Batboard

Not to drag up a dead horse here, but I saw this the other day:

http://mrtmag.com/briefs/efjohnson_p25_vocoder_060807/
http://www.efjohnson.com/newsdetail.asp?id=384

Is this "enhanced vocoder" designed to overcome the problem that has been discussed in this thread? If so, has anyone had any experience with it? Is it any better?

Andy

What they don't say is, what the specifics of the testing they did. Did they test using "real world" fire ground noise/equipment or did they do "lab" testing. That's the question. It's been my experience that there is a huge difference.

Speaking with NIST engineers in D.C. this "enhanced vocoder" will make some improvement but will not solve the problem. As soon as I can get a hold on a radio with the enhanced vocoder, P25 700 I'll test it and let the group know our findings.

http://www.iafc.org/associations/4685/f ... 7FINAL.doc

http://www.opusis.com/~dj/IAFCPresentation-dja.zip

Interesting,.,,

tpg

Very interesting.

Something I've been wondering about...how have TETRA systems dealt with this issue? Maybe a someone from across the pond could weigh in?

Andy