRS and GMRS only. He made mentions of other channels he wants to listen to. The radio is a GMRS radio and GMRS only. Was never intended for other uses. I still go back to the fact that the Midlands are good basic mobiles and fit a market of a user who just wants to buy a radio and turn it on. Up until about 10 years ago GMRS was 90% Part 90 gear with a few other manufacturers making gear specific to GMRS. The CCR world has changed GMRS and in many parts Amateur Radio also. Some good but bad at the same time. As said in the past Midland will sell hundreds if not thousands of the radios and thats what makes the market grow. 

[marcspaz]

40 minutes ago, gortex2 said:

I watched the video as a user of GMRS and GMRS only. He made mentions of other channels he wants to listen to. The radio is a GMRS radio and GMRS only. Was never intended for other uses. I still go back to the fact that the Midlands are good basic mobiles and fit a market of a user who just wants to buy a radio and turn it on. Up until about 10 years ago GMRS was 90% Part 90 gear with a few other manufacturers making gear specific to GMRS. The CCR world has changed GMRS and in many parts Amateur Radio also. Some good but bad at the same time. As said in the past Midland will sell hundreds if not thousands of the radios and thats what makes the market grow. 

 

100% agree.  Great post.

[mbrun]

 
I only have one problem with this video. He said it doesn't receive as well because it's a ROC. Not only that, he went on the say that every other type approved radio is better than the Midland, but did nothing to demonstrate that.
 
I'm a little confused by this guy (and others I have seen) complaining about the Midland and others being a ROC instead of a superheterodyne.  There are ROC systems that outperform some superheterodyne systems all day long and cost as much as $10,000 for amateur transceivers. Flex SDR is a great example. 
 
There are POS superheterodynes and POS ROCs.  The style of tech shouldn't be automatically discounted as junk or awesome based on design style alone. 

All very fair statements that I currently do not take exceptions to.

I believe I felt compelled based a mixture of things. Here are some:

- Initial reports of power deficiencies.
- Continued apparent programming limitations, now continued on a flag-ship radio, that unnecesarily limits the number and order of usable memory configurations for repeaters, and even seemingly simplex channel usage.
- Apparent continued exclusive use of integral values to describe DCS codes rather that making them available to be viewed and selected directly. As a power user, I want to see the codes without a lookup table.
- Apparent inability to monitor and display dual frequencies at once while their lesser expensive competitors do.
- Apparent use of ROC. It plays in because of the generally accepted knowledge that they are less performant. This can be clearly be overcome if the implementation can be proven superior.
- Hope for a radio for dual modes. One that continued to be Midland simple so my wife could be more comfortable using; while having another with more advanced features and flexibility that would entice the power user group.

I take no exceptions to a GMRS radio not being able to listen on amateur and public service frequencies, it is a GMRS radio after all. But what I would truly like to learn is that because it is a flagship GMRS radio that it outperforms all its crossover competitors. Wouldn’t it even be cool if passed the @gman1971 real-world effective sensitivity and selectivity tests?

Clearly I don’t have one in my possession and am not hearing anything compelling for me to spend more to get less than what I have now. Perhaps new knowledge will change my tune. But for now let’s just say I am disappointed.

Regards,


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

[MichaelLAX]

19 minutes ago, mbrun said:

Wouldn’t it even be cool if passed the @gman1971 real-world effective sensitivity and selectivity tests?

Where can I find those in more detail?

[wayoverthere]

40 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

Where can I find those in more detail?

This may be what you're after:

https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/2282-john-fogery-cant-help-me-what-the-heck-is-ccr/?do=findComment&comment=20648&_rid=2738

[MichaelLAX]

1 hour ago, wayoverthere said:

This may be what you're after:

https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/2282-john-fogery-cant-help-me-what-the-heck-is-ccr/?do=findComment&comment=20648&_rid=2738

Oh, wow: that much attention to detail gives me a headache! 

[gortex2]

4 hours ago, mbrun said:

Apparent inability to monitor and display dual frequencies at once while their lesser expensive competitors do.

What lesser expensive GMRS built radios do this ? I have yet to find a GMRS mobile that was designed as a GMRS mobile other than Midland. All other are a CCR radio that has firmware to lock it in a band or frequency range. You can buy the same radio with different model numbers ie: DB-20=Anytone779, KG1000G=KG1000M=KGUV980....

4 hours ago, mbrun said:

Hope for a radio for dual modes. One that continued to be Midland simple so my wife could be more comfortable using; while having another with more advanced features and flexibility that would entice the power user group

Guess I don't understand the dual mode statement. Scan allows you to monitor other GMRs channels. If you meant other uses (Amatuer, MURS, Scanner) then it wouldn't be a GMRS radio.

