The service monitor business has changed a lot in recent years [like the test equipment business in general]. There are only a few companies making service monitors and if you want one that does APCO 25 - AKA Astro - AKA EIA/TIA-102, there are only two choices:
The R2670 from General Dynamics or the 2975 from IFR.
These instruments are very different, so some people will have their decision made by features. For example, the 2670 offers support for Motorola legacy secure systems and for VSELP.
These babys cost on the order of 30 Grand [probably not going to say "give me one of each"], so the question is: which one is the best and why?
We're going to try to get demo units & put them head-to-head to really answer the question, but advice from owners would be appreciated.
Astro Service Monitor - General Dynamics or IFR???
Moderator: Queue Moderator
I've used the R-2670 everyday for about 3 years now. It's everything our R-2001 series monitor is and more. My only real complaint about it is the fact everything is "softkey" driven, so it makes for a not-so-friendly user interface. You might have to press 10 different buttons just to access a certain feature. That said, if you use it daily, it becomes second nature. If you use it a couple of times a month, it's a learning curve every freakin' time. BUT, the IFR is essentially the same in that respect.
I've always preferred the Motorola monitors over the various IFR's. I've worked with both, and have demo'd newer IFR monitors. I just find the Motorola products to be better designed for what I do mostly, which is end-user equipment repair...mobiles, portables, repeaters. I've never found the IFR's to be able to do simple things like decode PL/DPL with any kind of accuracy/reliability. Encoding these basic signals can be a real pain-in-the-@ss on most of the IFR's I've dealt with.
You'll likely be more than happy with either one, these are just my opinions.
Todd
I've always preferred the Motorola monitors over the various IFR's. I've worked with both, and have demo'd newer IFR monitors. I just find the Motorola products to be better designed for what I do mostly, which is end-user equipment repair...mobiles, portables, repeaters. I've never found the IFR's to be able to do simple things like decode PL/DPL with any kind of accuracy/reliability. Encoding these basic signals can be a real pain-in-the-@ss on most of the IFR's I've dealt with.
You'll likely be more than happy with either one, these are just my opinions.
Todd
OK, I am biased, but:
I won't talk about the 2670, but I think I can speak authoritatively on the IFR 2975.
First, if doing Motorola Securenet is important to you, you don't want us. Licensing Securenet from Motorola would be very expensive, and right now we don't see making the NRE back on that. Of course, if enough of you wave enough dead presidents at the marketing guys, they will tell me "Make it So" and I will.
If you are planning on doing APCO 25 Phase 2, we are there already.
If you want to remotely monitor a site (i.e. put a box at the site and access it remotely), we do that now.
What I would suggest, if you are in the market, is that you call our sales guys and ask for a demo. Then get a demo on the 2670 from General Dynamics. Then make up your own mind.
As for general ease-of-use - my team and I go to great lengths to make the 2975 as easy to use as possible. We try to make the number of keystrokes to do anything as few as possible. However, comms testing is complicated - there simply is so much to set up. That's why we let you have 10,000 setups - once you have a setup that works for what you do, you can save it and recall it with very few keystrokes (worst case: MODE 7 7 (digits) DOWN DOWN DOWN ENTER) (and I am working on cutting that down now).
We put the help manuals in the unit, along with applications notes. We could (were the manufacturers willing) even put the radio manual in the unit.
We are working on programs that live in the box (i.e. no external computer needed) to automate testing of radios.
We are working with the major radio manufactures to help them better test their radios. I can't really say much more than that, however.
If you don't like it, you can contact us and tell us how you think it should be changed. We'll listen. We may not do what you want because you might be the only person in the world that wants what you want, but we will listen (this post should be proof of that).
First, if doing Motorola Securenet is important to you, you don't want us. Licensing Securenet from Motorola would be very expensive, and right now we don't see making the NRE back on that. Of course, if enough of you wave enough dead presidents at the marketing guys, they will tell me "Make it So" and I will.
If you are planning on doing APCO 25 Phase 2, we are there already.
If you want to remotely monitor a site (i.e. put a box at the site and access it remotely), we do that now.
What I would suggest, if you are in the market, is that you call our sales guys and ask for a demo. Then get a demo on the 2670 from General Dynamics. Then make up your own mind.
As for general ease-of-use - my team and I go to great lengths to make the 2975 as easy to use as possible. We try to make the number of keystrokes to do anything as few as possible. However, comms testing is complicated - there simply is so much to set up. That's why we let you have 10,000 setups - once you have a setup that works for what you do, you can save it and recall it with very few keystrokes (worst case: MODE 7 7 (digits) DOWN DOWN DOWN ENTER) (and I am working on cutting that down now).
We put the help manuals in the unit, along with applications notes. We could (were the manufacturers willing) even put the radio manual in the unit.
We are working on programs that live in the box (i.e. no external computer needed) to automate testing of radios.
We are working with the major radio manufactures to help them better test their radios. I can't really say much more than that, however.
If you don't like it, you can contact us and tell us how you think it should be changed. We'll listen. We may not do what you want because you might be the only person in the world that wants what you want, but we will listen (this post should be proof of that).
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
A clarification
Let me make a clairification.
Motorola is sometimes very confusing in what they call things, so let me clarify what I meant by "Securenet" above.
