Last evening, I had a nice chat on the (ostensibly forbidden) 146.700- (127.3 / 127.3 PL) repeater with N0TNL (Matt). He's one of those refreshing hams that actually is willing to share information without condescension or arrogance involved. I've run into him once before on the 442.600+ (156.7 PL) in Maplewood, and he seems to mostly hang out on the "emergency" repeaters. Instead of playing the troll role and chasing people away, he engages the few who wander into these "forbidden" places in conversation. He's an expert in EmComm (emergency communications) who's been on the air for over twenty years, so I thought that I'd pick his brain until he became obnoxious and overbearing. Surprisingly, that never happened.
While he's been dipping his toes into digital modes such as D-Star and FL Digital (NBEMS), he expressed no interest in APRS. It's not that he was vehemently opposed to it; he just saw little practical value in APRS for EmComm work. If there was a need for it, Matt was ready to adopt it...but he didn't see any current instances where APRS would be essential or even marginally helpful.
APRS has been "sold" as an EmComm "solution" for decades, even as gateways and digipeater networks have fallen into disrepair in a lot of metro areas -- and vanished from rural areas. Certainly, technology has changed from the 1990's. Smart-phones all have GPS, and can send locations in real-time through the cell data networks. Public-service vehicles have GPS trackers installed that transmit data through the trunked networks that enmesh the state. Buses, taxis, trains, and delivery vehicles all have proprietary packet capability that works without the two-metre amateur network whatsoever. Likewise with rental cars.
This made me wonder how relevant amateur radio APRS still is.
It's not as if APRS gateways and digipeaters are expensive to maintain. It seems, instead, that there's a profound lack of interest and expertise in anything involving packet radio. Digital radio moves forward, in the form of D-Star, APCO25, C4FM, and DMR T2, but the age of AX.25 seems to be ending. It seems to be caught between an older generation that disdains all things digital, and a newer generation that sees other options as having greater potential.
And the integration of APRS with the internet (APRS-IS) does it no favours with an EmComm crowd obsessed with an odd Armageddon in which fibre, cell towers, land-lines, and trunked networks all fail, but amateur repeaters remain perfectly functional. In this chaotic scenario, gasoline will continue to be readily available to run back-up generators, and batteries will magically last for a week to run high-powered HF rigs and HT's alike.
Portable digipeaters and RF-only nodes are part of the "preparedness" tool kit, of course. But maybe APRS isn't as crucial to EmComm as many have made it out to be.
As far as the "forbidden" status of the "emergency" repeaters goes, N0TNL addressed that when KD0WZT (Thor) joined the conversation. All troll-snarling to the contrary, it's acceptable to use these repeaters as long as you yield to emergency traffic. I find it extremely hard to imagine a situation where any operator would brush off emergency responders and insist that they wait until the conversation was finished. Yet, that is the improbable scenario that terrifies these trolls and drives them into a froth.
These repeaters (146.700, 146.820, 444.175, 444.500, 444.200, and 442.600) have excellent coverage and allow HT operation all over the metro. For those with limited antenna solutions, they may be the only repeaters that they can get into with a clear signal. Nobody's talking about two-hour nets here; just allowing people to use these (taxpayer-financed) repeaters for casual conversations. You want people on these machines, to a certain extent, to be there when something happens. It's time for the "dog in the manger" routine to be retired, in my opinion.
The community will get more amateurs interested in EmComm with Matt's approach than with the "run 'em off!" mentality.
Sunday, 28 September 2014
Saturday, 27 September 2014
Leixen VV-898
The Leixen VV-898 has been all over EBay, AliExpress, and Amazon lately. I bought one about a week ago as an option for my home office. Actually, I bought the HYS TC-898UV, which is an exact copy of the VV-898 with the exception that it adds (very poor) 220 MHz reception. HYS even left the stencilling "VV-898" on the front of the radio, so it's not a different radio in any real sense.
EDIT: I've added some thoughts after having this radio for two months.
Some call the VV-898 "quirky". I'd call it poorly-designed, but functional.
I bought it because I wanted a smaller radio than the (monoband) TH-9000 on my desk in the home office, but I wanted dual-band capability with more RF output than an HT. And I didn't want to spend a lot of money, since I already have full-powered rigs in another room. I'm restricted to an indoor antenna in the home office, so the typical Chinese HT (with 4W VHF, 3W UHF) wasn't powerful enough to reach more than a dozen repeaters with a readable signal quality when using a mag-mount whip. The UHF TH-9000 is almost too much power for the casual use at my desk, but it let me work the local GMRS repeater -- which my Yaesu FT-897D (in another room) didn't. Still, I missed having two metres at my convenience with the monoband radio.
The VV-898 is about $150, which is way cheaper than a full-powered dual-band rig. It draws less than 2A of current (1.8A), which puts it in the range suitable for gel-cell marine batteries as a 'portable' power source. It really is small. It's about as wide as a beer can, and goes back about as wide as the palm of your hand. It's only slightly heavier than my PuXing PX-777 monoband HT (including the battery). It could easily fit in your glove box, with a lot of room left over. Or it could mount in your dash, though I'd worry about heat dissipation with that application.
I found the receiver to be quite sensitive, though the filtering is lousy. It became apparent pretty quickly that tone squelch would be needed to make a scan useful. While I don't suffer from intermod here in Plymouth, I think it would be a nightmare without tone squelch in any area with any significant level of interference. Transmitting, however, created no interference with my TV, FM stereo, or computer. My cheap PC speakers don't play well with the VV-898, but they can't tolerate an HT transmitting anywhere in the place at low power. Monitoring the TX audio on simplex, I found the quality and audio level to be decent. Not as good as my Yaesu FT-897D with signal processing, of course. The only adjustment possible is the compander. There's no mic gain setting or equalisation on the radio. I tried plugging in an Anytone desk mic to compare the audio, but it didn't work -- though both use an RJ-11 (ethernet) connector. There is a setting in the menu that allows you to use a non-keypad mic, if you can find a compatible one. I found the TX audio to be crisp and loud without the compander turned on (Menu 2). When I turned on the compander, I actually got a bit of feedback from the headphones -- so I'd say that the TX audio is strong enough. Aside from boosting the mic gain, the compander also increases the "highs" significantly.
EDIT: I had a short QSO with KD0WQQ (Matt) this morning using the VV-898 (or TC-898UV), and he gave my signal a good report. It's nice to have independent confirmation, and Matt gives honest signal reports, too. All in all, it seems like transmitting is the VV-898's strong suit.
The built-in speaker is about the size of a quarter, and it's located on the top of the radio. As you might expect, it's a bit weak. I found that setting the volume to zero actually makes it loud, so be aware of that as you increment the volume down. There's a jack for an external speaker, though it seems to be a better impedance match for headphones. I didn't find the quality of the RX audio to improve much by using headphones.
Though I've arranged to test the RF output properly -- with KE0NA's (Dave) Bird watt-metre and a dummy load -- I haven't done that at this point in time. I can tell you that my MFJ-842 watt/SWR metre shows a slight bit less than 6W on UHF, and a full 10W on VHF, when connected to a dual-band antenna. Yes, I'm fully aware of the limitations of that test method, so spare me your snide and condescending emails on the subject. That's the best information that I have right now, and it's about twice the output levels of my PuXing PX-888K using the same method. I'm certainly able to reach more repeaters with a much better signal than using the same indoor dual-band antenna on the HT. Low power is 2W on either VHF or UHF, which is low enough for MURS operation on VHF -- but not low enough for FRS operation on UHF.
EDIT: Tested the RF output last night with Dave's Bird watt-metre and a dummy load. He had slugs for both VHF and UHF, too. The results were a bit surprising: 9W output on both bands. Better than that new BaoFeng, but not the 12W that some reviewers are claiming.
Programming from the front panel is easier than on a BaoFeng, which isn't exactly high praise. It was an ordeal to get the programming software and USB driver, as the mini-disc that was included had corrupted .RAR files that wouldn't open. Ultimately, the effort was futile. The programming cable that was included only works on Windows 8. The software would allow me to modify the scan parameters, set the time (there's a built-in clock function), and name channels. As it stands, I'm able to program channels in and set the function of the soft buttons with reasonable ease without the software. I'll explain how to program the radio a bit later. With so many of these being sold, some people might find that to be useful information.
EDIT: The Leixen VV-898 is now compatible with CHIRP, though you can't set a channel for simplex with CHIRP. Use the Jetstream JT270M setting.
EDIT: I found that a programming cable for the Kenwood TM-271A (and TK-7100) will work on this radio. This allowed me to program it and add channel names, though I still can't figure out how to set the date and time. The Leixen software is pretty standard for Chinese radios, though it does allow for easy re-arranging of channels. The scan parameters can't be changed, contrary to what I originally thought.
The biggest issue that I've had with the radio is, oddly, turning it on.
If the radio is off and I turn on the power supply, the mic will light up but no amount of pressing the power button will turn the radio on. I have to turn off the power supply, unplug the mic, and then turn the power supply back on to make the power button actually function. I've learned to just leave the radio on and turn off the power supply when I'm done using it. When I turn the power supply back on later, the radio starts up without any problem. Weird.
(EDIT: I now have an actual Leixen VV-898 - as opposed to the HYT copy -- and it does not have any issue turning on.)
The included power cable is ridiculously short (3 feet), has no fuse, and uses a "T" connector. The lugs pulled right out of the "T" connector immediately. Fortunately, it's pretty easy to come up with better options.
(EDIT: While the HYT copy has a terrible power cable, the actual Leixen VV-898 has a marginally better cable with a fuse and lugs that don't pull out. It's still the same length, though.)
Without tone squelch employed, the radio will make short crackles about every 30 seconds unless the squelch is set very high. That makes monitoring repeaters like the HandiHam .450, the 146.850, and the MGRC's 147.000 repeaters (which have no PL tone) somewhat irritating -- and including them in a scan means that the radio will constantly stop at those repeaters continuously even though there's no traffic.
So, yeah...it's "quirky".
The VV-898 wouldn't be terrible choice for a new ham, with the extra power. A regulated power supply for 2A is pretty cheap (almost into "wall-wart" territory), and it does everything that a typical Chinese HT does. I ran it off the cigarette lighter jack in my car without problem, though briefly. It certainly could be wired in to a vehicle properly, and take up less space than a full-powered mobile. Even though I've found a 5W HT to be good enough to reach most repeaters while driving around, the extra power (especially on UHF) would make the difference between being "readable" and nearly full-quieting. I'm seriously considering employing it as a mobile, as it could fit inside the "stash box" between the two front seats. A lot of the functions can be handled through the mic keypad. Of course, for more "discerning" hams, the VV-898 would be quickly dismissed as junk. I'm not a "radio snob"; I just care if it does the job or not.