I have no need for a MTX500 as I already have the MTX275 so am not going to order one to run checks on my service monitor. When the new 575 comes out I may upgrade one of mine and run some tests to see what it shows. If I need 50 watts I'll use my APX, but have yet to find a reason to. 

I find it strange that people get all worked up over Midland charging a few $ more for a GMRS only radio but no one mentions Motorola T800 series that cost about $130 a pair and can't use repeater splits nor have removable antenna's. Walk around any campground or park this summer and you will find talkabouts all over....Its all about how folks use the radio. Many just push and talk. Simplex is the most likely the most used mode in GMRS so Midland, Motorola and other manufacturers will cater to that before they worry about the 300 users on mygmrs.... 

[Sshannon]

13 hours ago, marcspaz said:

 

I only have one problem with this video. He said it doesn't receive as well because it's a ROC. Not only that, he went on the say that every other type approved radio is better than the Midland, but did nothing to demonstrate that.

 

I'm a little confused by this guy (and others I have seen) complaining about the Midland and others being a ROC instead of a superheterodyne.  There are ROC systems that outperform some superheterodyne systems all day long and cost as much as $10,000 for amateur transceivers. Flex SDR is a great example. 

 

There are POS superheterodynes and POS ROCs.  The style of tech shouldn't be automatically discounted as junk or awesome based on design style alone. 

Very well said. This hits the nail on the head.  A lot of people believe that unless a receiver is superheterodyne it suffers, but it’s simply not necessarily true.  DSPs and integrated circuit design has blown past traditional circuits.  The flexibility that can be achieved with a direct conversion Software Defined Radio is just incredible and only going to get better.  As an example here’s a link to a solicitation from four years ago for radio equipment:

https://www.sbir.gov/node/1482371

Of course as your so correctly pointed out they can be done poorly also, but the over simplistic notion that superheat > all other technologies is incorrect. 

And this also explains why a number of companies can start with a reference design created by a SDR chip maker and tweak and tune it to come up with something that’s outstanding.  It doesn’t make sense to go all the way back to a blank piece of paper.  Want a dual band 2 meter/70 cm radio?  All you need is different firmware. Want a really high quality commercial radio?  Add some front end improvements, higher quality case, better parts, and firmware, but the core design doesn’t have to be thrown away. That’s where a very agile company can turn out numerous designs for different markets all over the world.  And that’s why it’s silly to discount anything that didn’t start out on a blank piece of paper and only designed for the GMRS market.

[gman1971]

Ah, the good old ISO-tee test... special thanks to repeater-builder.com for putting information on how to perform the procedure.

"I am a simple man with a directional coupler... only an ISOtee away from the truth."

G.

[gman1971]

11 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

Oh, wow: that much attention to detail gives me a headache! 

Probably listening to yourself gives you a headache too... but that would be expected.

[gman1971]

4 hours ago, Sshannon said:

Very well said. This hits the nail on the head.  A lot of people believe that unless a receiver is superheterodyne it suffers, but it’s simply not necessarily true.  DSPs and integrated circuit design has blown past traditional circuits.  The flexibility that can be achieved with a direct conversion Software Defined Radio is just incredible and only going to get better.  As an example here’s a link to a solicitation from four years ago for radio equipment:

https://www.sbir.gov/node/1482371

Of course as your so correctly pointed out they can be done poorly also, but the over simplistic notion that superheat > all other technologies is incorrect. 

And this also explains why a number of companies can start with a reference design created by a SDR chip maker and tweak and tune it to come up with something that’s outstanding.  It doesn’t make sense to go all the way back to a blank piece of paper.  Want a dual band 2 meter/70 cm radio?  All you need is different firmware. Want a really high quality commercial radio?  Add some front end improvements, higher quality case, better parts, and firmware, but the core design doesn’t have to be thrown away. That’s where a very agile company can turn out numerous designs for different markets all over the world.  And that’s why it’s silly to discount anything that didn’t start out on a blank piece of paper and only designed for the GMRS market.

Absolutely, Superheterodyne is nowadays a marketing buzzword; and with that said, superhets of old used to be really good, b/c they spent a lot of time/effort in making them work very well because there wasn't any other practical way to do it... Heck, if done well, those can be quite amazing.... in fact, a member from another forum shared with me some data, showing that the best selectivity he's ever measured was in a double conversion superhet radio made in 80s... I'll have to find the PM somewhere for the model, but yeah, superhets can be made extremely well. 

But I also agree that DSP and SDR radios are the way forward. The XPR7550e uses basically a direct conversion architecture. However, they have something inside that radio that no other radio can, short of the APX radios, can top in terms of performance. Its probably filtering coupled with DSP and who knows what else... 

