Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [BCD396XT] Re: Socal Cities

Expand Messages
  • Richard A. Victor
    I agree that trying both ways makes sense, but it isn t just a matter of trying a different upper frequency. In one alternative you enter a single row
    Message 1 of 16 , Sep 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree that trying both ways makes sense, but it isn't just a matter
      of trying a different upper frequency. In one alternative you enter
      a single row bandplan and in the other you enter a two row bandplan
      for Glendale. I've never disputed that the two row bandplan will
      work. You seem to be implying that the single row bandplan won't
      work. I have no way of knowing since I'm not there. If, in fact,
      the single row bandplan doesn't work, I suggest that you notify RR
      that the database is incorrect.

      Bottom line seems to be to enter either:

      470.0125 474.7500 12.5 380

      or

      470.0125 471.5000 12.5 380
      482.0000 485.2375 12.5 500

      both of which are computationally correct.

      Dick

      At 08:45 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
      >On the ICIS system, I have entered all the trunk freqs. of all the sites
      >(not just control channels) and all the
      >band plans (if two are shown on RR, then both) and it works for me. Maybe
      >someone else will try other
      >programming. djfred600, try Glendale both ways (471.5000 and 474.7500) and
      >see which is the best.
      >I prefer ARC-XT Pro for logging as it displays the TG and the Freq. , over
      >FreeSCAN because FreeSCAN only shows
      >the TGs. I can see that all the Glendale trunk freqs are being used, with
      >my way of programming the ICIS system.
      >
      >Clark
      >
      >At 05:54 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
      >
      > >Threaded below...
      > >
      > >At 07:31 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
      > > >Thank you for the input numbers,
      > > >When the band plan you enter 470.0125 alone and hit upper it gievs
      > > >you a total of 474.7500 for upper
      > > >but when you also input the alternative number as
      > > >482.00000 Lower then you calculate the 470.0125 goes to 471.5000 upper.
      > >
      > >Right. You either enter the one line bandplan for each of the sites
      > >or you can enter the alternative bandplan for each site. If you use
      > >the alternative bandplan, then for Glendale and Pomona you need to
      > >enter both lines one and two. An entry on the second line affects
      > >the calculation of the upper frequency on the first
      > >line. Unfortunately, as I understand these bandplan issues, an
      > >incorrect entry can result in hearing some but not necessarily all
      > >transmissions so it may seem like it's working when it's not working
      > >as well as it should be.
    • booth91208
      I live in Glendale and listen extensively to the Glendale ICIS site. I can verify that entering only the one-line band plan will cause you to miss lots of the
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I live in Glendale and listen extensively to the Glendale ICIS site. I can verify that entering only the one-line band plan will cause you to miss lots of the traffic. I confirmed that fact using a second scanner programmed with all of the Glendale site frequencies (as if they were conventional channels).

        The viewable RadioReference web page for ICIS shows "Alternate Custom Frequency Tables". The word "Alternate" should be replaced with "Required". As shown in that table, Clark Rennie's message has the correct band plan that must be entered for the Glendale ICIS site.

        I started a topic on the RadioReference "Database" forum complaining about this problem, and recommend that you read the excellent response. The topic title is "Problem with download using ARC-XT Pro". To summarize their response, the RadioReference database was not designed to hold different multiple band plans for different sites within one system. Therefore, automated downloads will have erroneous band plans for complicated systems like ICIS. Knowing this, they added the table "Alternate Custom Frequency Tables" as a text box (it doesn't come from the database), with the intent that the users would manually enter the band plans into their 396's. They also said that they plan to fix the problem, but it requires changing the design of their database.

        I sympathize with users having difficulties. I've been scanning since I built my first tunable receiver in 1962, but the new paradigm changes everything. I was very frustrated for the first few days, and almost returned it in disgust. I finally isolated the problems to two: the band plan issue, and another problem where ARC-XT Pro was having errors sending the channel spacing to the scanner. Once I got the channel spacing set properly, and the band plan manually entered, everything works great and I am delighted.

        BTW, I reported the channel spacing error to Butel, and three days later I was notified that there was a software update; imagine my delight when I found that the bug had been fixed.