EDIT: Leixen sells a $13 switching power supply for this radio, though with really short cables. I've ordered one to try it out. If it's acceptable, the idea that this would make a decent home rig for a new (or cheap) ham would be confirmed. A lighter-jack power cable is also available for $11. It features the same very short cable lengths that seem to be a Leixen trademark, but it can be modified. I'm looking at that as an option for a portable battery, or possibly for mobile use.
Once the pinout for the mic is figured out, it's possible that it could be used for packet/APRS. I haven't got that far yet.
For non-hams, it offers repeater-capable GMRS service, with enough power to reach the .650 machine around the metro. And it can do simplex operation to serve as a more-powerful base station to communicate with the usual GMRS "bubble-pack" hand-helds when camping, for example. Program in a few weather channels and marine VHF frequencies, and it would be a nice portable camping companion that also has an FM radio. Or it can provide UHF communication between cars while on a road trip. Obviously, GMRS operation requires a licence, but your whole family can operate under one licence.
EDIT: The VV-898 is certified for Part 90, provided that the front panel controls are locked.
So it's small, cheap, and more powerful than your usual HT. It's also "quirky". It won't impress anyone, but doing that would mean spending a lot of money. I've given up on that whole concept. Haters gonna hate, and arrogant jackasses are gonna sneer. There's nothing you can do about it.
The VV-898 does what I need it to do, which is to reach the majority of local repeaters with an indoor antenna. It could do a lot better with an outdoor antenna, I'm sure. It's the hot radio du jour, meaning that there's tons of them being sold online at the moment. In another week or two, it will be another radio. The price is already dropping. This Bajoie is likely to be the next "radio of the moment": dual-band, full-powered, at $200 (including shipping). Then, I predict a round of knock-offs of the new AnyTone mobiles. It never ends.
____________________________________________________________________
Here's an explanation of how to program the VV-898 radio.
First, be aware of the "C" button on the mic. It allows you to switch between the A and B functions. The A band is only for programmed channels. You can change the CTCSS and power level of a programmed channel from A, but not the offsets. The "B" button only works when you are on the B band, and it lets you switch from VFO to channels while on the B band. If you are using the "Dual Watch" (Menu 7), you can set a second channel or VFO frequency on the B band. Or you can have two channels ready (one on A and another on B) and switch between them with the "C" button.
So, make sure that you are on the B band by pressing "C". Then, enter a frequency from the keypad. You now can monitor that frequency, but the offset and PL tones aren't set yet. Next, push the "M" (Menu) button on the front of the radio. You can increment the menu number by the "CHA+" (or minus), the "VOL+" (or minus), or the mic buttons "*" (for minus) and "#" (for plus). You can also enter a number from the keypad, which is faster.
The first stop is menu 8 (DecType), where you can turn on tone squelch for RX. Hit "M" again, and + or - for CTCSS ("CTC") or DCS. Then hit "M" and increment up to menu 9 ("Dec Code") to set the actual tone (e.g. 114.8). You do this by hitting "M", and + or - your way to the right tone. Then hit "M" to return to the menu, where you can increment up to the next item, or enter it from the keypad. You repeat this procedure for each menu item. I'm not going to go through how to set each item, since the process is the same: go to the menu item, hit "M", set the parameter, hit "M", and go the next menu item.
The most important items are as follows:
Menu 10 ("EncType") -- switches the TX to CTCSS or DCS.
Menu 11 ("EncCode") -- sets the specific tone.
Menu 30 ("Power") -- switches from high or low RF output.
Menu 34 ("RPT SET") -- the frequency offset. The radio already "knows" to use 0.6 for VHF and 5.0 for UHF, so you can probably skip this one.
Menu 35 ("RPTType") -- set the offset direction (+ or -, or "SING" for simplex).
Menu 40 ("SQL") -- set the squelch level.
When you are done with all of the settings, go back to menu 5 ("CHASave"). Hit "M" and increment to the empty channel number you want to save to. You can't punch in the channel number from the keypad; you have to + or - your way to the channel number. When you have the right channel number showing, hit "M" to return to the menu, and hit the power button briefly to return to normal operation.
Other menu items of interest:
Menu 2 ("APRO") turns the compander on or off.
Menu 7 ("DW") turns the dual watch on or off. If a star is showing in the lower right corner, DW is on.
Menu 17 ("KeyLock") sets options for what, exactly, you want locked. Pressing in "M" for over one second locks the radio, which makes it compliant (in spirit, at least) with Part 95 for GMRS, MURS, and marine VHF uses.
Menu 19 ("Lamp") controls the backlight. You have no colour options.
Menus 24-29 set the function of the the three soft buttons. Each has a different function for a short press or a long press, for a total of six functions that can be changed without going in to menu.
I set P1 to switch between normal operation and FM broadcast RX (long press), and switching between bands with a short press. P2 is set for "reverse" (long press), and scan (short press). Reverse switches the frequency offset, so that you listen on the repeater input and transmit on the repeater output. Anyone within simplex range can hear you (though they are listening to the repeater). P3 is set to turn off tone squelch (long press), and mute the radio (short press).
There is, of course, an FM broadcast RX capability like most radios have today. You can also enter the frequency directly with the keypad. Obviously, the audio quality is not great. But it's good enough to listen to weather reports or sporting events.
EDIT: I've added some thoughts after having this radio for two months.
Some call the VV-898 "quirky". I'd call it poorly-designed, but functional.
I bought it because I wanted a smaller radio than the (monoband) TH-9000 on my desk in the home office, but I wanted dual-band capability with more RF output than an HT. And I didn't want to spend a lot of money, since I already have full-powered rigs in another room. I'm restricted to an indoor antenna in the home office, so the typical Chinese HT (with 4W VHF, 3W UHF) wasn't powerful enough to reach more than a dozen repeaters with a readable signal quality when using a mag-mount whip. The UHF TH-9000 is almost too much power for the casual use at my desk, but it let me work the local GMRS repeater -- which my Yaesu FT-897D (in another room) didn't. Still, I missed having two metres at my convenience with the monoband radio.
The VV-898 is about $150, which is way cheaper than a full-powered dual-band rig. It draws less than 2A of current (1.8A), which puts it in the range suitable for gel-cell marine batteries as a 'portable' power source. It really is small. It's about as wide as a beer can, and goes back about as wide as the palm of your hand. It's only slightly heavier than my PuXing PX-777 monoband HT (including the battery). It could easily fit in your glove box, with a lot of room left over. Or it could mount in your dash, though I'd worry about heat dissipation with that application.
I found the receiver to be quite sensitive, though the filtering is lousy. It became apparent pretty quickly that tone squelch would be needed to make a scan useful. While I don't suffer from intermod here in Plymouth, I think it would be a nightmare without tone squelch in any area with any significant level of interference. Transmitting, however, created no interference with my TV, FM stereo, or computer. My cheap PC speakers don't play well with the VV-898, but they can't tolerate an HT transmitting anywhere in the place at low power. Monitoring the TX audio on simplex, I found the quality and audio level to be decent. Not as good as my Yaesu FT-897D with signal processing, of course. The only adjustment possible is the compander. There's no mic gain setting or equalisation on the radio. I tried plugging in an Anytone desk mic to compare the audio, but it didn't work -- though both use an RJ-11 (ethernet) connector. There is a setting in the menu that allows you to use a non-keypad mic, if you can find a compatible one. I found the TX audio to be crisp and loud without the compander turned on (Menu 2). When I turned on the compander, I actually got a bit of feedback from the headphones -- so I'd say that the TX audio is strong enough. Aside from boosting the mic gain, the compander also increases the "highs" significantly.
EDIT: I had a short QSO with KD0WQQ (Matt) this morning using the VV-898 (or TC-898UV), and he gave my signal a good report. It's nice to have independent confirmation, and Matt gives honest signal reports, too. All in all, it seems like transmitting is the VV-898's strong suit.
The built-in speaker is about the size of a quarter, and it's located on the top of the radio. As you might expect, it's a bit weak. I found that setting the volume to zero actually makes it loud, so be aware of that as you increment the volume down. There's a jack for an external speaker, though it seems to be a better impedance match for headphones. I didn't find the quality of the RX audio to improve much by using headphones.
Though I've arranged to test the RF output properly -- with KE0NA's (Dave) Bird watt-metre and a dummy load -- I haven't done that at this point in time. I can tell you that my MFJ-842 watt/SWR metre shows a slight bit less than 6W on UHF, and a full 10W on VHF, when connected to a dual-band antenna. Yes, I'm fully aware of the limitations of that test method, so spare me your snide and condescending emails on the subject. That's the best information that I have right now, and it's about twice the output levels of my PuXing PX-888K using the same method. I'm certainly able to reach more repeaters with a much better signal than using the same indoor dual-band antenna on the HT. Low power is 2W on either VHF or UHF, which is low enough for MURS operation on VHF -- but not low enough for FRS operation on UHF.
EDIT: Tested the RF output last night with Dave's Bird watt-metre and a dummy load. He had slugs for both VHF and UHF, too. The results were a bit surprising: 9W output on both bands. Better than that new BaoFeng, but not the 12W that some reviewers are claiming.
Programming from the front panel is easier than on a BaoFeng, which isn't exactly high praise. It was an ordeal to get the programming software and USB driver, as the mini-disc that was included had corrupted .RAR files that wouldn't open. Ultimately, the effort was futile. The programming cable that was included only works on Windows 8. The software would allow me to modify the scan parameters, set the time (there's a built-in clock function), and name channels. As it stands, I'm able to program channels in and set the function of the soft buttons with reasonable ease without the software. I'll explain how to program the radio a bit later. With so many of these being sold, some people might find that to be useful information.
EDIT: The Leixen VV-898 is now compatible with CHIRP, though you can't set a channel for simplex with CHIRP. Use the Jetstream JT270M setting.
EDIT: I found that a programming cable for the Kenwood TM-271A (and TK-7100) will work on this radio. This allowed me to program it and add channel names, though I still can't figure out how to set the date and time. The Leixen software is pretty standard for Chinese radios, though it does allow for easy re-arranging of channels. The scan parameters can't be changed, contrary to what I originally thought.
The biggest issue that I've had with the radio is, oddly, turning it on.
If the radio is off and I turn on the power supply, the mic will light up but no amount of pressing the power button will turn the radio on. I have to turn off the power supply, unplug the mic, and then turn the power supply back on to make the power button actually function. I've learned to just leave the radio on and turn off the power supply when I'm done using it. When I turn the power supply back on later, the radio starts up without any problem. Weird.
(EDIT: I now have an actual Leixen VV-898 - as opposed to the HYT copy -- and it does not have any issue turning on.)
The included power cable is ridiculously short (3 feet), has no fuse, and uses a "T" connector. The lugs pulled right out of the "T" connector immediately. Fortunately, it's pretty easy to come up with better options.
(EDIT: While the HYT copy has a terrible power cable, the actual Leixen VV-898 has a marginally better cable with a fuse and lugs that don't pull out. It's still the same length, though.)