A lot of the Icom radios like the 7300, etc, all seem to use direct conversion SDR, and those are nothing but amazing radios, I would love to own one when cash allows, but if you look at the crazy filtering they use in those radios is just insane... heck, even tracking filters, and those are not cheap... and the radio price tag shows, 3500 and 13000 for the two top performers in the Icom HF base rigs catalog... I bet most that of the price tag was due to the impressive filtering and DSP-wizardry stuff... otherwise it would be no different than the 29 dollar SDR POS running some SDRsharp on Windows.

Well, the oversimplistic superhet and oversimplistic SDR are the ways of the CCRs, they took the basic SDR and surrounded in a case with a screen and an antenna, or they got some reference design from all these radios made in China, and made it as cheap as possible, and once again, shoved it inside a fancy box with a fancy screen and sells them for x100 the price it costs to make... 

Sometimes, going to a "blank piece of paper" is the only way to go. If you take someone else's design you are also taking all the assumptions and design factors that went into that design, which might work in the short term, but once you start iterating, you'll certainly bump into those; and the end result is that to meet deadlines you'll resort to hacking everything together, again, been there done that.

Weeeell.... not sure if "Front end improvements" are as easy to implement as the "throw some improvements there" makes it feel like it is; those are rather expensive, and time consuming, otherwise the ICOM IC-7810 would go for 130 bucks, and not for 13,000 dollars, I would think. I also suspect the IC-7810 has its own custom everything, they probably scrapped a lot of stuff from the previous generation radio designs just to get that extra performance they needed, just like I've done before in my career, because hacking the previous design just wasn't going to cut it.

G.

[mbrun]

@gortex2 ,

To your question, what lesser expensive GMRS (e.g Part 95e) radios can receive two frequencies at once? Here are four TDR models I know first hand that do that: KG-1000G, KG-XS20G, KG-935G, KG-UV9G. Two mobiles, and two HTs. I cannot speak factually to the competitors of these.

As far as the Dual Mode statement, here is what I mean by that. Some radios, like Midlands, are fairly simple to operate for a good chunk of the masses. This has quite the appeal for myself, my wife, and many others. The cross-over radios like the Wouxun’s, BTechs, Anytones, Radioditty, and other radios however have loads of features and setting options that are not essential for the GMRS masses and thus can make the radio intimidating to use. On the other hand, some of those added features have their place and therefore can be appealing. My Dual Mode statement therefore is is referring to radio that powers up with a simple display and essential menu options available only so it is as remains as simple to use as some FRS radios, but with an added mode that enables FPP programming, exposes features and display options that appeal to the less intimidated and power user of the radio.

Hope that clarifies my statements a bit.

Regards,


Michael
WRHS965
KE8PLM

[MichaelLAX]

5 hours ago, gman1971 said:

Probably listening to yourself gives you a headache too... but that would be expected.

Let's see: I pay a compliment to your ability to deal with such complexities and you respond with an off the cuff insult?

A simple thank you emoticon would have sufficed.

[gortex2]

4 hours ago, mbrun said:

To your question, what lesser expensive GMRS (e.g Part 95e) radios can receive two frequencies at once? Here are four TDR models I know first hand that do that: KG-1000G, KG-XS20G, KG-935G, KG-UV9G. Two mobiles, and two HTs

All of those are chip radios that are used for HAM, GMRS and MURS along with some other services. Same radio same hardware, different firmware. None are specifically made for GMRS. That's the one issue with GMRS is there is only 1 or 2 manufacturers that build specific GMRs radios. All the rest are modified as above. I equate simple as less features so I guess that's the balance. 

[gman1971]

5 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

Let's see: I pay a compliment to your ability to deal with such complexities and you respond with an off the cuff insult?

A simple thank you emoticon would have sufficed.

I would've thanked you if your comment would've, in fact, read to me as a compliment; when in fact, nothing coming from you as of lately seems like a compliment to me. So, please, spare me the "I feel bad" drama, which you seem to really enjoy, btw.

Applying your same logic to your post: your comment did in fact read as a condescending "off the cuff" insult towards me,  a simple "cool, seems like good info on that post, thank you."... would've sufficed.

G.

[gman1971]

3 hours ago, gortex2 said:

All of those are chip radios that are used for HAM, GMRS and MURS along with some other services. Same radio same hardware, different firmware. None are specifically made for GMRS. That's the one issue with GMRS is there is only 1 or 2 manufacturers that build specific GMRs radios. All the rest are modified as above. I equate simple as less features so I guess that's the balance. 