If you are using Motorola's Digital Voice Protocol (DVP), with or without encryption, we don't do that.
If you are using Astro-25, which is Motorola's trunking control channel with APCO-25 IMBE on the voice channel, we do that in spades.
If you are doing plain old Smartnet (Motorola trunking protocol on the control channel, narrowband FM on the voice channel), we do that.
We also have a feature called "Control Channel Scan" - we will scan a set of frequencies, identify any Smartnet control channels we find, and then allow you to select what we found for monitoring. We can then follow radio assignments to voice channels (either conventional NBFM or APCO-25) from there.
Also, with our unit you can upgrade the firmware at your shop - you do not need to send it in to IFR for upgrades. Firmware upgrades are free. You can also purchase options and install them at your shop.
Again, what I would suggest is get a demo from both IFR and GD, and make up your own mind.
Motorola is sometimes very confusing in what they call things, so let me clarify what I meant by "Securenet" above.
If you are using Motorola's Digital Voice Protocol (DVP), with or without encryption, we don't do that.
If you are using Astro-25, which is Motorola's trunking control channel with APCO-25 IMBE on the voice channel, we do that in spades.
If you are doing plain old Smartnet (Motorola trunking protocol on the control channel, narrowband FM on the voice channel), we do that.
We also have a feature called "Control Channel Scan" - we will scan a set of frequencies, identify any Smartnet control channels we find, and then allow you to select what we found for monitoring. We can then follow radio assignments to voice channels (either conventional NBFM or APCO-25) from there.
Also, with our unit you can upgrade the firmware at your shop - you do not need to send it in to IFR for upgrades. Firmware upgrades are free. You can also purchase options and install them at your shop.
Again, what I would suggest is get a demo from both IFR and GD, and make up your own mind.
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
Thanks to USPSS and Todd for their input.
Wowbagger, Thanks also for your input. I was hoping you would respond. I have spoken with Rafael and we are getting a demo set up. I am really looking forward to seeing the 2975 in action. When we finish the evaluation I will be happy to share our observations.
I have some preliminary thoughts without having put these two side by side.
Motorola's monitors have always been popular with two way shops, they are rugged, reliable and well supported. The 2600 series has has a nice clean apppearance and I have always like the large sharp display. That said, I am also not much of a fan of the user interface.
IFR also has a great base of supporters in two way shops - particularly those that are not Motorola affiliated. Their products are also rugged, well supported and have that precise 'avionics' look. IFR had a variety of products [1200, 1600, 1600, 1900, COM120] and with the acquisistion of Marconi, they have the broadest line of service monitors available. With all of those products they could have decided to put APCO25 fuctionality into one of them, but chose to develop an entirely new unit.
The 2975 appears to be state of the art in every respect whereas the 2670 series is based on a 13 year old platform. It should be an interesting comparison.
Everyone's needs will vary, for example - if you have a shop that has several 2600 monitors and now want to add one with APCO25, people may be more comfortable with the 2670. If you are starting from scratch, want the highest level of RF specs and capability, want the maximum feature set for an infrastructure support role - the 2975 may be the way to go.
Wowbagger, Thanks also for your input. I was hoping you would respond. I have spoken with Rafael and we are getting a demo set up. I am really looking forward to seeing the 2975 in action. When we finish the evaluation I will be happy to share our observations.
I have some preliminary thoughts without having put these two side by side.
Motorola's monitors have always been popular with two way shops, they are rugged, reliable and well supported. The 2600 series has has a nice clean apppearance and I have always like the large sharp display. That said, I am also not much of a fan of the user interface.
IFR also has a great base of supporters in two way shops - particularly those that are not Motorola affiliated. Their products are also rugged, well supported and have that precise 'avionics' look. IFR had a variety of products [1200, 1600, 1600, 1900, COM120] and with the acquisistion of Marconi, they have the broadest line of service monitors available. With all of those products they could have decided to put APCO25 fuctionality into one of them, but chose to develop an entirely new unit.
The 2975 appears to be state of the art in every respect whereas the 2670 series is based on a 13 year old platform. It should be an interesting comparison.
Everyone's needs will vary, for example - if you have a shop that has several 2600 monitors and now want to add one with APCO25, people may be more comfortable with the 2670. If you are starting from scratch, want the highest level of RF specs and capability, want the maximum feature set for an infrastructure support role - the 2975 may be the way to go.
2975 development
Actually the 2975 was in devel when we bought Marconi, so putting P25 into one of those boxes wasn't an option.
We went with a new design precisely because of what you said - we didn't want to base that on a 10+ year old tech.
One of the things that makes the 2975 nice (at least from MY perspective) is what I like to call (cue the AC/DC)
DIRTY DEEDS DONE DIGITALLY
Everything after the 10.7 MHz IF is digital. So if I need a different IF bandwidth, it's not "change the crystal filters", it's "compute a new set of co-effs". If I want a different audio filter, it's not "change some R's and C's", it's "compute a new set of co-effs".
Don't get me wrong - I love the COM-120[a|b|c] - they are my babies as well. But I didn't have the flexibility with them that I have with the 2975.
I just can't wait until I get some spare time to "play" - there's a lot of cool stuff I want to do with the 2975 that Marketing hasn't approved of, and entirely too much stuff they have approved for me to screw around with unauthorized stuff.