Without tone squelch employed, the radio will make short crackles about every 30 seconds unless the squelch is set very high. That makes monitoring repeaters like the HandiHam .450, the 146.850, and the MGRC's 147.000 repeaters (which have no PL tone) somewhat irritating -- and including them in a scan means that the radio will constantly stop at those repeaters continuously even though there's no traffic.
So, yeah...it's "quirky".
The VV-898 wouldn't be terrible choice for a new ham, with the extra power. A regulated power supply for 2A is pretty cheap (almost into "wall-wart" territory), and it does everything that a typical Chinese HT does. I ran it off the cigarette lighter jack in my car without problem, though briefly. It certainly could be wired in to a vehicle properly, and take up less space than a full-powered mobile. Even though I've found a 5W HT to be good enough to reach most repeaters while driving around, the extra power (especially on UHF) would make the difference between being "readable" and nearly full-quieting. I'm seriously considering employing it as a mobile, as it could fit inside the "stash box" between the two front seats. A lot of the functions can be handled through the mic keypad. Of course, for more "discerning" hams, the VV-898 would be quickly dismissed as junk. I'm not a "radio snob"; I just care if it does the job or not.
EDIT: Leixen sells a $13 switching power supply for this radio, though with really short cables. I've ordered one to try it out. If it's acceptable, the idea that this would make a decent home rig for a new (or cheap) ham would be confirmed. A lighter-jack power cable is also available for $11. It features the same very short cable lengths that seem to be a Leixen trademark, but it can be modified. I'm looking at that as an option for a portable battery, or possibly for mobile use.
Once the pinout for the mic is figured out, it's possible that it could be used for packet/APRS. I haven't got that far yet.
For non-hams, it offers repeater-capable GMRS service, with enough power to reach the .650 machine around the metro. And it can do simplex operation to serve as a more-powerful base station to communicate with the usual GMRS "bubble-pack" hand-helds when camping, for example. Program in a few weather channels and marine VHF frequencies, and it would be a nice portable camping companion that also has an FM radio. Or it can provide UHF communication between cars while on a road trip. Obviously, GMRS operation requires a licence, but your whole family can operate under one licence.
EDIT: The VV-898 is certified for Part 90, provided that the front panel controls are locked.
So it's small, cheap, and more powerful than your usual HT. It's also "quirky". It won't impress anyone, but doing that would mean spending a lot of money. I've given up on that whole concept. Haters gonna hate, and arrogant jackasses are gonna sneer. There's nothing you can do about it.
The VV-898 does what I need it to do, which is to reach the majority of local repeaters with an indoor antenna. It could do a lot better with an outdoor antenna, I'm sure. It's the hot radio du jour, meaning that there's tons of them being sold online at the moment. In another week or two, it will be another radio. The price is already dropping. This Bajoie is likely to be the next "radio of the moment": dual-band, full-powered, at $200 (including shipping). Then, I predict a round of knock-offs of the new AnyTone mobiles. It never ends.
____________________________________________________________________
Here's an explanation of how to program the VV-898 radio.
First, be aware of the "C" button on the mic. It allows you to switch between the A and B functions. The A band is only for programmed channels. You can change the CTCSS and power level of a programmed channel from A, but not the offsets. The "B" button only works when you are on the B band, and it lets you switch from VFO to channels while on the B band. If you are using the "Dual Watch" (Menu 7), you can set a second channel or VFO frequency on the B band. Or you can have two channels ready (one on A and another on B) and switch between them with the "C" button.
So, make sure that you are on the B band by pressing "C". Then, enter a frequency from the keypad. You now can monitor that frequency, but the offset and PL tones aren't set yet. Next, push the "M" (Menu) button on the front of the radio. You can increment the menu number by the "CHA+" (or minus), the "VOL+" (or minus), or the mic buttons "*" (for minus) and "#" (for plus). You can also enter a number from the keypad, which is faster.
The first stop is menu 8 (DecType), where you can turn on tone squelch for RX. Hit "M" again, and + or - for CTCSS ("CTC") or DCS. Then hit "M" and increment up to menu 9 ("Dec Code") to set the actual tone (e.g. 114.8). You do this by hitting "M", and + or - your way to the right tone. Then hit "M" to return to the menu, where you can increment up to the next item, or enter it from the keypad. You repeat this procedure for each menu item. I'm not going to go through how to set each item, since the process is the same: go to the menu item, hit "M", set the parameter, hit "M", and go the next menu item.
The most important items are as follows:
Menu 10 ("EncType") -- switches the TX to CTCSS or DCS.
Menu 11 ("EncCode") -- sets the specific tone.
Menu 30 ("Power") -- switches from high or low RF output.
Menu 34 ("RPT SET") -- the frequency offset. The radio already "knows" to use 0.6 for VHF and 5.0 for UHF, so you can probably skip this one.
Menu 35 ("RPTType") -- set the offset direction (+ or -, or "SING" for simplex).
Menu 40 ("SQL") -- set the squelch level.
When you are done with all of the settings, go back to menu 5 ("CHASave"). Hit "M" and increment to the empty channel number you want to save to. You can't punch in the channel number from the keypad; you have to + or - your way to the channel number. When you have the right channel number showing, hit "M" to return to the menu, and hit the power button briefly to return to normal operation.
Other menu items of interest:
Menu 2 ("APRO") turns the compander on or off.
Menu 7 ("DW") turns the dual watch on or off. If a star is showing in the lower right corner, DW is on.
Menu 17 ("KeyLock") sets options for what, exactly, you want locked. Pressing in "M" for over one second locks the radio, which makes it compliant (in spirit, at least) with Part 95 for GMRS, MURS, and marine VHF uses.
Menu 19 ("Lamp") controls the backlight. You have no colour options.
Menus 24-29 set the function of the the three soft buttons. Each has a different function for a short press or a long press, for a total of six functions that can be changed without going in to menu.
I set P1 to switch between normal operation and FM broadcast RX (long press), and switching between bands with a short press. P2 is set for "reverse" (long press), and scan (short press). Reverse switches the frequency offset, so that you listen on the repeater input and transmit on the repeater output. Anyone within simplex range can hear you (though they are listening to the repeater). P3 is set to turn off tone squelch (long press), and mute the radio (short press).
There is, of course, an FM broadcast RX capability like most radios have today. You can also enter the frequency directly with the keypad. Obviously, the audio quality is not great. But it's good enough to listen to weather reports or sporting events.
Saturday, 20 September 2014
New tri-band radios from China
Aside from the Kenwood TH-F6A HT, there aren't many tri-band options (i.e. including 1.25M) from Japanese (YaeComWood) manufacturers. Even "all band" radios like the Yaesu FT-897D don't include 1.25M (220 MHz). Over in Europe, hams face the same issue with the 4M (70 MHz) band. BaoFeng and TYT released some dual-band HTs that include 220 MHz, and one of the Yaesu HTs transmit with a mere 1W on 1.25M (with 5W on 2M and 70 cm). But the 1.25M band has a limited market, even in those few countries where operation is allowed.
AnyTone is now making two new tri-band radios that include 1.25M: the AT-3318UV-E HT and the AT-5888UV III mobile. Both of these operate as cross-band repeaters and also operate in full-duplex mode for FM satellite communications. That means that you can receive while you are transmitting. They also both receive AM aircraft communications. The full-powered, tri-band mobile radio will sell for under $400, which is competitive with a lot of other full-powered dual-band rigs that don't even have full duplex. A new dual-band Yaesu FT-7800R full-powered mobile is out there for around $260, however, and it receives 1.25M and the air band.
Previously, AnyTone's popular AT-588UV full-powered, dual-band mobile offered 1.25M reception, but not transmission. It is also full duplex, and offers cross-band repeat and air band RX. And it's Part 90 certified. It's still available (and widely copied), but it costs around $300.
As I wrote about previously, AnyTone is the company that many other Chinese manufacturers copy. They do all of the development, procurement, and engineering, and others just buy their cases, chassis, and boards and under-sell AnyTone. The TYT TH-9000 monoband, for example, was so close to the popular AnyTone AT-588 that TYT lost in Chinese court over the matter. Some Chinese companies are already including 1.25M RX capability in their products copied from other manufacturers in an effort to distinguish their radios from the original. For example, HYS copied the Leixen VV-898 and added (poor) 1.25M RX to their TC-898UV. They even left "VV-898" on the front of the radio.
What this means is that there are likely to be a lot of cheaper copies of these new AnyTone radios on the market in about six months. AM mode RX might also be on the menu for amateur bands, mostly because it wouldn't be hard to do when you already have AM for short-wave, broadcast, and aircraft built in.
The problem is that it's a little late in the game for a move like this. The amateur HT and mobile market is already saturated. The majority of hams have at least one Chinese HT, and most don't swap out their mobile rigs on a whim. It will be a hard sell to get a lot of hams to get rid of their monoband 2M or dual-band full-powered mobiles for a new tri-band model, even with air band receive, cross-band repeat, and full duplex thrown in. The AT-3318UV-E HT is priced at around $200, which is cheaper than a new TH-F6A (around $300), but that's probably not a compelling price point for someone that already has an HT (or three).
Still, the 1.25M band is more popular on the East and West coasts, and hams there might see a reason to combine all three of the common FM bands into one radio.
One interesting possibility is that the mobile tri-band will be modified (such as the TYT TH-9000 was) to accommodate repeater connections. Then we could see some cross-band repeaters popping up with an arrangement similar to The Aggrandizer.
The tri-band HT is also Part 90 certified (when locked), which allows marine VHF and GMRS use for those worried about using Part 95 radios for that purpose. Interesting that the FCC is now considering keypad locks as sufficient protection for Part 90 certification. That makes most Chinese HTs compliant, at least in spirit. A Yaesu FT-7800R can't even transmit on GMRS or marine VHF frequencies. We have a GMRS repeater in town, and your GMRS licence extends to your family, so that might be an easy way to accomplish mobile communications with non-hams.
AnyTone is now making two new tri-band radios that include 1.25M: the AT-3318UV-E HT and the AT-5888UV III mobile. Both of these operate as cross-band repeaters and also operate in full-duplex mode for FM satellite communications. That means that you can receive while you are transmitting. They also both receive AM aircraft communications. The full-powered, tri-band mobile radio will sell for under $400, which is competitive with a lot of other full-powered dual-band rigs that don't even have full duplex. A new dual-band Yaesu FT-7800R full-powered mobile is out there for around $260, however, and it receives 1.25M and the air band.
Previously, AnyTone's popular AT-588UV full-powered, dual-band mobile offered 1.25M reception, but not transmission. It is also full duplex, and offers cross-band repeat and air band RX. And it's Part 90 certified. It's still available (and widely copied), but it costs around $300.