All those radios are basically modified ham gear. There should be no reason why GMRS radios couldn't have great filtering, as they only need to listen to a handful of frequencies... but again, any filtering just piles on the cost... and we all know that everything these days needs to be free... 

G.

[MichaelLAX]

On 2/5/2022 at 11:57 AM, mbrun said:

Wouldn’t it even be cool if passed the @gman1971 real-world effective sensitivity and selectivity tests?

On 2/5/2022 at 12:17 PM, MichaelLAX said:

Where can I find those in more detail?

On 2/5/2022 at 12:58 PM, wayoverthere said:

This may be what you're after:

https://forums.mygmrs.com/topic/2282-john-fogery-cant-help-me-what-the-heck-is-ccr/?do=findComment&comment=20648&_rid=2738

23 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

Oh, wow: that much attention to detail gives me a headache! 

12 hours ago, gman1971 said:

Probably listening to yourself gives you a headache too... but that would be expected.

7 hours ago, MichaelLAX said:

Let's see: I pay a compliment to your ability to deal with such complexities and you respond with an off the cuff insult?

A simple thank you emoticon would have sufficed.

1 hour ago, gman1971 said:

I would've thanked you if your comment would've, in fact, read to me as a compliment; when in fact, nothing coming from you as of lately seems like a compliment to me. So, please, spare me the "I feel bad" drama, which you seem to really enjoy, btw.

Applying your same logic to your post: your comment did in fact read as a condescending "off the cuff" insult towards me,  a simple "cool, seems like good info on that post, thank you."... would've sufficed.

Except that I actually went back to your post linked by @wayoverthere, found it to be more complicated that I chose to understand at that particular moment and made a self-deprecating joke about my getting a headache back to him about it.

It is my belief that the foregoing thread, read in its entirety objectively supports my belief that it is not an insult, but...

I am sorry you misread it instead as a "condescending 'off the cuff' insult" and in the future, you will note that my "jokes" (whether perceived by you to be funny or not) are ended with the "joking" emoticon:  

There is nothing self-deprecating or humorous about your reply:

Quote

Probably listening to yourself gives you a headache too... but that would be expected.

And in my opinion, your applying my "logic" to your reply is flawed; but whether I agree with your logic or not, I accept it as your logic. 

 

 

[gman1971]

@MichaelLAX

You seem to apologize to me all the time, yet you just keep doing it, time and time again.

I rarely read CCR threads these days, but sometimes I do, only to find the same pattern everywhere: reading post from another member calling you the "grammar" police, then you go full "pedantic" on the guy, or on another thread, when the OP asked for a selective receiver, you then posted a CCR POS... and when confronted, you "double down on it"... and that is just a couple of examples. 

For someone who claims holding an Extra Class amateur license, all I hear coming from you is bad radio choice advice, feelings and opinions, which none seems useful to solve radio related problem, on a radio forum. 

Ah, just to reiterate: There was nothing humorous about your reply, and the emoticon made it worse... but those jokes of yours are rarely understood by the many, only the few who are the true "legends in their own minds."

G.

[MichaelLAX]

24 minutes ago, gman1971 said:

Ah, just to reiterate: There was nothing humorous about your reply, and the emoticon made it worse... but those jokes of yours are rarely understood by the many, only the few who are the true "legends in their own minds."

Maybe that is why I don't quit my day job 

Rather than debate with your insulting points (some of which are plain out incorrect factually) and continue this off-topic post about the chip on your shoulder about me, I will just note that PCRadio doesn't seem to agree with you:

AND, the OP of that particular thread about selective receivers had a positive response to my post:

 

BTW: Responding with facts is NOT doubling down.

[gman1971]

@MichaelLAXGood... I don't want to waste my time any further... 

Oh, more quotes... your favorite... and "Factually wrong" is, once again, your opinion. When I say something was insulting to me, it was insulting to me. That is a fact, or you believe that facts are just what you believe? How many people agree with your opinion is also 100% irrelevant, and doesn't change the fact that your statement did in fact made me feel insulted. 

 

 

[MichaelLAX]

7 minutes ago, gman1971 said:

Oh, more quotes... your favorite... and "Factually wrong" is, once again, your opinion. When I say something was insulting to me, it was insulting to me. That is a fact, or you believe that facts are just what you believe? How many people agree with your opinion is also 100% irrelevant, and doesn't change the fact that your statement did in fact made me feel insulted. 

Cool, seems like good info on that post, thank you!

[gman1971]

9 minutes ago, MichaelLAX said:

Cool, seems like good info on that post, thank you!

And more quotes, with pun intended... btw, did writing that post give you a headache too?

[gortex2]

Guys lets get back to the Midland MTX500 stuff.

There is a section in the forums for arguing called Amateur Radio or Miscellaneous Topics