AND I wish I could tell you about the stuff I'm doing right now (I post on boards like this when I am waiting for software to compile). If you'd been to IWCE2003 you some SOME of the stuff that is coming out in 1.7.0, but since then MORE "stuff" has been added. I cannot tell you about it until it gets released, but....
We went with a new design precisely because of what you said - we didn't want to base that on a 10+ year old tech.
One of the things that makes the 2975 nice (at least from MY perspective) is what I like to call (cue the AC/DC)
DIRTY DEEDS DONE DIGITALLY
Everything after the 10.7 MHz IF is digital. So if I need a different IF bandwidth, it's not "change the crystal filters", it's "compute a new set of co-effs". If I want a different audio filter, it's not "change some R's and C's", it's "compute a new set of co-effs".
Don't get me wrong - I love the COM-120[a|b|c] - they are my babies as well. But I didn't have the flexibility with them that I have with the 2975.
I just can't wait until I get some spare time to "play" - there's a lot of cool stuff I want to do with the 2975 that Marketing hasn't approved of, and entirely too much stuff they have approved for me to screw around with unauthorized stuff.
AND I wish I could tell you about the stuff I'm doing right now (I post on boards like this when I am waiting for software to compile). If you'd been to IWCE2003 you some SOME of the stuff that is coming out in 1.7.0, but since then MORE "stuff" has been added. I cannot tell you about it until it gets released, but....
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I got these off your web site and there is plenty here to get excited about:
"New options for the 2975 radio test set include:
Advanced Encryption System (AES) Option: Includes support for higher security features as well as continued support for the current Digital Encryption System (DES) Type III used in existing P25 systems.
Encryption Key Management Option: Provides the ability to fully manage keys via the KVL-3000+ using the P25 key management protocol including the ability to load individual, multiple and groups of keys. The 2975 also supports programming of keys through the front panel for manual key management.
Linear Simulcast Modulation Option: With both transmitter and receiver tests the 2975 now supports parametric measurements for repeater tests utilizing CQPSK modulation for LSM applications.
P25 Phase II CQPSK Option: This enables all the functionality of the 2975 for use in 6.25 kHz bandwidths.
VHF/UHF P25 Trunking Option: Provides capability for new system deployment utilizing P25 technology in existing VHF/UHF band for public mobile radio applications.
Control Channel Logging Option: This exclusive feature for P25 trunked operations allows users to verify conformance with various P25 radio systems offered by a number of manufacturers.
P25 Trunking Protocol Option: With the ability to optionally set P25 OSP messages for control channel and decode ISP messages from user radios, the 2975 verifies protocol operation of radios on P25 networks.
900 MHz band Option: Support for SmartNet/SmartZone systems used in commercial business applications. "
As a person who is involved in SYSTEM support - I have a special interest in features that support infrastructure. Motorola did a pretty good job with the secure option on the R2001, but their trunking option never offered any infrastructure support - only subscriber verification.
Your control channel logging feature would appear similar to having a "System Watch" or "Site Lens" built right into your service monitor - that's the kind of useful tool an infrastructure guy likes to see!
"New options for the 2975 radio test set include:
Advanced Encryption System (AES) Option: Includes support for higher security features as well as continued support for the current Digital Encryption System (DES) Type III used in existing P25 systems.
Encryption Key Management Option: Provides the ability to fully manage keys via the KVL-3000+ using the P25 key management protocol including the ability to load individual, multiple and groups of keys. The 2975 also supports programming of keys through the front panel for manual key management.
Linear Simulcast Modulation Option: With both transmitter and receiver tests the 2975 now supports parametric measurements for repeater tests utilizing CQPSK modulation for LSM applications.
P25 Phase II CQPSK Option: This enables all the functionality of the 2975 for use in 6.25 kHz bandwidths.
VHF/UHF P25 Trunking Option: Provides capability for new system deployment utilizing P25 technology in existing VHF/UHF band for public mobile radio applications.
Control Channel Logging Option: This exclusive feature for P25 trunked operations allows users to verify conformance with various P25 radio systems offered by a number of manufacturers.
P25 Trunking Protocol Option: With the ability to optionally set P25 OSP messages for control channel and decode ISP messages from user radios, the 2975 verifies protocol operation of radios on P25 networks.
900 MHz band Option: Support for SmartNet/SmartZone systems used in commercial business applications. "
As a person who is involved in SYSTEM support - I have a special interest in features that support infrastructure. Motorola did a pretty good job with the secure option on the R2001, but their trunking option never offered any infrastructure support - only subscriber verification.
Your control channel logging feature would appear similar to having a "System Watch" or "Site Lens" built right into your service monitor - that's the kind of useful tool an infrastructure guy likes to see!
Well, we get a lot of feedback
We get a lot of feedback from site installers and systems guys, and since they tend to be able to write purchase orders for lots of units we listen really closely to them.
However, we also listen to the guy in the field fixing radios - as I've oft said, "I'm not just a designer, I'm a client!"
I use our gear to fix radios (granted, Ham stuff, but still), so I tend to stumble over the sharp edges that need to be rounded off.