As I wrote about previously, AnyTone is the company that many other Chinese manufacturers copy. They do all of the development, procurement, and engineering, and others just buy their cases, chassis, and boards and under-sell AnyTone. The TYT TH-9000 monoband, for example, was so close to the popular AnyTone AT-588 that TYT lost in Chinese court over the matter. Some Chinese companies are already including 1.25M RX capability in their products copied from other manufacturers in an effort to distinguish their radios from the original. For example, HYS copied the Leixen VV-898 and added (poor) 1.25M RX to their TC-898UV. They even left "VV-898" on the front of the radio.
What this means is that there are likely to be a lot of cheaper copies of these new AnyTone radios on the market in about six months. AM mode RX might also be on the menu for amateur bands, mostly because it wouldn't be hard to do when you already have AM for short-wave, broadcast, and aircraft built in.
The problem is that it's a little late in the game for a move like this. The amateur HT and mobile market is already saturated. The majority of hams have at least one Chinese HT, and most don't swap out their mobile rigs on a whim. It will be a hard sell to get a lot of hams to get rid of their monoband 2M or dual-band full-powered mobiles for a new tri-band model, even with air band receive, cross-band repeat, and full duplex thrown in. The AT-3318UV-E HT is priced at around $200, which is cheaper than a new TH-F6A (around $300), but that's probably not a compelling price point for someone that already has an HT (or three).
Still, the 1.25M band is more popular on the East and West coasts, and hams there might see a reason to combine all three of the common FM bands into one radio.
One interesting possibility is that the mobile tri-band will be modified (such as the TYT TH-9000 was) to accommodate repeater connections. Then we could see some cross-band repeaters popping up with an arrangement similar to The Aggrandizer.
The tri-band HT is also Part 90 certified (when locked), which allows marine VHF and GMRS use for those worried about using Part 95 radios for that purpose. Interesting that the FCC is now considering keypad locks as sufficient protection for Part 90 certification. That makes most Chinese HTs compliant, at least in spirit. A Yaesu FT-7800R can't even transmit on GMRS or marine VHF frequencies. We have a GMRS repeater in town, and your GMRS licence extends to your family, so that might be an easy way to accomplish mobile communications with non-hams.
Sunday, 14 September 2014
On-air, off-air, and hot air
Keeping track of the status of various repeaters is no easy task, and the records are often inaccurate. The source of most repeater listings is the MRC (Minnesota Repeater Council), who essentially just gets their information from the owners/trustees of each repeater. This information is updated twice each year -- again, based on the information provided by those that run the repeaters.
People often snicker over sources such as RepeaterBook, but the base of their information is the equivalent of the MRC in each State. There isn't someone from RepeaterBook driving around and verifying the repeater listings. So, if RepeaterBook is wrong, the strong likelihood is that the MRC (or its analogue) is also wrong. The advantage of RepeaterBook (and other online listings) is that they can be updated more often than, say, twice a year. Their listings can also be updated by ordinary hams, rather than the repeater owners and trustees. Of course, ordinary hams can also provide incorrect information.
I've found that repeater owners have a different definition of "off-air" than those that actually use their machines. For example, I once had a QSO with a guy that operated a UHF repeater in Edina (or some similar place) where he told me about all the work that he had to do to get his repeater working again. I'm fairly familiar with the UHF repeaters, especially those close to me (like Edina), and I had never heard of his machine. I asked him how long the repeater had been off-air. He became indignant. "It's NOT off-air! I just need to work on it a little!", he huffed. Now, he had just told me that his repeater wasn't working. He had just told me about the amount of work it would require to fix it, and it wasn't "a little". Yet, in his mind, his repeater was on-air. Using the frequency, offset, and PL tone he had given me, 20W into a three-element Yagi said differently. A drive into the area also failed to yield anything from this 'on-air' repeater.
Frankly, the only repeater trustees I have ever spoken with about off-air repeaters who aren't delusional about status are K0LAV and N0YNT. Nearly all of them get very defensive, very quickly. They insult your rig, your intelligence, and your hearing. They rant about how busy they are, and seem to behave as if you're a customer demanding your money back.
Repeaters go down, and repeaters come up. They aren't perfect, and many are just hobbled together to begin with. I'm just happy that people put the work into them, so that I can use them. I send money to over a dozen clubs and individuals each month to help cover the costs, even for repeaters that I don't use more than a few times each year. It's about a thousand bucks a year, and I wish that it could be more. But I never feel that someone owes me a functioning repeater.
Before I change the status of a repeater to "off-air" on RepeaterBook, I do quite a bit to make sure that I'm correct. First, I make several efforts to "ker-chunk" it, over the course of a few days. If it's possible that my rig just can't reach it (even though it did for a long time before), I'll drive out to the general area and try to reach it. Then, I'll listen for at least two hours for an ID. Next, I'll either ask someone else to verify that they can't reach it, or I'll contact the repeater owner to confirm.
The latter option is always an adventure. Frequently, the listed email address is undeliverable. Just as often, I get no reply. If I do, it's an angry response in which the person generally claims that, while their repeater might have problems, it's definitely not "off-air". Okay. It's not off-air. It just doesn't receive or transmit. Aside from those minor details, it's working just fine.
Tonight I had a brief chat with N0FKM (Dan), who was a bit peeved that I had listed his 224.660 machine as off-air several months ago. He told me that, "sometimes it's up, and sometimes it's down". Well, I check that repeater every two weeks, hoping that it will be working. 40W into a three-element Yagi tells me that it's not working. No ID tells me that it's not working. When it did work, I could "ker-chunk" it with 5W into a 1/4-wave whip. Even if it worked at some point between those two weeks, I'd still consider it to be off-air. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is. It's not as if I'm storming around, cursing Dan's name, and yelling, "What the hell! Where's my .660 repeater?". Likewise, I'm not going to pretend that it really is working, but I'm just doing something wrong.
I understand that people put a lot of money and time into their repeaters, and fair amount of ego as well. For my part, I'd like to see more accurate listings for those people passing through or visiting the area. That's why I try to keep things updated. The MRC isn't going to pay any attention if I tell them that a repeater is off-air, and they only update their records every six months anyway. They only listen to the repeater trustees, and the trustees don't want to admit that their machines are down. And we end up with inaccurate records and repeaters that only exist on paper.
It would be nice if people could just admit that their repeaters are down, and update RepeaterBook. But they don't, so I do it.
People often snicker over sources such as RepeaterBook, but the base of their information is the equivalent of the MRC in each State. There isn't someone from RepeaterBook driving around and verifying the repeater listings. So, if RepeaterBook is wrong, the strong likelihood is that the MRC (or its analogue) is also wrong. The advantage of RepeaterBook (and other online listings) is that they can be updated more often than, say, twice a year. Their listings can also be updated by ordinary hams, rather than the repeater owners and trustees. Of course, ordinary hams can also provide incorrect information.
I've found that repeater owners have a different definition of "off-air" than those that actually use their machines. For example, I once had a QSO with a guy that operated a UHF repeater in Edina (or some similar place) where he told me about all the work that he had to do to get his repeater working again. I'm fairly familiar with the UHF repeaters, especially those close to me (like Edina), and I had never heard of his machine. I asked him how long the repeater had been off-air. He became indignant. "It's NOT off-air! I just need to work on it a little!", he huffed. Now, he had just told me that his repeater wasn't working. He had just told me about the amount of work it would require to fix it, and it wasn't "a little". Yet, in his mind, his repeater was on-air. Using the frequency, offset, and PL tone he had given me, 20W into a three-element Yagi said differently. A drive into the area also failed to yield anything from this 'on-air' repeater.
Frankly, the only repeater trustees I have ever spoken with about off-air repeaters who aren't delusional about status are K0LAV and N0YNT. Nearly all of them get very defensive, very quickly. They insult your rig, your intelligence, and your hearing. They rant about how busy they are, and seem to behave as if you're a customer demanding your money back.
Repeaters go down, and repeaters come up. They aren't perfect, and many are just hobbled together to begin with. I'm just happy that people put the work into them, so that I can use them. I send money to over a dozen clubs and individuals each month to help cover the costs, even for repeaters that I don't use more than a few times each year. It's about a thousand bucks a year, and I wish that it could be more. But I never feel that someone owes me a functioning repeater.
Before I change the status of a repeater to "off-air" on RepeaterBook, I do quite a bit to make sure that I'm correct. First, I make several efforts to "ker-chunk" it, over the course of a few days. If it's possible that my rig just can't reach it (even though it did for a long time before), I'll drive out to the general area and try to reach it. Then, I'll listen for at least two hours for an ID. Next, I'll either ask someone else to verify that they can't reach it, or I'll contact the repeater owner to confirm.
The latter option is always an adventure. Frequently, the listed email address is undeliverable. Just as often, I get no reply. If I do, it's an angry response in which the person generally claims that, while their repeater might have problems, it's definitely not "off-air". Okay. It's not off-air. It just doesn't receive or transmit. Aside from those minor details, it's working just fine.
Tonight I had a brief chat with N0FKM (Dan), who was a bit peeved that I had listed his 224.660 machine as off-air several months ago. He told me that, "sometimes it's up, and sometimes it's down". Well, I check that repeater every two weeks, hoping that it will be working. 40W into a three-element Yagi tells me that it's not working. No ID tells me that it's not working. When it did work, I could "ker-chunk" it with 5W into a 1/4-wave whip. Even if it worked at some point between those two weeks, I'd still consider it to be off-air. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is what it is. It's not as if I'm storming around, cursing Dan's name, and yelling, "What the hell! Where's my .660 repeater?". Likewise, I'm not going to pretend that it really is working, but I'm just doing something wrong.
I understand that people put a lot of money and time into their repeaters, and fair amount of ego as well. For my part, I'd like to see more accurate listings for those people passing through or visiting the area. That's why I try to keep things updated. The MRC isn't going to pay any attention if I tell them that a repeater is off-air, and they only update their records every six months anyway. They only listen to the repeater trustees, and the trustees don't want to admit that their machines are down. And we end up with inaccurate records and repeaters that only exist on paper.
It would be nice if people could just admit that their repeaters are down, and update RepeaterBook. But they don't, so I do it.
Repeater update 9/14/14, plus 1.25M
There are a couple of things happening with the local repeaters, so I want to get out an update.
K9EQ (Chris) is always "optimising" his multiple repeaters, and it's hard to keep up with the current state of things. Today, however, I noticed his callsign come up on the RepeaterBook Twitter feed with updated info on the 444.075+ (114.8 PL) repeater. If my memory serves, the UHF .075 was previously located in Ham Lake using a 'compromise' antenna. Now it seems that it's in Mounds View (at Medtronic), and using a 100W hybrid digital/analogue IDAS (Icom digital) mode. It's not only running EchoLink (node 428728), but also IRLP (4779). The .075 came back to me S4, here on the opposite side of the metro area.
The 442.600+ (156.7 PL) machine in Maplewood, with excellent coverage across the metro, seems to have developed an audio problem. There's now a fairly strong hum in the transmitted audio. Likewise with the 443.475+ (85.4 PL) machine in Becker. I noticed it yesterday in a QSO with KD0RRA (Travis).