        --- In BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com, "Richard A. Victor" <Victor@...> wrote:
        >
        > Yes, if you calculate it for the alternate bandplan which has two
        > rows, that's the result that you get. However, if you calulate it
        > for the "non-alternate" single line bandplan that's shown on the RR
        > site for this system, you get 474.7500 as shown in the attached Excel
        > spreadsheet that was provided by Uniden to make such calculations and
        > also in FreeScan (copy attached). I get the same result in ProScan
        > as well. Frankly, I can't get ARC-XT to even calculate a one line
        > bandplan, but perhaps that's something that I'm doing.
        >
        > The values in the second row change the results in the first
        > row. Since the "non-alternate" bandplan has only one row, if you
        > enter something in the second row you will get incorrect values for
        > the bandplan.
        >
        > Dick
        >
        > At 06:05 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
        > >Using 470.0125 as the lower freq., FreeSCAN calculates the Upper Freq. as
        > >471.50000. As does ARCXT Pro.
        > >
        > >Clark
        > >
        > >At 03:34 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
        > >
        > > >Yes, RR shows that as an alternate bandplan for Glendale. If you
        > > >just use the single bandplan which is shown on RR as the
        > > >"non-alternate", the upper calculates to 474.7500 using the Uniden
        > > >Excel spreadsheet, or the calculator built-in to FreeScan.
        > > >
        > > >Since I'm nowhere near Glendale, I went with the one that RR showed
        > > >as the "non-alternate". It also had the advantage of being the same
        > > >for all of the various sites instead of being different from site to
        > > >site as the alternates are. Seemed that it would be easier for him
        > > >(or anyone else for that matter) to use the same values for all sites.
        > > >
        > > >If the data at RR is, in fact, incorrect, then you should advise them
        > > >so they can correct it.
        > > >
        > > >Dick
        > > >
        > > >At 04:47 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
        > > > >This is what I have for Glendale which seems to work.
        > > > >
        > > > >Glendale requires two Band Plans.
        > > > > Lower Upper Step Offset
        > > > >1. 470.0125 471.5000 12.5 380
        > > > >2. 482.000 485.2375 12.5 500
        > > > >I have the Upper Freq. for Glendale as 471.500, not 474.7500.
        > > > >
        > > > >Clark
        > > > >
        > > > >At 01:26 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > >You enter the bandplans in FreeScan on the Site Setup screen. When
        > > > > >you choose "Mot UHF Band" as the Site Type, a place opens at the
        > > > > >bottom of the screen to enter the bandplan. For the ICIS system, you
        > > > > >enter 470.0125 in the first box under Lower Freq, enter 12.5 under
        > > > > >Step, and enter 380 under Offset. Leave all the other boxes in the
        > > > > >System Band Plan blank as they are. You then click on the button to
        > > > > >the right which reads "Auto Upper" and FreeScan calculates and
        > > > > >inserts the Upper Freq for you. It should be 474.75000.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >You need to do this for each of the sites for that system that you
        > > > > >choose to program into your scanner. You'll find that most systems
        > > > > >don't require you to enter a bandplan, but for those that need it,
        > > > > >it's important to enter it.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >The values that I gave you came from the ICIS page in the RR database
        > > > > >at the top of the page under Custom Frequency Table.
        > > > > >
        > > > > >Dick
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Fred Mirzaian
        Thanx you for the help. I have included the 2nd band plan and its working better then before I think i have setup my radio right with the help of this group. I
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanx you for the help.

          I have included the 2nd band plan and its working better then before

          I think i have setup my radio right with the help of this group.

          I will soon post the files up so if people want to scan the cities i have
          programmed can.
          but i will do that once i fine tune everything,

          Thanx again.




          On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:10 PM, booth91208 <booth@...> wrote:

          >
          >
          > I live in Glendale and listen extensively to the Glendale ICIS site. I can
          > verify that entering only the one-line band plan will cause you to miss lots
          > of the traffic. I confirmed that fact using a second scanner programmed with
          > all of the Glendale site frequencies (as if they were conventional
          > channels).
          >
          > The viewable RadioReference web page for ICIS shows "Alternate Custom
          > Frequency Tables". The word "Alternate" should be replaced with "Required".
          > As shown in that table, Clark Rennie's message has the correct band plan
          > that must be entered for the Glendale ICIS site.
          >
          > I started a topic on the RadioReference "Database" forum complaining about
          > this problem, and recommend that you read the excellent response. The topic
          > title is "Problem with download using ARC-XT Pro". To summarize their
          > response, the RadioReference database was not designed to hold different
          > multiple band plans for different sites within one system. Therefore,
          > automated downloads will have erroneous band plans for complicated systems
          > like ICIS. Knowing this, they added the table "Alternate Custom Frequency
          > Tables" as a text box (it doesn't come from the database), with the intent
          > that the users would manually enter the band plans into their 396's. They
          > also said that they plan to fix the problem, but it requires changing the
          > design of their database.
          >
          > I sympathize with users having difficulties. I've been scanning since I
          > built my first tunable receiver in 1962, but the new paradigm changes
          > everything. I was very frustrated for the first few days, and almost
          > returned it in disgust. I finally isolated the problems to two: the band
          > plan issue, and another problem where ARC-XT Pro was having errors sending
          > the channel spacing to the scanner. Once I got the channel spacing set
          > properly, and the band plan manually entered, everything works great and I
          > am delighted.
          >
          > BTW, I reported the channel spacing error to Butel, and three days later I
          > was notified that there was a software update; imagine my delight when I
          > found that the bug had been fixed.
          >
          > --- In BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com <BCD396XT%40yahoogroups.com>, "Richard A.
          > Victor" <Victor@...> wrote:
          > >
          > > Yes, if you calculate it for the alternate bandplan which has two
          > > rows, that's the result that you get. However, if you calulate it
          > > for the "non-alternate" single line bandplan that's shown on the RR
          > > site for this system, you get 474.7500 as shown in the attached Excel
          > > spreadsheet that was provided by Uniden to make such calculations and
          > > also in FreeScan (copy attached). I get the same result in ProScan
          > > as well. Frankly, I can't get ARC-XT to even calculate a one line
          > > bandplan, but perhaps that's something that I'm doing.
          > >
          > > The values in the second row change the results in the first
          > > row. Since the "non-alternate" bandplan has only one row, if you
          > > enter something in the second row you will get incorrect values for
          > > the bandplan.
          > >
          > > Dick
          >
          > >
          > > At 06:05 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
          > > >Using 470.0125 as the lower freq., FreeSCAN calculates the Upper Freq.
          > as
          > > >471.50000. As does ARCXT Pro.
          > > >
          > > >Clark
          > > >
          > > >At 03:34 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
          > > >
          > > > >Yes, RR shows that as an alternate bandplan for Glendale. If you
          > > > >just use the single bandplan which is shown on RR as the
          > > > >"non-alternate", the upper calculates to 474.7500 using the Uniden
          > > > >Excel spreadsheet, or the calculator built-in to FreeScan.
          > > > >
          > > > >Since I'm nowhere near Glendale, I went with the one that RR showed
          > > > >as the "non-alternate". It also had the advantage of being the same
          > > > >for all of the various sites instead of being different from site to
          > > > >site as the alternates are. Seemed that it would be easier for him
          > > > >(or anyone else for that matter) to use the same values for all sites.
          > > > >
          > > > >If the data at RR is, in fact, incorrect, then you should advise them
          > > > >so they can correct it.
          > > > >
          > > > >Dick
          > > > >
          > > > >At 04:47 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
          > > > > >This is what I have for Glendale which seems to work.
          > > > > >
          > > > > >Glendale requires two Band Plans.
          > > > > > Lower Upper Step Offset
          > > > > >1. 470.0125 471.5000 12.5 380
          > > > > >2. 482.000 485.2375 12.5 500
          > > > > >I have the Upper Freq. for Glendale as 471.500, not 474.7500.
          > > > > >
          > > > > >Clark
          > > > > >
          > > > > >At 01:26 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
          > > > > >
          > > > > > >You enter the bandplans in FreeScan on the Site Setup screen. When
          > > > > > >you choose "Mot UHF Band" as the Site Type, a place opens at the
          > > > > > >bottom of the screen to enter the bandplan. For the ICIS system,
          > you
          > > > > > >enter 470.0125 in the first box under Lower Freq, enter 12.5 under
          > > > > > >Step, and enter 380 under Offset. Leave all the other boxes in the
          > > > > > >System Band Plan blank as they are. You then click on the button
          > to
          > > > > > >the right which reads "Auto Upper" and FreeScan calculates and
          > > > > > >inserts the Upper Freq for you. It should be 474.75000.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >You need to do this for each of the sites for that system that you
          > > > > > >choose to program into your scanner. You'll find that most systems
          > > > > > >don't require you to enter a bandplan, but for those that need it,
          > > > > > >it's important to enter it.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >The values that I gave you came from the ICIS page in the RR
          > database
          > > > > > >at the top of the page under Custom Frequency Table.
          > > > > > >
          > > > > > >Dick
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >
          >
          >



          --
          [FReD]


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Richard A. Victor
          Thanks for the straightforward explanation of what s actually going on with that system and for taking the time and effort to get the ball rolling to get the
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks for the straightforward explanation of what's actually going
            on with that system and for taking the time and effort to get the
            ball rolling to get the info on RR corrected.