And don't get me wrong - there's a pile of feature enhancement requests in the bug tracking system targeted at the next few software releases - the only thing better than this rev of software will be the next one (which, as I said before, is a free upgrade). I don't just sit around reading Slashdot and Batlabs all day (just when I am compiling or reloading software).
However, we also listen to the guy in the field fixing radios - as I've oft said, "I'm not just a designer, I'm a client!"
I use our gear to fix radios (granted, Ham stuff, but still), so I tend to stumble over the sharp edges that need to be rounded off.
And don't get me wrong - there's a pile of feature enhancement requests in the bug tracking system targeted at the next few software releases - the only thing better than this rev of software will be the next one (which, as I said before, is a free upgrade). I don't just sit around reading Slashdot and Batlabs all day (just when I am compiling or reloading software).
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
"I use our gear to fix radios (granted, Ham stuff,.."
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am also a ham - maybe a little out of control - how many hams are crazy enough to buy a Quantar to play with? [Hey - why not have the first P25 ham repeater in the State?]
This evaluation is work related - we are budgeting for a P25 monitor as part of a system upgrade, but I am just afraid I am going to want a 2975 for myself!
Radios are only my sort of addiction - test equipment is where I am really out of control - don't ask how many instruments I own this week - I'd have to do a head count!
I am planning on really putting these boxes through their paces!
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am also a ham - maybe a little out of control - how many hams are crazy enough to buy a Quantar to play with? [Hey - why not have the first P25 ham repeater in the State?]
This evaluation is work related - we are budgeting for a P25 monitor as part of a system upgrade, but I am just afraid I am going to want a 2975 for myself!
Radios are only my sort of addiction - test equipment is where I am really out of control - don't ask how many instruments I own this week - I'd have to do a head count!
I am planning on really putting these boxes through their paces!
Whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks
"I am planning on really putting these boxes through their paces!"
Whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks.
And if you find problems, please let us know.
I cannot fix what I don't know about.
Whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks.
And if you find problems, please let us know.
I cannot fix what I don't know about.
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
-
Astro Spectra
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 4:00 pm
I had a demo of the IFR 2975 at IWCE.
Hands down much better range of features for APCO P25 than Motorola/GD. Includes every thing from simple good to bad modulation checks thru to signalling details that would gladden the hearts of any P25 equipment software developer.
Wowbagger can be proud of the 2975 effort.
We are generally an Agilent shop but for P25 I'd go IFR!
Hands down much better range of features for APCO P25 than Motorola/GD. Includes every thing from simple good to bad modulation checks thru to signalling details that would gladden the hearts of any P25 equipment software developer.
Wowbagger can be proud of the 2975 effort.
We are generally an Agilent shop but for P25 I'd go IFR!
Who did the demo
Who did the demo for you, Rob Barden or me (David Hagood)?
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
-
ASTROMODAT
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:32 am
-
Astro Spectra
- Posts: 669
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2001 4:00 pm
-
ASTROMODAT
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:32 am
2975 demo
AstroSpectra - do you recall WHEN you got your demo? It must have been around lunchtime, or one of the times we got REALLY busy at the booth, otherwise it would have been either Rob or me doing the demo.
ASTROMODAT: Methinks thou posth to the wrong forum....
ASTROMODAT: Methinks thou posth to the wrong forum....
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I have 6 R2670s and 1 IFR 2975 that I'm demoing and the IFR never gets used and probably never will. The keypad on the IFR has too much switch debounce, one single keypress will sometimes give you 2 to 3 outputs and the help screens are constantly locking up and staying on the display until I power off and then have to wait several minutes for the reboot and all those darn annoying credits to come across the screen.
Not to mention that the receiver on the IFR is nothing compared to the GD R2670. None of my 10 or so techs will even touch the IFR anymore as the lockup problems and embedded menus are a pain. Since we also deal with Govt. customers they only use the Gd R2670 also so that pretty much nails it for not using the IFR.
Since the help screens on the IFR are locking the monitor up, this weekend I was unable to do some test on a load of P25 9600 baud radios with it but was able to finish them with the R2670.
Mike
Not to mention that the receiver on the IFR is nothing compared to the GD R2670. None of my 10 or so techs will even touch the IFR anymore as the lockup problems and embedded menus are a pain. Since we also deal with Govt. customers they only use the Gd R2670 also so that pretty much nails it for not using the IFR.
Since the help screens on the IFR are locking the monitor up, this weekend I was unable to do some test on a load of P25 9600 baud radios with it but was able to finish them with the R2670.
Mike
2975 lockups
Could you tell me what version of code your 2975 is running? Obviously, we have improved the code over time, and some of what you are seeing may be due to running older code.
And as far as "keypad on the IFR has too much switch debounce", what you are describing would be "too LITTLE debounce", and that might be a hardware problem with your unit.
And as far as "keypad on the IFR has too much switch debounce", what you are describing would be "too LITTLE debounce", and that might be a hardware problem with your unit.
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
if I enter say a frequency of 155.400 MHz it comes out 15555.400 some times and other times 1555.400 and sometime correctly 155.400. This is not just with the numeric 5 either, other keys do the same, one keypress produces from 1 to 2 or 3 outputs.
Here are some of the numbers from the power up screens.