The other interesting bit of information that the RB feed brought me was that one of the local 1.25M repeaters might be returning to the air. Someone, possibly N0FKM (Dan) himself, updated the listing for the Columbia Heights 224.660- (114.8 PL) machine. The .660 is now reported to be in "testing", though I was unable to raise it or hear an ID from it today.
The .660 died a slow, painful death back in November 2013. At one point, it was linked to the Columbia Heights 444.750+ UHF repeater, but the link only worked one-way. Gradually, the receiver got worse, until it took more and more power and a Yagi to even "ker-chunk" it. Then, in December, it began continuously transmitting noise for a week on end. Shortly after that, it was completely dead.
I never got a chance to have a QSO on the 224.660, so I don't know how the audio quality or receiver sensitivity was when it was working. I know that I could "ker-chunk" it from a lot places in the metro while mobile. The listing states that it runs 50W output, which isn't bad. I know from KE0NA (Dave) that the (currently off-air) 224.540- ran 75W, and the .540 had pretty good coverage. The problem with the .540 was the audio, not the RF output. So, based on that experience, I'd think that 50W at 100 feet up could do the job. Just look at how well The Aggrandizer (224.240) does at 25 feet with 40W.
The thing that I always liked about the 224.660, and it's companion 224.500, was their location. The Arden Hills 223.940- is off the to north-east. Despite the repeater's claim of an 80-mile coverage radius, the coverage in the western suburbs is often quite spotty. People out as far away as Maple Plain can reach it, but it takes full power (40W or more), and it's quite scratchy even then. The 223.940 machine is more suited for the east metro out to Minneapolis proper. The Burnsville repeater struggled in the north metro. But the Columbia Heights repeaters reached the western metro very well -- when they worked, of course.
I should also note that N0FKM runs another 1.25M repeater in Maplewood -- the 224.880- (no PL) machine -- that does okay in St. Paul. Out here in Plymouth, though, it's not very useful.
Though it's still far from ready, another repeater has potential to be added to the 1.25M metro scene. The 224.940- (100.0 PL) is still (kind of) working in New Brighton. N0YNT (Matt) and N0TYE (Paul) have hazy plans to restore it at some point, but the site is yet to be determined.
So, there's not quite a compelling case to made at the moment to pick up a 222 MHz rig, there are developments going on behind the scenes that could change things. What's most needed is cross-band capability, so that 1.25M users aren't isolated on just one band. The effort to link the Arden Hills 223.94 machine to the HandiHam network has stalled pathetically for nearly a year. And the Arden Hills repeater suffers from intermod that makes it virtually unusable for hours on end, so maybe it's not so bad that it's not linked. Still, until there is some way for operators on 2M to speak to those on 1.25M, the band will continue to be a "hard sell". UHF linking and EchoLink capability can help, but the promise that the HandiHam link offered was two-metre access.
Relatively powerful (45W) monoband 1.25M rigs are now available for the same price as VHF and UHF models. Cheap HT's are out there, too. The issue isn't the hardware.
K9EQ (Chris) is always "optimising" his multiple repeaters, and it's hard to keep up with the current state of things. Today, however, I noticed his callsign come up on the RepeaterBook Twitter feed with updated info on the 444.075+ (114.8 PL) repeater. If my memory serves, the UHF .075 was previously located in Ham Lake using a 'compromise' antenna. Now it seems that it's in Mounds View (at Medtronic), and using a 100W hybrid digital/analogue IDAS (Icom digital) mode. It's not only running EchoLink (node 428728), but also IRLP (4779). The .075 came back to me S4, here on the opposite side of the metro area.
The 442.600+ (156.7 PL) machine in Maplewood, with excellent coverage across the metro, seems to have developed an audio problem. There's now a fairly strong hum in the transmitted audio. Likewise with the 443.475+ (85.4 PL) machine in Becker. I noticed it yesterday in a QSO with KD0RRA (Travis).
The other interesting bit of information that the RB feed brought me was that one of the local 1.25M repeaters might be returning to the air. Someone, possibly N0FKM (Dan) himself, updated the listing for the Columbia Heights 224.660- (114.8 PL) machine. The .660 is now reported to be in "testing", though I was unable to raise it or hear an ID from it today.
The .660 died a slow, painful death back in November 2013. At one point, it was linked to the Columbia Heights 444.750+ UHF repeater, but the link only worked one-way. Gradually, the receiver got worse, until it took more and more power and a Yagi to even "ker-chunk" it. Then, in December, it began continuously transmitting noise for a week on end. Shortly after that, it was completely dead.
I never got a chance to have a QSO on the 224.660, so I don't know how the audio quality or receiver sensitivity was when it was working. I know that I could "ker-chunk" it from a lot places in the metro while mobile. The listing states that it runs 50W output, which isn't bad. I know from KE0NA (Dave) that the (currently off-air) 224.540- ran 75W, and the .540 had pretty good coverage. The problem with the .540 was the audio, not the RF output. So, based on that experience, I'd think that 50W at 100 feet up could do the job. Just look at how well The Aggrandizer (224.240) does at 25 feet with 40W.
The thing that I always liked about the 224.660, and it's companion 224.500, was their location. The Arden Hills 223.940- is off the to north-east. Despite the repeater's claim of an 80-mile coverage radius, the coverage in the western suburbs is often quite spotty. People out as far away as Maple Plain can reach it, but it takes full power (40W or more), and it's quite scratchy even then. The 223.940 machine is more suited for the east metro out to Minneapolis proper. The Burnsville repeater struggled in the north metro. But the Columbia Heights repeaters reached the western metro very well -- when they worked, of course.
I should also note that N0FKM runs another 1.25M repeater in Maplewood -- the 224.880- (no PL) machine -- that does okay in St. Paul. Out here in Plymouth, though, it's not very useful.
Though it's still far from ready, another repeater has potential to be added to the 1.25M metro scene. The 224.940- (100.0 PL) is still (kind of) working in New Brighton. N0YNT (Matt) and N0TYE (Paul) have hazy plans to restore it at some point, but the site is yet to be determined.
So, there's not quite a compelling case to made at the moment to pick up a 222 MHz rig, there are developments going on behind the scenes that could change things. What's most needed is cross-band capability, so that 1.25M users aren't isolated on just one band. The effort to link the Arden Hills 223.94 machine to the HandiHam network has stalled pathetically for nearly a year. And the Arden Hills repeater suffers from intermod that makes it virtually unusable for hours on end, so maybe it's not so bad that it's not linked. Still, until there is some way for operators on 2M to speak to those on 1.25M, the band will continue to be a "hard sell". UHF linking and EchoLink capability can help, but the promise that the HandiHam link offered was two-metre access.
Relatively powerful (45W) monoband 1.25M rigs are now available for the same price as VHF and UHF models. Cheap HT's are out there, too. The issue isn't the hardware.
Saturday, 13 September 2014
K0MSP UHF repeater seems "off-air" or something
Yesterday, I noticed that K0CE had updated the RepeaterBook listing for the 444.975+ (94.8 PL) repeater in Columbus (near Forest Lake). That's a machine that I've never been able to reach, though it's been listed as "on-air" as long as I've been licensed. Additionally, Pete in Lino Lakes has confirmed that he's also unable to "ker-chunk" it, and he's a heck of a lot closer to it than me.
The MRC also lists the 444.975 in Columbus as working, as does the website for the K0MSP network that operates it. Even though I'm within the alleged 25-mile coverage radius of the listing here in eastern Plymouth, 20W into a three-element Yagi fails to even "ker-chunk" it.
Even stranger, the MRC also lists a second repeater on the same frequency pair in Ramsey, though with a 114.8 PL tone instead. Though unmentioned on the K0MSP website (under the "Repeaters" tab), or in the newly-updated RepeaterBook listing, the 114.8 tone works. It only comes back as S0 -- even though Ramsey is much closer to me than Columbus -- and that makes it pretty much unusable to me. The EchoLink node for the Ramsey .975 (9644) is down, and the node for the Columbus .975 (9975) is up.
Repeater listings are frequently incorrect, especially those put out by the MRC. Repeater trustees have an incentive to show their machines as "on-air", even when they aren't, because they risk losing co-ordination of frequency pairs that aren't being used. The websites of clubs operating repeaters also aren't updated frequently enough to reflect the real situation of their machines' status. That's why RepeaterBook is sometimes handy, because hams can update the listings to show the current status that they find.
As it stands, though, I have no idea what information to update. K0CE seems to believe that there's a working repeater on 444.975+ using a 94.8 PL tone, and that it has a 25-mile coverage radius. I find a working repeater on 444.975+ with a 114.8 PL tone, but it hardly reaches Plymouth, wherever it actually is.
You may know K0MSP (the Midwest Radio Association) as the group that operates the VHF 145.370- (107.2 PL) repeater. It's the one that has a different PL tone for receiving than transmitting (118.8 PL for tone squelch). Some people have told me that the machine is currently sited in downtown Minneapolis, and I've found it has excellent coverage. Much like the VHF MARA .850, it uses remote receive sites to expand it's usefulness. With four sites (Minneapolis, Ramsey, Rosemount, and Forest Lake), it's really only weak in the west and east extreme suburbs of the metro area with my 5W mobile. Ostensibly, it has EchoLink capability, though the node at the VHF site is usually either down or marked as "busy" (even though no traffic can be heard on the .370 when it is busy). Since I've never been able to actually access the node, I can't say if it's open to commands such as opening other nodes or using EchoTest to check your audio.
Whatever the situation is with the 444.975 K0MSP repeater, it seems that the plan for the future might involve linking it with the VHF repeater for cross-band use. That's a laudable goal, though UHF seems to be a tougher sell to rural and exurban hams.
The MRC also lists the 444.975 in Columbus as working, as does the website for the K0MSP network that operates it. Even though I'm within the alleged 25-mile coverage radius of the listing here in eastern Plymouth, 20W into a three-element Yagi fails to even "ker-chunk" it.
Even stranger, the MRC also lists a second repeater on the same frequency pair in Ramsey, though with a 114.8 PL tone instead. Though unmentioned on the K0MSP website (under the "Repeaters" tab), or in the newly-updated RepeaterBook listing, the 114.8 tone works. It only comes back as S0 -- even though Ramsey is much closer to me than Columbus -- and that makes it pretty much unusable to me. The EchoLink node for the Ramsey .975 (9644) is down, and the node for the Columbus .975 (9975) is up.
Repeater listings are frequently incorrect, especially those put out by the MRC. Repeater trustees have an incentive to show their machines as "on-air", even when they aren't, because they risk losing co-ordination of frequency pairs that aren't being used. The websites of clubs operating repeaters also aren't updated frequently enough to reflect the real situation of their machines' status. That's why RepeaterBook is sometimes handy, because hams can update the listings to show the current status that they find.
