Motorola Syntor X9000 to Syntor X conversion for APRS?

[Jonathan KC8RYW]

I went to Hamvention with a Syntor X VHF T73 or T83 on my list for a single-mode APRS radio. Sure, they're pretty ancient, but they're at least 100 Watts, they are very well heatsinked and are at least fairly reliable. Also, they're easy to convert to an APRS radio.

APRS, in case you're not familiar, is an AFSK1200 packet system.

I found a few Syntor X's at Hamvention, but the sellers wanted way too much for them, and were unreasonable with offers I made them.

I had better luck with finding Syntor X9000 VHF T73's. In fact, I'm now the proud owner of a gang of eight of them.

Since I don't want or need a A9 control heads and I really don't want to mess with finding a 286 or 386 for programming these Syntor X9000s, I'd like to convert them to single-channel Syntor Xs. It's easier for me just to blow a codeplug into an EEPROM than try to find an obsolete computer.

Has anyone been down this road before?

[Jim202]

I went to Hamvention with a Syntor X VHF T73 or T83 on my list for a single-mode APRS radio. Sure, they're pretty ancient, but they're at least 100 Watts, they are very well heatsinked and are at least fairly reliable. Also, they're easy to convert to an APRS radio.

APRS, in case you're not familiar, is an AFSK1200 packet system.

I found a few Syntor X's at Hamvention, but the sellers wanted way too much for them, and were unreasonable with offers I made them.

I had better luck with finding Syntor X9000 VHF T73's. In fact, I'm now the proud owner of a gang of eight of them.

Since I don't want or need a A9 control heads and I really don't want to mess with finding a 286 or 386 for programming these Syntor X9000s, I'd like to convert them to single-channel Syntor Xs. It's easier for me just to blow a codeplug into an EEPROM than try to find an obsolete computer.

Has anyone been down this road before?

It would seem like a poor choice to down grade the X9000 to a plain old X version of the radio. Since you already have an intact radio, why not find someone that can program the radio PROM for you and just be done with it. That way, you don't need to ship the whole radio to who ever will do the programming for you. Using the X9000 as a single channel radio doesn't need the PROM to be upgraded if it is still the original 32 channel type.

The control head might be a slight problem, depending on just what you want it to display. Again the head with only one channel is no biggie.

I have found the Syntor X9000 radio to be a fine radio, be it low band or VHF. Haven't had a UHF version of one to play with.

Jim

[Tim]

I don't think you can use an X9000 without a control head, but may be
wrong. It does not have a PROM in it like the Syntor X does.

To do a X9k to X conversion you would need to replace the
microcontroller board, as well as the 'other circuits' board.

You can find a wealth of knowledge on conversion on the RB
web site (www.repeater-builder.com). Just scroll down
to the 'motorola' entry and follow the links. It will also
take you to an external site (MikeB), which is more info
than anybody can absorb in a short time!!! - good stuff -

I think I may have some of the micro boards in the storage
shed, should you continue on the conversion path. I 'think'
you can modify the other board with an additional 7805 voltage
regulator.

Tim

[Mike B]

It is something like the reverse of the Syntor X to Syntor X 9000 conversion. You need a conventional VHF Syntor X personality board and a conventional VHF Syntor X common circuits board. However, there are different varieties of conventional Syntor X personality boards for low band and 800 MHz use. Any trunking Syntor X personality boards are useless. You do have to align the radio after the conversion and probably should put a piece of tape over the 9000 on the label .

Syntor X personality boards for DVP use have some additional hardware support built in that might be useful for a custom modem connection, but of course you can make whatever you need with other non-DVP personality boards. The older HLN4257 personality boards (HLN4270, HLN4270 and HLN4425) DVP support circuits are different than the newer HLN4760 personality boards (HLN5008) DVP support circuits. In the past I made a transistor switch using the Rx audio priority mute signal, as an audio gate Rx carrier detect/switch for a packet modem that could not deal with Rx detected un-squelched audio direct connection noise when there was no incoming Rx signal. Keep in mind the Rx audio de-emphasis is done far downstream after the detected audio, but the old modem I used did not care.

http://www.onfreq.com/syntorx/syntorx/p ... ml#perinfo

The last step is a connector for the front of the radio. It would be a pity to butcher an X 9000 cable. Just look for a Syntor X cable to butcher, even a normally useless trunking Syntor X cable would do. The conversion I did had the squelch pot, Rx audio level pot and Rx audio gate circuit inside the radio connector shell with just the modem wires and power wires coming out of the connector shell.

A problem with using the Syntor X 9000 is the audio routing to the radio front connector pins is all done under microprocessor control. The radio does need to be steered with a controllable Systems 9000 serial data connection to setup custom Rx/Tx audio configurations. This was part of the X9k cure to obsoleting all the optional wiring to individual control head boxes in the Syntor X. As far as I ever determined the Syntor X 9000 does not want to work without a control head to talk to the radio drawer on the Systems 9000 data bus. This data communication is also how the X9k detects missing options that are programmed into the radio, when it fails to talk to the option microprocessor.

[edit] Come to think of it, you could probably pull some X9k personality board IC pins and hard wire a X9k audio configuration, but it would disable the X9k for normal use. I think you would still need the control head, but you would have a nice tame filtered/de-emphasized audio on a radio connector pin.

[RADIOMAN2002]

Definitly more work than it's worth, You basically need a Syntor X to make the 9000X a Syntor X. Now if you found a bunch of low power Sytnor X, then it may work for you.