V51PG
SI5-TT-A1-C1A-1221
VXCD 1.2
Mike
Here are some of the numbers from the power up screens.
V51PG
SI5-TT-A1-C1A-1221
VXCD 1.2
Mike
OK, here's what I need
Press the following keys:
MODE
7
3
That will take you to the version screen. The single biggest info is at the top of the screen - the main firmware build number.
If you are really retentive, you can give me what is in the window below that, but that's not really needed.
What it sounds like is that you have a defective keyboard unit.
You said you had this as a demo - have you been reporting this to the sale rep that arranged the demo?
Be fair - if you don't tell us about these problems (via official channels) and just :o on boards like this, then we won't be able to help you. If you TELL us about problems like this, we can fix them and make the product better.
MODE
7
3
That will take you to the version screen. The single biggest info is at the top of the screen - the main firmware build number.
If you are really retentive, you can give me what is in the window below that, but that's not really needed.
What it sounds like is that you have a defective keyboard unit.
You said you had this as a demo - have you been reporting this to the sale rep that arranged the demo?
Be fair - if you don't tell us about these problems (via official channels) and just :o on boards like this, then we won't be able to help you. If you TELL us about problems like this, we can fix them and make the product better.
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
OK, that's good
OK, that's good - you aren't running some software that a sales person took out of plant without authorization - that is the current release.
It sounds like the unit you have has a bum keyboard - please contact your sales rep and get a replacement unit.
It sounds like the unit you have has a bum keyboard - please contact your sales rep and get a replacement unit.
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
Since this thread got bumped back up - I'll make some observations here.
I was somewhat surprised at the few posts here - a couple of 2670 users and one trying a demo 2975. Apparently not many P25 system users / support shops are active here.
In general - if you (or your shop) are already R2600 users you may be more comfortable with that unit. Comments I get from several techs who have tried both suggest that the IFR is very intimidating. I think these same folks would (or already have) react the same way if they tried an HP8920 (obviously not a P25 box - but I am talking about user interface)
I react to the 2975 like I react to the 8920 - not that the 2975 user interface is a copy of the HP, but that there is a conceptual similarity of offering many features and user configurability. It is this wealth of features that makes the unit intimidating at first.
What people are missing by not spending the time to master the unit is the tremendous versatility as well as the elegant simplicity offered by the ability to save virtually unlimited numbers of custom configurations which can be recalled with a couple keystrokes. XTS3000 deviation balance? Set it up - store it - recall any time you want. Quantar mod-comp? Quantar deviation limit? Same deal. Just set the machine up once - store the file (with text description) and you're all set the for the next time. The 2670 has stored setups too, but only 15 setups and 30 frequencies. The IFR can store hundreds!
How about all those RSS adjustments that set softpots at particular frequencies? Not just Astro radios - even stuff like Maxtrac. You know the screens: "Press F4 to key radio on first frequency" Just store a frequency table in the 2975 so you can step from point to point in the radio by stepping through the channels in the 2975.
Once you master this capability you will never want to go back to a primative box again. You align duplexers? The spectrum analyzer / tracking generator in the 2975 blows away the 2670. You have 80 dB on screen instead of 60 and plenty of generator level range with no whining about "Increase Attenuation".
I have not had any keybounce problems here - so I am sure that is an isolated fault with that demo unit. I do have several observations about the 2975 that I intend to report 'through channels' - not criticism as much as questions and suggestions. Overall I am very impressed with this unit.
I was somewhat surprised at the few posts here - a couple of 2670 users and one trying a demo 2975. Apparently not many P25 system users / support shops are active here.
In general - if you (or your shop) are already R2600 users you may be more comfortable with that unit. Comments I get from several techs who have tried both suggest that the IFR is very intimidating. I think these same folks would (or already have) react the same way if they tried an HP8920 (obviously not a P25 box - but I am talking about user interface)
I react to the 2975 like I react to the 8920 - not that the 2975 user interface is a copy of the HP, but that there is a conceptual similarity of offering many features and user configurability. It is this wealth of features that makes the unit intimidating at first.
What people are missing by not spending the time to master the unit is the tremendous versatility as well as the elegant simplicity offered by the ability to save virtually unlimited numbers of custom configurations which can be recalled with a couple keystrokes. XTS3000 deviation balance? Set it up - store it - recall any time you want. Quantar mod-comp? Quantar deviation limit? Same deal. Just set the machine up once - store the file (with text description) and you're all set the for the next time. The 2670 has stored setups too, but only 15 setups and 30 frequencies. The IFR can store hundreds!
How about all those RSS adjustments that set softpots at particular frequencies? Not just Astro radios - even stuff like Maxtrac. You know the screens: "Press F4 to key radio on first frequency" Just store a frequency table in the 2975 so you can step from point to point in the radio by stepping through the channels in the 2975.
Once you master this capability you will never want to go back to a primative box again. You align duplexers? The spectrum analyzer / tracking generator in the 2975 blows away the 2670. You have 80 dB on screen instead of 60 and plenty of generator level range with no whining about "Increase Attenuation".
I have not had any keybounce problems here - so I am sure that is an isolated fault with that demo unit. I do have several observations about the 2975 that I intend to report 'through channels' - not criticism as much as questions and suggestions. Overall I am very impressed with this unit.