As it stands, though, I have no idea what information to update. K0CE seems to believe that there's a working repeater on 444.975+ using a 94.8 PL tone, and that it has a 25-mile coverage radius. I find a working repeater on 444.975+ with a 114.8 PL tone, but it hardly reaches Plymouth, wherever it actually is.
You may know K0MSP (the Midwest Radio Association) as the group that operates the VHF 145.370- (107.2 PL) repeater. It's the one that has a different PL tone for receiving than transmitting (118.8 PL for tone squelch). Some people have told me that the machine is currently sited in downtown Minneapolis, and I've found it has excellent coverage. Much like the VHF MARA .850, it uses remote receive sites to expand it's usefulness. With four sites (Minneapolis, Ramsey, Rosemount, and Forest Lake), it's really only weak in the west and east extreme suburbs of the metro area with my 5W mobile. Ostensibly, it has EchoLink capability, though the node at the VHF site is usually either down or marked as "busy" (even though no traffic can be heard on the .370 when it is busy). Since I've never been able to actually access the node, I can't say if it's open to commands such as opening other nodes or using EchoTest to check your audio.
Whatever the situation is with the 444.975 K0MSP repeater, it seems that the plan for the future might involve linking it with the VHF repeater for cross-band use. That's a laudable goal, though UHF seems to be a tougher sell to rural and exurban hams.
Sunday, 7 September 2014
The Aggrandizer moves into viability
As I mentioned previously, I'm tangentially involved in an effort to put up an innovative 1.25M repeater here in the metro. The majority of the effort has come from KE0NA (Dave), with considerable help and advice from N0YNT (Matt). Originally, the repeater was planned to take the place of the failed TCRC 224.540- machine in Burnsville, as it had a duplexer, antenna, and site sitting unused. With Dave being the Vice-President of the TCRC, it seemed to be a "done deal", and the TCRC would be the test bed for an innovative concept -- which is kind of what radio clubs are supposed to do.
No such luck, however. The President of the TCRC, WB0JMG (Artie), unilaterally decreed not only that the repeater we designed would not be put into service on any TCRC site, but he also strictly forbade any club "resources" to be used in the effort -- such as advice or technical help.
Surely this innovative repeater design must be some kind of dangerous and crazy scheme, right? The wisest course would be to deny the amateur community the use of of one of the few 1.25M repeaters for months on end, rather than take the outrageous risk of even testing this concept, which is clearly doomed to failure and disgrace. Right? That's the only reasonable explanation.
So, what is this wild and uproariously laughable idea that must be put down and unceremoniously buried?
It's simply this: put two TYT TH-9000 mobile 1.25M transceivers back to back, with a controller mediating.
Gear for the 222 MHz band is hard to come by. There aren't a lot of old commercial repeaters sitting around (as is the case with 2M and 70cm) to press into service and use in amateur radio. The TH-9000 is uniquely designed to be used as a repeater, with an internal header that provides TX and RX audio, COS, PTT, and +5 vDC. It only has about 45W RF output, but it can certainly drive a PA. Even at 45W, the metro area could be fairly well covered, especially with a good site and antenna.
Since this is different from how repeaters are normally operated, there was no shortage of "experts" dismissing the idea out-of-hand. We can't be 'experimenting', after all. This is amateur radio! There are no new ideas; only bad ones that experts laugh at.
Undeterred, we went ahead with the project. Barred from using any TCRC expertise, Matt set up a controller. Matt is a member of the TCRC (as am I), but we are not part of the club's "Tech Team", and so we considered ourselves unbound by the President's decree. The repeater, now named "The Aggrandizer", was field tested at the July AITP event. It didn't "de-sense", and worked an HT from about a mile away. Moving forward from that point, I prevailed upon K0LAV (Paul) and K9EQ (Chris) for advice, and Dave consulted with KA0KMJ (John), as these were hams free of any restrictions placed on them by the TCRC.
As it now stands, Dave has set up a transmitting antenna at his home in NE Minneapolis for The Aggrandizer. He got it provisionally co-ordinated for 224.240-, which is the 1.25M SNP pair. As he mastered the mysteries of the controller, he set up a voice ID to "beacon" every ten minutes. The next step is the installation of a receiving antenna, which is challenging because he doesn't have a duplexer. Like everything else on 1.25M, duplexers are quite scarce.
KA0KMJ confirmed last week the the signal was reaching his home in Osseo. I also drove around Crystal, New Hope, Plymouth, and Golden Valley listening to the beacon on my Kenwood F6-A. The antenna at Dave's is only about 25 feet up, and in an area that isn't particularly elevated, but I received the signal at S9 in most places on my drive. There were some low spots at only S2, but that's to be expected with a "compromise" site.
The propagation characteristics of the 222 MHz band are pretty favourable for amateur use. It has coverage beyond "line of sight" like VHF, but it still has some ability to reflect off objects like UHF. Ideally, 1.25M is a better choice for urban and suburban amateur radio than 2M is, but 2M got a huge advantage in the early goings from the availability of VHF commercial gear.
At some point, this project will produce a working 1.25M repeater. It will probably happen before the TCRC gets the .540 back on the air. If the TCRC would relent, it could be on the air immediately, and I would happily provide a 100W PA to make it the best 1.25M repeater in the State. They have a duplexer and antenna on a great site that are just sitting unused.
Let's look at the Mission Statement of the Twin Cities Repeater Club:
I know that KE0NA has described the experience gained from this project as "priceless". It's certainly been an educational experience for me as well, in my limited role. And KD0ZWN (Josh) has been inspired to experiment with Raspberry Pi controllers due to his involvement in this secretive and forbidden project. Even the experienced hams that we asked for advice had to do a little "re-thinking" of the conventional wisdom.
The Aggrandizer will on display (in all its horror) at the September AITP event next weekend, where another field test will be done. Bring a 222 MHz HT and test it out.
Dave has documented every step of this effort meticulously. He will be able to produce step-by-step instructions that will enable virtually any ham to replicate this for themselves. This information will be available on this blog. There is documentation to show you how to wire the headers of the TH-9000. There is detailed information on how to connect a controller between the two radios. He explains how to add extra heat sink capability. With sufficient vertical separation between the TX and RX antennae, or with a split site arrangement, you can create your own repeater without a duplexer. Of course, this is all a lot easier on UHF, where there is 5 MHz separating the TX and RX frequencies, and duplexers for the band are plentiful and relatively cheap. And, at the end of day, if you wish to take it all down, you have two new mobile transceivers rather than one ancient repeater.
It's not just repeaters that are made relatively simple by the accommodations of the TH-9000. APRS digipeaters and gateways are made possible with the VHF model. Auxiliary RF links between repeaters for cross-band functionality or remote receive sites are also likewise simplified with the UHF model. Connections for EchoLink, too, are simplified. You can set up that simplex node that you've thought about. Unlike two metres, there are a whole lot of open frequency pairs on 222 MHz to set up repeaters on, even at the 'hobby' level. Experiment! Set up the first EchoLink-capable 1.25M repeater in the State. Make a cross-band UHF/1.25M repeater happen. Set up 1.25M APRS. Why not have a VHF digipeater at your cabin? It's all possible, and it's all an excellent chance to learn and teach others from your experience.
As Dave makes progress, your signal reports will be helpful. The beacon isn't always on, but if you hear it on 224.240, it would be nice for us to know. When the receiving antenna goes up, those reports will be even more valuable. If nothing else, check out this innovative repeater at the AITP event. Maybe you will be inspired to join the effort...unless someone orders you not to.
It's gratifying to me that there are experienced hams out there willing to think "outside the box" and help bring new projects into being. I especially appreciate people like Dave and Matt, who say "Let's make it happen!" instead of smugly explaining "That will never work!". The purveyors of 'conventional wisdom' are many, and they receive a disproportionate amount of respect for merely parroting the worn-out notion that FM is limited to two metres.
Have we, as a community, become so hidebound and backward-looking that we risk becoming a parody of the visionaries that first established the two-metre infrastructure here in the metro? Are our clubs, which were supposed to leverage the power of their membership into progress, now nothing more than museums and refuges for those obsessed with preserving the past? If so, then the hobby has to look to the few that can still summon the spirit that will move us into the future.
EDIT: Apparently some people are confused as to the difference between the TCRC and the TCFMC. KE0NA is the VP of the TCRC, not the TCFMC. This post has nothing to with the TCFMC.
EDIT: N0FKM (Dan) has approached N0YNT (Matt) with a potential offer of practical help with this project, possibly teaming up with Dave and Matt to put The Aggrandizer on the air. Dan operates repeaters on three bands in the metro.
No such luck, however. The President of the TCRC, WB0JMG (Artie), unilaterally decreed not only that the repeater we designed would not be put into service on any TCRC site, but he also strictly forbade any club "resources" to be used in the effort -- such as advice or technical help.
Surely this innovative repeater design must be some kind of dangerous and crazy scheme, right? The wisest course would be to deny the amateur community the use of of one of the few 1.25M repeaters for months on end, rather than take the outrageous risk of even testing this concept, which is clearly doomed to failure and disgrace. Right? That's the only reasonable explanation.
So, what is this wild and uproariously laughable idea that must be put down and unceremoniously buried?
It's simply this: put two TYT TH-9000 mobile 1.25M transceivers back to back, with a controller mediating.
Gear for the 222 MHz band is hard to come by. There aren't a lot of old commercial repeaters sitting around (as is the case with 2M and 70cm) to press into service and use in amateur radio. The TH-9000 is uniquely designed to be used as a repeater, with an internal header that provides TX and RX audio, COS, PTT, and +5 vDC. It only has about 45W RF output, but it can certainly drive a PA. Even at 45W, the metro area could be fairly well covered, especially with a good site and antenna.
Since this is different from how repeaters are normally operated, there was no shortage of "experts" dismissing the idea out-of-hand. We can't be 'experimenting', after all. This is amateur radio! There are no new ideas; only bad ones that experts laugh at.
Undeterred, we went ahead with the project. Barred from using any TCRC expertise, Matt set up a controller. Matt is a member of the TCRC (as am I), but we are not part of the club's "Tech Team", and so we considered ourselves unbound by the President's decree. The repeater, now named "The Aggrandizer", was field tested at the July AITP event. It didn't "de-sense", and worked an HT from about a mile away. Moving forward from that point, I prevailed upon K0LAV (Paul) and K9EQ (Chris) for advice, and Dave consulted with KA0KMJ (John), as these were hams free of any restrictions placed on them by the TCRC.
As it now stands, Dave has set up a transmitting antenna at his home in NE Minneapolis for The Aggrandizer. He got it provisionally co-ordinated for 224.240-, which is the 1.25M SNP pair. As he mastered the mysteries of the controller, he set up a voice ID to "beacon" every ten minutes. The next step is the installation of a receiving antenna, which is challenging because he doesn't have a duplexer. Like everything else on 1.25M, duplexers are quite scarce.