            Dick

            At 08:10 PM 10/1/2009, you wrote:
            >I live in Glendale and listen extensively to the Glendale ICIS
            >site. I can verify that entering only the one-line band plan will
            >cause you to miss lots of the traffic. I confirmed that fact using
            >a second scanner programmed with all of the Glendale site
            >frequencies (as if they were conventional channels).
            >
            >The viewable RadioReference web page for ICIS shows "Alternate
            >Custom Frequency Tables". The word "Alternate" should be replaced
            >with "Required". As shown in that table, Clark Rennie's message has
            >the correct band plan that must be entered for the Glendale ICIS site.
            >
            >I started a topic on the RadioReference "Database" forum complaining
            >about this problem, and recommend that you read the excellent
            >response. The topic title is "Problem with download using ARC-XT
            >Pro". To summarize their response, the RadioReference database was
            >not designed to hold different multiple band plans for different
            >sites within one system. Therefore, automated downloads will have
            >erroneous band plans for complicated systems like ICIS. Knowing
            >this, they added the table "Alternate Custom Frequency Tables" as a
            >text box (it doesn't come from the database), with the intent that
            >the users would manually enter the band plans into their
            >396's. They also said that they plan to fix the problem, but it
            >requires changing the design of their database.
            >
            >I sympathize with users having difficulties. I've been scanning
            >since I built my first tunable receiver in 1962, but the new
            >paradigm changes everything. I was very frustrated for the first
            >few days, and almost returned it in disgust. I finally isolated the
            >problems to two: the band plan issue, and another problem where
            >ARC-XT Pro was having errors sending the channel spacing to the
            >scanner. Once I got the channel spacing set properly, and the band
            >plan manually entered, everything works great and I am delighted.
            >
            >BTW, I reported the channel spacing error to Butel, and three days
            >later I was notified that there was a software update; imagine my
            >delight when I found that the bug had been fixed.
            >
            >--- In BCD396XT@yahoogroups.com, "Richard A. Victor" <Victor@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Yes, if you calculate it for the alternate bandplan which has two
            > > rows, that's the result that you get. However, if you calulate it
            > > for the "non-alternate" single line bandplan that's shown on the RR
            > > site for this system, you get 474.7500 as shown in the attached Excel
            > > spreadsheet that was provided by Uniden to make such calculations and
            > > also in FreeScan (copy attached). I get the same result in ProScan
            > > as well. Frankly, I can't get ARC-XT to even calculate a one line
            > > bandplan, but perhaps that's something that I'm doing.
            > >
            > > The values in the second row change the results in the first
            > > row. Since the "non-alternate" bandplan has only one row, if you
            > > enter something in the second row you will get incorrect values for
            > > the bandplan.
            > >
            > > Dick
            > >
            > > At 06:05 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
            > > >Using 470.0125 as the lower freq., FreeSCAN calculates the Upper Freq. as
            > > >471.50000. As does ARCXT Pro.
            > > >
            > > >Clark
            > > >
            > > >At 03:34 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
            > > >
            > > > >Yes, RR shows that as an alternate bandplan for Glendale. If you
            > > > >just use the single bandplan which is shown on RR as the
            > > > >"non-alternate", the upper calculates to 474.7500 using the Uniden
            > > > >Excel spreadsheet, or the calculator built-in to FreeScan.
            > > > >
            > > > >Since I'm nowhere near Glendale, I went with the one that RR showed
            > > > >as the "non-alternate". It also had the advantage of being the same
            > > > >for all of the various sites instead of being different from site to
            > > > >site as the alternates are. Seemed that it would be easier for him
            > > > >(or anyone else for that matter) to use the same values for all sites.
            > > > >
            > > > >If the data at RR is, in fact, incorrect, then you should advise them
            > > > >so they can correct it.
            > > > >
            > > > >Dick
            > > > >
            > > > >At 04:47 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
            > > > > >This is what I have for Glendale which seems to work.
            > > > > >
            > > > > >Glendale requires two Band Plans.
            > > > > > Lower Upper Step Offset
            > > > > >1. 470.0125 471.5000 12.5 380
            > > > > >2. 482.000 485.2375 12.5 500
            > > > > >I have the Upper Freq. for Glendale as 471.500, not 474.7500.
            > > > > >
            > > > > >Clark
            > > > > >
            > > > > >At 01:26 PM 9/30/2009, you wrote:
            > > > > >
            > > > > > >You enter the bandplans in FreeScan on the Site Setup screen. When
            > > > > > >you choose "Mot UHF Band" as the Site Type, a place opens at the
            > > > > > >bottom of the screen to enter the bandplan. For the ICIS system, you
            > > > > > >enter 470.0125 in the first box under Lower Freq, enter 12.5 under
            > > > > > >Step, and enter 380 under Offset. Leave all the other boxes in the
            > > > > > >System Band Plan blank as they are. You then click on the button to
            > > > > > >the right which reads "Auto Upper" and FreeScan calculates and
            > > > > > >inserts the Upper Freq for you. It should be 474.75000.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >You need to do this for each of the sites for that system that you
            > > > > > >choose to program into your scanner. You'll find that most systems
            > > > > > >don't require you to enter a bandplan, but for those that need it,
            > > > > > >it's important to enter it.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >The values that I gave you came from the ICIS page in the
            > RR database
            > > > > > >at the top of the page under Custom Frequency Table.
            > > > > > >
            > > > > > >Dick
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >------------------------------------
            >
            >Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.