Yeah but my demo IFR2975 does not have any markers on the spectrum analyzer so tuning filters and duplexers are out of the question. I had to tune a notch filter and went back to my HP70000 analyzer for that after during another demo we couldn't get into the marker screen of the 2975. Maybe I have a bum analyzer, I don't know ? but lets face it, first impressions are what counts. When I have a bunch of factory techs who are seeing it for the first time and I had to resort back to the GD R2670 cuz the help screens locked up the IFR and the markers are non- existant on the IFRs spectrum analyzer what piece of equipment do you think my production people are going to fall back on ? I do about 100 P25 avionics packages a month and can't afford to have techs stop for a day to take a test drive and have all of these problems.
Mike
Mike
It's a real shame that the unit you are looking at has problems. I understand what you are saying about getting a bad taste and never wanting to go back (talk to me about my Ford Taurus!)
The demo unit we have came with the 1.5.2 but we were particularly interested in some of the features that are in the 1.7 so IFR did a special connection for us that let us download and try the 1.7 beta code.
I only had the 1.5.2 running for a short time but it seems to me I did notice the help seemed flaky. The 1.7 has been totally solid - I've never crashed the box no matter what I have done. The help system seems different now and works fine.
The spectrum analyzer has four markers and they work fine. You can enter the exact frequency you want and they read out the amplitude of the point where the verticle marker intersects the trace. You should be sure that you are using the 'real' spectrum analyzer (Mode 6) and not the "Channel spectrum analyzer" if you want wide spans(>5 MHz).
I would think the stored setups in this unit would be just the ticket for your production application. Also the "Autotest" option could be used to insure that all test procedures are accurately and completely followed & documented.
You are probably a zillion miles away from us here in the center of the Country - it's too bad I can't bring this thing over and put it through its paces - I think users can do a better demo than the distributor's salesman can because we work with these things every day.
The demo unit we have came with the 1.5.2 but we were particularly interested in some of the features that are in the 1.7 so IFR did a special connection for us that let us download and try the 1.7 beta code.
I only had the 1.5.2 running for a short time but it seems to me I did notice the help seemed flaky. The 1.7 has been totally solid - I've never crashed the box no matter what I have done. The help system seems different now and works fine.
The spectrum analyzer has four markers and they work fine. You can enter the exact frequency you want and they read out the amplitude of the point where the verticle marker intersects the trace. You should be sure that you are using the 'real' spectrum analyzer (Mode 6) and not the "Channel spectrum analyzer" if you want wide spans(>5 MHz).
I would think the stored setups in this unit would be just the ticket for your production application. Also the "Autotest" option could be used to insure that all test procedures are accurately and completely followed & documented.
You are probably a zillion miles away from us here in the center of the Country - it's too bad I can't bring this thing over and put it through its paces - I think users can do a better demo than the distributor's salesman can because we work with these things every day.
Some corrections:
" The IFR can store hundreds!" (of setups)
Actually, the 2975 can store 10,000 (ten thousand) setups currently on the internal hard disk (the limit is mostly user entry, not space). In addition, setups can be stored on floppy, so that you can store any site-specific setups on a floppy and leave it at the site in question.
"It is this wealth of features that makes the unit intimidating at first."
All I can say is that we try to put the unit into a sensible state for most measurements, but then allow you to change what you need. As I've said before, constructive feedback is not only welcome but encouraged - you have a good idea, we will certainly consider changing!
"[no]markers on the spectrum analyzer so tuning filters and duplexers are out of the question".
As stated above, this is in the next release - I am jumping up and down on Q/A to finish their analysis so that we can sign off on the release. If you all wish, I can post to here when I put the code up on the server.
Actually, the 2975 can store 10,000 (ten thousand) setups currently on the internal hard disk (the limit is mostly user entry, not space). In addition, setups can be stored on floppy, so that you can store any site-specific setups on a floppy and leave it at the site in question.
"It is this wealth of features that makes the unit intimidating at first."
All I can say is that we try to put the unit into a sensible state for most measurements, but then allow you to change what you need. As I've said before, constructive feedback is not only welcome but encouraged - you have a good idea, we will certainly consider changing!
"[no]markers on the spectrum analyzer so tuning filters and duplexers are out of the question".
As stated above, this is in the next release - I am jumping up and down on Q/A to finish their analysis so that we can sign off on the release. If you all wish, I can post to here when I put the code up on the server.
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
The one thing I found in the 1.7 that is a 'for sure needs to be fixed' is that sometimes the 'cursor' (active field?) gets lost behind a drop down box like the frequency list. I am pretty sure Bill told be that was a known issue.
One of my other observations has to do with the action of the knob (rotary control) as it moves the highlighted field. When you aren't actually entering data in a field - if you turn the knob clockwise the highlighted field advances across the screen from left to right and down the screen from to to bottom. This is intuitive and seems logical.
However, when you select a field that has a drop down - such as spectrum analyzer dispersion - a box of choices drops down. Within the selection box the knob action is backwards. Clockwise rotation moves the highlighted item from bottom to top and from right to left - highly disconcerting and counterintuitive.
Also they told me that you are going to replace the fan with something quieter. Did you guys accidently get a shipment of Pratt & Whitney turbojets that were meant for Boeing?