KA0KMJ confirmed last week the the signal was reaching his home in Osseo. I also drove around Crystal, New Hope, Plymouth, and Golden Valley listening to the beacon on my Kenwood F6-A. The antenna at Dave's is only about 25 feet up, and in an area that isn't particularly elevated, but I received the signal at S9 in most places on my drive. There were some low spots at only S2, but that's to be expected with a "compromise" site.
The propagation characteristics of the 222 MHz band are pretty favourable for amateur use. It has coverage beyond "line of sight" like VHF, but it still has some ability to reflect off objects like UHF. Ideally, 1.25M is a better choice for urban and suburban amateur radio than 2M is, but 2M got a huge advantage in the early goings from the availability of VHF commercial gear.
At some point, this project will produce a working 1.25M repeater. It will probably happen before the TCRC gets the .540 back on the air. If the TCRC would relent, it could be on the air immediately, and I would happily provide a 100W PA to make it the best 1.25M repeater in the State. They have a duplexer and antenna on a great site that are just sitting unused.
Let's look at the Mission Statement of the Twin Cities Repeater Club:
The purpose of the TCRC is to facilitate the local communication needs of its members by owning and operating a state of the art wide area coverage two meter repeater system. The club will further involve itself in secondary activities intended to (1) promote the exchange of ideas and information related to amateur radio, (2) strengthen the fellowship and camaraderie among the members, (3) serve the local amateur radio community, and (4) increase local public safety.Okay, so it's all about 2M now. Good to know. Maybe we already did. I'm left wondering how an Order of Silence from the President on this project promotes "the exchange of ideas and information related to amateur radio", though. If this concept works, it could make it pretty easy to not only set up 1.25M repeaters in any community, but also UHF repeaters, since there are UHF TH-9000's. We can't allow hams to set up cheap repeaters and learn how duplexers and controllers work, can we? It's all so "experimental", which is what amateur radio is apparently there to prevent. These secrets must be carefully guarded, and only revealed to those that our Wise Elders deem worthy... and in possession of sufficient disposable income.
I know that KE0NA has described the experience gained from this project as "priceless". It's certainly been an educational experience for me as well, in my limited role. And KD0ZWN (Josh) has been inspired to experiment with Raspberry Pi controllers due to his involvement in this secretive and forbidden project. Even the experienced hams that we asked for advice had to do a little "re-thinking" of the conventional wisdom.
The Aggrandizer will on display (in all its horror) at the September AITP event next weekend, where another field test will be done. Bring a 222 MHz HT and test it out.
Dave has documented every step of this effort meticulously. He will be able to produce step-by-step instructions that will enable virtually any ham to replicate this for themselves. This information will be available on this blog. There is documentation to show you how to wire the headers of the TH-9000. There is detailed information on how to connect a controller between the two radios. He explains how to add extra heat sink capability. With sufficient vertical separation between the TX and RX antennae, or with a split site arrangement, you can create your own repeater without a duplexer. Of course, this is all a lot easier on UHF, where there is 5 MHz separating the TX and RX frequencies, and duplexers for the band are plentiful and relatively cheap. And, at the end of day, if you wish to take it all down, you have two new mobile transceivers rather than one ancient repeater.
It's not just repeaters that are made relatively simple by the accommodations of the TH-9000. APRS digipeaters and gateways are made possible with the VHF model. Auxiliary RF links between repeaters for cross-band functionality or remote receive sites are also likewise simplified with the UHF model. Connections for EchoLink, too, are simplified. You can set up that simplex node that you've thought about. Unlike two metres, there are a whole lot of open frequency pairs on 222 MHz to set up repeaters on, even at the 'hobby' level. Experiment! Set up the first EchoLink-capable 1.25M repeater in the State. Make a cross-band UHF/1.25M repeater happen. Set up 1.25M APRS. Why not have a VHF digipeater at your cabin? It's all possible, and it's all an excellent chance to learn and teach others from your experience.
 |
| Behold The Aggrandizer! |
It's gratifying to me that there are experienced hams out there willing to think "outside the box" and help bring new projects into being. I especially appreciate people like Dave and Matt, who say "Let's make it happen!" instead of smugly explaining "That will never work!". The purveyors of 'conventional wisdom' are many, and they receive a disproportionate amount of respect for merely parroting the worn-out notion that FM is limited to two metres.
Have we, as a community, become so hidebound and backward-looking that we risk becoming a parody of the visionaries that first established the two-metre infrastructure here in the metro? Are our clubs, which were supposed to leverage the power of their membership into progress, now nothing more than museums and refuges for those obsessed with preserving the past? If so, then the hobby has to look to the few that can still summon the spirit that will move us into the future.
EDIT: Apparently some people are confused as to the difference between the TCRC and the TCFMC. KE0NA is the VP of the TCRC, not the TCFMC. This post has nothing to with the TCFMC.
EDIT: N0FKM (Dan) has approached N0YNT (Matt) with a potential offer of practical help with this project, possibly teaming up with Dave and Matt to put The Aggrandizer on the air. Dan operates repeaters on three bands in the metro.
Saturday, 6 September 2014
Metro APRS coverage declines
The primary APRS gateway (I-Gate) in the metro has been down for about a month now. That would be the W0YC-10 station at the University of MN, operated by the Gopher Radio Club. The problem is, per N0YNT (Matt), with the internet port. This is the same problem that has kept the EchoLink node on the 444.425+ from working for that same length of time.
Since I last wrote on this subject, the metro area has gained another gateway in the south-east (K0JDD-1), and lost another in the north-west (WX0BPR). The digipeater network has remained the same.
If you've been thinking about setting up an I-Gate or a digipeater, this might be an opportune time to so -- at least until W0YC-10 is back in action. A nifty piece of hardware to make this possible is here. It comes with a cable compatible with Yaesu, Kenwood, and Icom transceivers, and it can work with a PC or Android phone. And you can always use it with UI-View to see APRS stations by RF alone (no internet). That makes it nice for emergency purposes.
It's often difficult to see the consequences from the lack of coverage. Users seldom check their path data, and their last position will remain when they move out of gateway coverage.
If you are in one of the areas with deficient coverage, you might want to use additional power or set up your mobile as a digipeater to help out others.
The loss of W0YC-10 also affects the VHF propagation data, as it was one of the consistently good reporters. By recording the path of APRS stations received, a gateway is a pretty good indicator of two-metre conditions.
Since I last wrote on this subject, the metro area has gained another gateway in the south-east (K0JDD-1), and lost another in the north-west (WX0BPR). The digipeater network has remained the same.
 |
| Remaining I-Gates in metro |
 |
| Current metro-area digipeaters |
It's often difficult to see the consequences from the lack of coverage. Users seldom check their path data, and their last position will remain when they move out of gateway coverage.
If you are in one of the areas with deficient coverage, you might want to use additional power or set up your mobile as a digipeater to help out others.
The loss of W0YC-10 also affects the VHF propagation data, as it was one of the consistently good reporters. By recording the path of APRS stations received, a gateway is a pretty good indicator of two-metre conditions.
Monday, 1 September 2014
HandiHam .925 repeater is now standalone
It's become easier for me to reach the 444.925 repeater in Chaska lately. Maybe there have been some improvements over the past week. While I had trouble with people on the other repeaters being able to read me when I came through the .925, at least it was linked. Now, however, none of the traffic found on the rest of the linked network is being carried on the .925, and anything heard by the .925 is not linked over to the rest of the network.
The EchoLink node that previously was attached to the 443.000 Chaska repeater, KA0KMJ-R (node 150438), is still up. The .925 supposedly replaced the (SNP) 443.000 machine, but the link must have been taken down. I can only wonder what machine the node is attached to now.
Still, I was able to "ker-chunk" the .925 with my 5W mobile for a full S9 while driving around Plymouth yesterday. That's a lot better than I can get from the VHF 147.165+ machine in Chaska under the same conditions. It makes me think that the .925 might not be in Chaska any more.
The down-side is that the audio has declined in quality. There's a whistling sound in the background that distorts the CW ID. I'm sure that N0BVE (Don) will say that it's still a "work in progress", but I've asked him about what's going on with this new addition to the HandiHam network -- mostly because I like having a new UHF repeater to play with. There aren't as many of them in the western metro as you find elsewhere.
There's always something happening with the local infrastructure this time of year, either for good or bad.
EDIT: N0BVE (Don) reports that the 443.000 machine is down, but will return at some point. He also confirms that that 444.925 repeater is still in Chaska.
EDIT: Last night the net was carried on the .925, so it seems that the link is in operation at times.
The EchoLink node that previously was attached to the 443.000 Chaska repeater, KA0KMJ-R (node 150438), is still up. The .925 supposedly replaced the (SNP) 443.000 machine, but the link must have been taken down. I can only wonder what machine the node is attached to now.
Still, I was able to "ker-chunk" the .925 with my 5W mobile for a full S9 while driving around Plymouth yesterday. That's a lot better than I can get from the VHF 147.165+ machine in Chaska under the same conditions. It makes me think that the .925 might not be in Chaska any more.
The down-side is that the audio has declined in quality. There's a whistling sound in the background that distorts the CW ID. I'm sure that N0BVE (Don) will say that it's still a "work in progress", but I've asked him about what's going on with this new addition to the HandiHam network -- mostly because I like having a new UHF repeater to play with. There aren't as many of them in the western metro as you find elsewhere.
There's always something happening with the local infrastructure this time of year, either for good or bad.
EDIT: N0BVE (Don) reports that the 443.000 machine is down, but will return at some point. He also confirms that that 444.925 repeater is still in Chaska.
EDIT: Last night the net was carried on the .925, so it seems that the link is in operation at times.
UHF DMR coming soon
Hopefully, N0YNT (Matt) will write up a post at some point detailing his progress in setting up a DMR repeater at the U of M site. Right now, I probably know as much as you do about this project. The repeater isn't co-ordinated yet, but it's set up for testing. There are plans to set up the DMR equivalent of a D-Star reflector here in town -- kind of like an EchoLink conference server -- that uses the internet to connect users to each other. This is called a "c-Bridge" on DMR. It's an ambitious plan, and I'd expect it to consume Matt's considerable energies for some months.
Suppose that you want to get a radio and play around with DMR? The one that everyone has been talking about for months is the CS700 made by Connect Systems in California. It can be found for around $280, but Connect Systems gives licensed hams a steep discount if you order directly from them. Apparently you do that by contacting the president of the company and setting things up. Quite the personal touch. This allows you to get a CS700 HT for about $180, plus shipping.
Here's what the president (Jerry Wanger) sent me in response to a question about buying the CS700:
Given the price, the documentation, the support, and the flexibility offered, the Connect Systems CS700 is rapidly becoming the overwhelming choice for amateur DMR use. There are, of course, others with used MotoTrbo radios and such. There are obviously a lot of people with knowledge of these other radios, since they are used in public service. You have options.
There's an interesting review of the CS700 here, though it's mainly about the DMR system set up in Colorado. It can also give you a little insight into DMR itself. There are also some e-ham reviews that are illuminating, though many reviewers seem to have an odd obsession with "ruggedness". Until somebody makes a ten-pound "HT" that you can drive a truck over, then throw into a lake, then pitch into a fire, there will always be some hams out there dismissing everything as flimsy junk.
Many say that Connect Systems is great with technical support, and they are constantly developing the firmware. That's good, because I was bewildered looking at the programming manual for the radio. It's not written with amateur radio in mind, but this is essentially a commercial radio that's being generously adapted to amateur use. The user manual is very good and clearly written. Again, this isn't some bad Chinese translation. It's an American company, and the documentation is written is English -- though some of the spelling is bad.
I know pretty much nothing about DMR itself, though it seems to have the potential to do just about anything. Every radio has a unique ID, and you can call a particular radio specifically -- or just check to see if it's on without bothering the other person. Of course, you have to be in range of the other radio, either by simplex, repeater, or "reflector". You can send a 138-character text message to an individual or group, and you can program ten messages into the memory to save yourself the trouble of typing things out on a keypad. Of course, text messaging is for simplex use only. Repeaters don't support it, as a rule. Different groups can operate on the same repeater, oblivious to each other, by employing different "colour codes".
What I don't understand -- and what the manuals don't really address -- is repeater operation. Somebody is going to have to figure all of this out for the particular repeater. There is a thing called a "codeplug" that simplifies things. Perhaps you've used a CHIRP file to program a big list of repeaters into your HT. It's kind of like that. It provides all of the information that the radio needs to connect to the repeater and "reflector". Codeplugs are available for existing DMR systems. You just download them from the internet and load them into your radio from a computer. Since the 442.425+ is new, there aren't any codeplugs for it. If Matt and Jason decide to go the DMR MARC route, there will be some co-ordination required. For example, users will need to get a a "subscriber ID". There will be decisions over which "talk groups" will be carried on the repeater. There are world-wide, North American, regional, state-wide, and local talk groups. There are world-wide talk groups for English, French, and Spanish. The best analogy that I can come up with is an EchoLink conference server, but that's not precisely equivalent. Yes, it uses the internet. If that bothers you, then you can use the local talk group and restrict yourself to just those people on the local repeater.
Certainly, simplex ("talkaround") operation is possible with the CS700, though I'm not clear as to what the band plan would have to say about that. Aside from simplex generally being a poorer choice on UHF due to range limitations, the 446.000 simplex channel is for voice. Strictly speaking, DMR isn't packet, either. There is a VHF version available (the CS701), though the vast majority of repeaters are on UHF. I doubt that you would have exceptional luck with 5W simplex DMR on two metres, and you would have the same band plan issues as are found on UHF. The MRC may have to address this, if amateur DMR use becomes common.
If you're "old school" and won't touch a radio that you can't programme from the keypad, then DMR isn't for you. Everything out there is designed for commercial use. No commercial or public service network is going to want their end users fiddling around with the programming. They want it programmed by a computer and made as idiot-proof as is possible. That means that any radio that you end up with will be programmed by a computer. Nobody makes amateur radio DMR gear; they make commercial gear that can be adapted for amateur use. Make sure that you get that programming cable.
I'm fairly confident that we have enough local expertise to make the programming viable, given time and support from Connect Systems and DMR MARC. There is a video (36 minutes!) here that provides step-by-step instructions to set up a CS700, though a bit of it is geared to the Colorado network. DMR MARC also provides a very interesting introduction to amateur DMR operation.
You can use the programming software to set up analogue channels, just like a "normal" FM HT. You set the TX and RX frequencies, CTCSS (PL) tones, etc. in much the same way as you would with any other software. Remember, you can't do this from the keypad, so any analogue repeaters that you want to use have to be programmed in advance.
I believe that the Connect Systems radios use "reverse SMA" connectors, but it's not impossible to get an adapter and use it as a mobile. Digital modes generally are readable at much lower signal levels, so the 4W output of the CS700 is probably not a "deal-breaker" for most metro-area use. And you can always use an amplifier. I didn't see any accessories like a DC cable available, and there's no jack on the radio for that purpose.
The analogue version (CS200) has an optional GPS capability, but it looks as if the CS700 doesn't do that. Still, APRS isn't supported by any existing DMR repeaters, so that probably explains it.
DMR isn't compatible with other digital options, such as D-Star, P25, or Yaesu's C4FM (System Fusion) mode. This is Betamax vs. VHS squared, so understand that this is a bit of a gamble. Maybe if you go to other areas that have DMR repeaters, you'll still find some use for your CS700 if our local system folds. Currently, there are no DMR repeaters in Minnesota, other than the UHF machine in testing. Wisconsin currently has none. Same with North and South Dakota. Iowa has only one. Of course, it will always work as a "normal" analogue HT.
It sounds like an adventure, doesn't it?
Suppose that you want to get a radio and play around with DMR? The one that everyone has been talking about for months is the CS700 made by Connect Systems in California. It can be found for around $280, but Connect Systems gives licensed hams a steep discount if you order directly from them. Apparently you do that by contacting the president of the company and setting things up. Quite the personal touch. This allows you to get a CS700 HT for about $180, plus shipping.
Here's what the president (Jerry Wanger) sent me in response to a question about buying the CS700:
If you want to pay what nearly every other ham is paying, call the factory at (805) 642-7184 x 0 and ask for Erin or me. We will sell the radio to you for $180 and the programming cable for $5. Optional spare battery for $30, and optional speaker mike for $16.So that's the secret. Even at the retail (i.e. non-ham discounted) price, that's cheaper than a new Motorola.
Given the price, the documentation, the support, and the flexibility offered, the Connect Systems CS700 is rapidly becoming the overwhelming choice for amateur DMR use. There are, of course, others with used MotoTrbo radios and such. There are obviously a lot of people with knowledge of these other radios, since they are used in public service. You have options.
There's an interesting review of the CS700 here, though it's mainly about the DMR system set up in Colorado. It can also give you a little insight into DMR itself. There are also some e-ham reviews that are illuminating, though many reviewers seem to have an odd obsession with "ruggedness". Until somebody makes a ten-pound "HT" that you can drive a truck over, then throw into a lake, then pitch into a fire, there will always be some hams out there dismissing everything as flimsy junk.
Many say that Connect Systems is great with technical support, and they are constantly developing the firmware. That's good, because I was bewildered looking at the programming manual for the radio. It's not written with amateur radio in mind, but this is essentially a commercial radio that's being generously adapted to amateur use. The user manual is very good and clearly written. Again, this isn't some bad Chinese translation. It's an American company, and the documentation is written is English -- though some of the spelling is bad.
I know pretty much nothing about DMR itself, though it seems to have the potential to do just about anything. Every radio has a unique ID, and you can call a particular radio specifically -- or just check to see if it's on without bothering the other person. Of course, you have to be in range of the other radio, either by simplex, repeater, or "reflector". You can send a 138-character text message to an individual or group, and you can program ten messages into the memory to save yourself the trouble of typing things out on a keypad. Of course, text messaging is for simplex use only. Repeaters don't support it, as a rule. Different groups can operate on the same repeater, oblivious to each other, by employing different "colour codes".
What I don't understand -- and what the manuals don't really address -- is repeater operation. Somebody is going to have to figure all of this out for the particular repeater. There is a thing called a "codeplug" that simplifies things. Perhaps you've used a CHIRP file to program a big list of repeaters into your HT. It's kind of like that. It provides all of the information that the radio needs to connect to the repeater and "reflector". Codeplugs are available for existing DMR systems. You just download them from the internet and load them into your radio from a computer. Since the 442.425+ is new, there aren't any codeplugs for it. If Matt and Jason decide to go the DMR MARC route, there will be some co-ordination required. For example, users will need to get a a "subscriber ID". There will be decisions over which "talk groups" will be carried on the repeater. There are world-wide, North American, regional, state-wide, and local talk groups. There are world-wide talk groups for English, French, and Spanish. The best analogy that I can come up with is an EchoLink conference server, but that's not precisely equivalent. Yes, it uses the internet. If that bothers you, then you can use the local talk group and restrict yourself to just those people on the local repeater.
Certainly, simplex ("talkaround") operation is possible with the CS700, though I'm not clear as to what the band plan would have to say about that. Aside from simplex generally being a poorer choice on UHF due to range limitations, the 446.000 simplex channel is for voice. Strictly speaking, DMR isn't packet, either. There is a VHF version available (the CS701), though the vast majority of repeaters are on UHF. I doubt that you would have exceptional luck with 5W simplex DMR on two metres, and you would have the same band plan issues as are found on UHF. The MRC may have to address this, if amateur DMR use becomes common.
If you're "old school" and won't touch a radio that you can't programme from the keypad, then DMR isn't for you. Everything out there is designed for commercial use. No commercial or public service network is going to want their end users fiddling around with the programming. They want it programmed by a computer and made as idiot-proof as is possible. That means that any radio that you end up with will be programmed by a computer. Nobody makes amateur radio DMR gear; they make commercial gear that can be adapted for amateur use. Make sure that you get that programming cable.
I'm fairly confident that we have enough local expertise to make the programming viable, given time and support from Connect Systems and DMR MARC. There is a video (36 minutes!) here that provides step-by-step instructions to set up a CS700, though a bit of it is geared to the Colorado network. DMR MARC also provides a very interesting introduction to amateur DMR operation.
You can use the programming software to set up analogue channels, just like a "normal" FM HT. You set the TX and RX frequencies, CTCSS (PL) tones, etc. in much the same way as you would with any other software. Remember, you can't do this from the keypad, so any analogue repeaters that you want to use have to be programmed in advance.
I believe that the Connect Systems radios use "reverse SMA" connectors, but it's not impossible to get an adapter and use it as a mobile. Digital modes generally are readable at much lower signal levels, so the 4W output of the CS700 is probably not a "deal-breaker" for most metro-area use. And you can always use an amplifier. I didn't see any accessories like a DC cable available, and there's no jack on the radio for that purpose.
The analogue version (CS200) has an optional GPS capability, but it looks as if the CS700 doesn't do that. Still, APRS isn't supported by any existing DMR repeaters, so that probably explains it.
DMR isn't compatible with other digital options, such as D-Star, P25, or Yaesu's C4FM (System Fusion) mode. This is Betamax vs. VHS squared, so understand that this is a bit of a gamble. Maybe if you go to other areas that have DMR repeaters, you'll still find some use for your CS700 if our local system folds. Currently, there are no DMR repeaters in Minnesota, other than the UHF machine in testing. Wisconsin currently has none. Same with North and South Dakota. Iowa has only one. Of course, it will always work as a "normal" analogue HT.
It sounds like an adventure, doesn't it?