One of my other observations has to do with the action of the knob (rotary control) as it moves the highlighted field. When you aren't actually entering data in a field - if you turn the knob clockwise the highlighted field advances across the screen from left to right and down the screen from to to bottom. This is intuitive and seems logical.
However, when you select a field that has a drop down - such as spectrum analyzer dispersion - a box of choices drops down. Within the selection box the knob action is backwards. Clockwise rotation moves the highlighted item from bottom to top and from right to left - highly disconcerting and counterintuitive.
Also they told me that you are going to replace the fan with something quieter. Did you guys accidently get a shipment of Pratt & Whitney turbojets that were meant for Boeing?
Problems
"...sometimes the 'cursor' (active field?) gets lost behind a drop down box...."
Known issues, and should be fixed in the actual release code. However, if you can give me a sequence of steps to reproduce I'd be happy to verify that.
"...Within the selection box the knob action is backwards...."
Y'know, I never really noticed that, but you are correct. I just entered it into the bug database, and I'll look into it. I'm a little leery of putting that fix into 1.7.0 (I really HATE last minute changes that aren't terribly important), but I have targeted the fix for the 1.8 release. (The logic was that you were "turning things up", so the selection went up...)
"....you are going to replace the fan with something quieter...."
Well, that's not software so that won't be available as a patch. However, the big problem is some folks want the box to operate at 50C - that means to keep the guts cool we have to move a fair amount of air.
(now why anybody wants to have their test equipment running when the technician is passed out from heat exhaustion is beyond me, but....)
Known issues, and should be fixed in the actual release code. However, if you can give me a sequence of steps to reproduce I'd be happy to verify that.
"...Within the selection box the knob action is backwards...."
Y'know, I never really noticed that, but you are correct. I just entered it into the bug database, and I'll look into it. I'm a little leery of putting that fix into 1.7.0 (I really HATE last minute changes that aren't terribly important), but I have targeted the fix for the 1.8 release. (The logic was that you were "turning things up", so the selection went up...)
"....you are going to replace the fan with something quieter...."
Well, that's not software so that won't be available as a patch. However, the big problem is some folks want the box to operate at 50C - that means to keep the guts cool we have to move a fair amount of air.
(now why anybody wants to have their test equipment running when the technician is passed out from heat exhaustion is beyond me, but....)
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
OK, folks: opinion time....
"...Within the selection box the knob action is backwards...."
Well, I implemented that change (I love 2 liners!) and now I'm not so sure.
XO (and everybody else), I've a question for you WRT this issue:
Here's a diagram of how I usually run the spinner:
et ^ be your thumb, O be the spinner, and * your fingers
<pre>
*
-------------------- *
^O ! *
! *
</pre>
In other words, fingers on the top right corner of the box, thumb resting on the left side of the spinner.
The current behavior is that moving your thumb up will move the menu selection physically up toward top of screen, and moving your thumb down moves the menu selection down toward bottom of screen. However, if you look at it as "turning it up/Turning it down", then when you "turn it up" you move the menu selection physically up, but logically down (smaller numbers on the menu.)
When I reverse the bindings, "turning it up" moves the selection logically up (larger menu numbers) but physically down, since the larger numbers are at the bottom of the menu. As a result, your thumb moves up, the selection moves down.
Now, I'd like to get a little more feedback from 2975 users before I actually commit this to 1.8.0.
(Welcome to the world of a software architect....)
Well, I implemented that change (I love 2 liners!) and now I'm not so sure.
XO (and everybody else), I've a question for you WRT this issue:
Here's a diagram of how I usually run the spinner:
et ^ be your thumb, O be the spinner, and * your fingers
<pre>
*
-------------------- *
^O ! *
! *
</pre>
In other words, fingers on the top right corner of the box, thumb resting on the left side of the spinner.
The current behavior is that moving your thumb up will move the menu selection physically up toward top of screen, and moving your thumb down moves the menu selection down toward bottom of screen. However, if you look at it as "turning it up/Turning it down", then when you "turn it up" you move the menu selection physically up, but logically down (smaller numbers on the menu.)
When I reverse the bindings, "turning it up" moves the selection logically up (larger menu numbers) but physically down, since the larger numbers are at the bottom of the menu. As a result, your thumb moves up, the selection moves down.
Now, I'd like to get a little more feedback from 2975 users before I actually commit this to 1.8.0.
(Welcome to the world of a software architect....)
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I would welcome the opportunity to try your revised knob operation and let you know how the change feels from a user's perspective.
I just talked to Rafael and he said I sould email you directly. I will swing by my lab after lunch and email you the serial number of the unit we have here. Rafael said we will be able to keep it here for a couple more days so that would work out great on our end.
I just talked to Rafael and he said I sould email you directly. I will swing by my lab after lunch and email you the serial number of the unit we have here. Rafael said we will be able to keep it here for a couple more days so that would work out great on our end.
I don't need no steenkin' serial number
I don't need the serial #, all I need is an email to send it to.
What I will do is send you an "update" that doesn't really change the installed software, but changes the behavior for the current session only.
What you will do is do a "firmware install" as you would normally do from floppy, but instead of rebooting you just go on to use the unit - when you reboot the unit will default back to normal behavior.
What I will do is send you an "update" that doesn't really change the installed software, but changes the behavior for the current session only.
What you will do is do a "firmware install" as you would normally do from floppy, but instead of rebooting you just go on to use the unit - when you reboot the unit will default back to normal behavior.
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
FYI - a question on a new feature
For those of you who care, I've created a new topic about some features I'm looking into adding in the 2975.
This is my opinion, not Aeroflex's.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
I WILL NOT give you proprietary information. I make too much money to jeopardize my job.
I AM NOT the Service department: You want official info, manuals, service info, parts, calibration, etc., contact Aeroflex directly, please.
-
ASTROMODAT
- Posts: 1825
- Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 12:32 am
I'm hearing that GD is supposed to introduce a flat panel tablet service monitor version that will replace the R2670 by the end of this year, incorporating all of its functions, plus some new ones. Supposedly it has the look and feel of the latest Tektronics tablet scopes. If true, this would blow away the market! Can anyone confirm this rumor?
We bought the GD 2670 and the Autotest software. They have come out with only one update and have never added the latest Motorola radios. That was pretty much a waste. NOT HAPPY!
Also bought the 2975. Now it turns out, if you are staying with Motorola's upgrade procession into Smartzone 7X and beyond, with IVD, HSD & HPD, the 2975 doesn't support that - Aeroflex has a new box for you to spend another 40 G's on - the 3900 series. NOT HAPPY!
There is some additional discussion of 2670 vs. 2975 in this thread:
http://batboard.batlabs.com/viewtopic.php?t=42923
Also bought the 2975. Now it turns out, if you are staying with Motorola's upgrade procession into Smartzone 7X and beyond, with IVD, HSD & HPD, the 2975 doesn't support that - Aeroflex has a new box for you to spend another 40 G's on - the 3900 series. NOT HAPPY!
There is some additional discussion of 2670 vs. 2975 in this thread:
http://batboard.batlabs.com/viewtopic.php?t=42923
-
WB5ITT
- Posts: 63
- Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:09 am
- What radios do you own?: Motorola, GE, Kenwood, Yaesu
This seems to be an old thread but I had to add in my $0.02.
My company runs Astro UHF and they bought R2670s...I have always used analog IFRs and one HP8920 (the one and ONLY one I would ever use)...IFR used to be my choice...the older 1xxx series (1000-1500s) were damn good and easy to use....but when they broke, trying to get them fixed in the mid 90s and later was a major PITA...given what I heard from former IFR engineers and other IFR users, I am not sure what is the best to go with now. The 2670 has the softkeys and I do not like a lot of the way you have to choose functions....it DOES work and work well...in fact, used it to reset one of my Quantars back on freq that somehow got 1.6kHz low...and then half the fleet could not access it! I DO like the self cal feature on the 2670...I have not yet played with the software (but I do have it) that allows RS232 operation...
I HATE the idea the battery option is external unlike the older IFRs (MAJOR loss in points on that). All I can say is the 2670 does work but takes too many keystrokes to get where you want...IF IFRs repair/service is still as it was 10 years ago (or worse), I would seriously do a rethink (former company I worked for has numerous 1200s they cannot get fixed by IFR...not surprised there! One of my 1200s went back and forth over 1.5 years...it came back worse than it left for them twice! I had to have a conference call with one of the VPs and two service managers where I totally chewed ass and they offered to fly engineers down to Texas to fix the thing..after they offered to send me the parts to repair it: My boss and I rolled on the floor laughing over that offer!!!! Needless to say, I was NOT happy with IFR's service...though I liked the product...the newer digital stuff, I heard some horror storiers from former employees...maybe its better now...but I wonder. BTW I told my former company to check out Cardinal for repair)..
My company runs Astro UHF and they bought R2670s...I have always used analog IFRs and one HP8920 (the one and ONLY one I would ever use)...IFR used to be my choice...the older 1xxx series (1000-1500s) were damn good and easy to use....but when they broke, trying to get them fixed in the mid 90s and later was a major PITA...given what I heard from former IFR engineers and other IFR users, I am not sure what is the best to go with now. The 2670 has the softkeys and I do not like a lot of the way you have to choose functions....it DOES work and work well...in fact, used it to reset one of my Quantars back on freq that somehow got 1.6kHz low...and then half the fleet could not access it! I DO like the self cal feature on the 2670...I have not yet played with the software (but I do have it) that allows RS232 operation...
I HATE the idea the battery option is external unlike the older IFRs (MAJOR loss in points on that). All I can say is the 2670 does work but takes too many keystrokes to get where you want...IF IFRs repair/service is still as it was 10 years ago (or worse), I would seriously do a rethink (former company I worked for has numerous 1200s they cannot get fixed by IFR...not surprised there! One of my 1200s went back and forth over 1.5 years...it came back worse than it left for them twice! I had to have a conference call with one of the VPs and two service managers where I totally chewed ass and they offered to fly engineers down to Texas to fix the thing..after they offered to send me the parts to repair it: My boss and I rolled on the floor laughing over that offer!!!! Needless to say, I was NOT happy with IFR's service...though I liked the product...the newer digital stuff, I heard some horror storiers from former employees...maybe its better now...but I wonder. BTW I told my former company to check out Cardinal for repair)..