Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910
Results 226 to 250 of 250

Thread: Anytone AT-D878UV - excellent tech radio

  1. #226
    Join Date
    Aug 06, 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    804
    Thanks
    205
    Thanked 368 Times in 174 Posts
    Country: Canada

    Default

    If I recall it can only be done by opening it up. This is kind if my go to for anything with the 868/878: http://members.optuszoo.com.au/jason...y1/868mods.htm


  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Forts For This Useful Post:

    Mars (Sep 17, 2020),Mototom (Sep 17, 2020),N4KVE (Sep 16, 2020),SPECIAL_EYE (Sep 17, 2020),TAC-10 (4 Weeks Ago)

  3. #227
    Join Date
    Dec 21, 2011
    Posts
    4,948
    Thanks
    5,139
    Thanked 8,727 Times in 2,395 Posts
    Country: Canada

    Default

    Firmware 1.21 is out.

    D878UV firmware update V1.21 (dated 2020-09-18) Change List

    1. Improve the firmware issue that manual dial TG TX in simplex channel doesn’t show busy when the radio is receiving. Simplex Channel for a Hotspot TX Permit = Channel free or Different CC Manual dial a TG When you PTT when the radio is RXing someone the Radio does not show Busy It just lets you TX into the Hotspot It should see that it is in use and show Busy

    2. Improve the CPS issue that channel setting TX permit set to Same Color Code, reopen the channel setting will show Always.

    3. Improve the CPS issue that “the channel edit menu cannot be moved to show the OK button.”

    Firmware version: V1.21 CPS version: V1.21 SCT 3258 version: V2.01.07 BA (same, no need update) BT Version:

    http://www.connectsystems.com/produc...e%20200918.zip

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mars For This Useful Post:

    AD0JA (4 Weeks Ago),Forts (4 Weeks Ago),Hartley (4 Weeks Ago),Notarola (4 Weeks Ago)

  5. #228
    Join Date
    Aug 07, 2020
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    81
    Thanked 29 Times in 16 Posts
    Country: United States

    Default

    There is also new firmware for the AT-578 mobile too... They seem to have slowly fixed a lot of the early Firmware issues I had... which is nice, b/c the AT-578 mobile (not the 878) radio is a fairly decent DMR/FM radio, when it works, of course, and at 400 bucks you'd expect so...

    G.

  6. #229
    Join Date
    Nov 05, 2012
    Location
    True North Strong and Free
    Posts
    329
    Thanks
    2,356
    Thanked 623 Times in 270 Posts
    Country: Albania

    Default

    For a $400 mobile, I expect a more thought out lay out, not a ******* portable display and a detachable controlhead. But hey, the hamsters are eating up the Chinese garbage like itís something special.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Viper1-6 For This Useful Post:

    Mars (4 Weeks Ago)

  8. #230
    Join Date
    Dec 21, 2011
    Posts
    4,948
    Thanks
    5,139
    Thanked 8,727 Times in 2,395 Posts
    Country: Canada

    Default

    Thank you Motorola for RAS.

  9. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Mars For This Useful Post:

    com501 (4 Weeks Ago),N4KVE (4 Weeks Ago),ndp (4 Weeks Ago),PSEhub (4 Weeks Ago),TESTMODE (2 Weeks Ago),Viper1-6 (4 Weeks Ago)

  10. #231
    Join Date
    Nov 05, 2012
    Location
    True North Strong and Free
    Posts
    329
    Thanks
    2,356
    Thanked 623 Times in 270 Posts
    Country: Albania

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mars View Post
    Thank you Motorola for RAS.
    And encryption. Especially encryption.

  11. #232
    Join Date
    May 15, 2012
    Posts
    368
    Thanks
    98
    Thanked 315 Times in 135 Posts
    Country: Canada

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper1-6 View Post
    And encryption. Especially encryption.
    No, that's Lindsay.

  12. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CQDX For This Useful Post:

    Mars (4 Weeks Ago),mot2way (4 Weeks Ago),phillipw1084 (4 Weeks Ago),SPECIAL_EYE (4 Weeks Ago),TESTMODE (2 Weeks Ago),Viper1-6 (4 Weeks Ago)

  13. #233
    Join Date
    Jun 11, 2020
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 7 Times in 1 Post
    Country: United States

    Default

    Speaking of encryption on the AnyTone radios, I have searched the web and forums and it's possible I am just missing something, but can you not actually set your own "Enhanced" key value? Obviously AES is the way to go in these but I was just testing it out and you can't type more then 4 characters in the enhanced key field and then it just dumps it's own actual key value in there. You can change the normal key.

    Anyone else experiencing that? More of a curiosity at this point than a need to know.

    For RAS I would think, even thought it's useless for Tx, that they could just add a firmware option to ignore the checksum errors and just process the voice frames like scanners do. They could call it something arbitrary like "Voice Error Checking" to keep the "big guys" from getting their egos bent.

  14. #234
    Join Date
    Dec 21, 2011
    Posts
    4,948
    Thanks
    5,139
    Thanked 8,727 Times in 2,395 Posts
    Country: Canada

    Default

    Phillip: With respect to the encryption issue you are having, If you upgrade to the latest CPS/FW, you will not have this issue.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Mars For This Useful Post:

    phillipw1084 (4 Weeks Ago)

  16. #235
    Join Date
    Jun 11, 2020
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    9
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 7 Times in 1 Post
    Country: United States

    Default

    Gave this a try. CPS 1.21 for an 878 and 1.11 for the 578. Both Show "Encryption Id" and "Encryption Key" under the "Encryption Code" menu. Both fields only allow 4 characters to be entered. My guess is that since it has AES that the other encryption is just really basic 4 character keys with an ID for each instead of the "Normal" and "Enhanced" it used to have. If I'm wrong I'll mess with it some more.

    Kind of odd but if I need encryption I'll just use the AES anyway.

  17. #236
    Join Date
    May 19, 2019
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 168 Times in 44 Posts
    Country: Australia

    Default

    In previous versions, the encryption code was a four hex digit 'seed' for a larger code that was displayed by the CPS. If you didn't like the actual resulting key, you could hex edit the codeplug directly to whatever you liked.
    That arrangement has changed - probably at the same time when AES was introduced to the Anytone - and now it's just a simple four hex code, which along with the ID, is stored as such in the codeplug. I'd guess the underlying encryption algo changed too. It may possibly be the same algo, but the four digit key is padded out by firmware to what is actually used... but that's just my speculation.

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mitaux8030 For This Useful Post:

    phillipw1084 (4 Weeks Ago),SwissMoto (3 Weeks Ago)

  19. #237
    Join Date
    Aug 07, 2020
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    81
    Thanked 29 Times in 16 Posts
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Viper1-6 View Post
    For a $400 mobile, I expect a more thought out lay out, not a ******* portable display and a detachable controlhead. But hey, the hamsters are eating up the Chinese garbage like it’s something special.
    Detachable control head was certainly a major disappointment, for sure. As for the screen, well, I would've liked it to be bigger too, but considering the radio has Single Frequency repeater, single band repeater and cross band repeater in all combinations of FM/FM, FM/DMR, DMR/DMR... perhaps we could let the small screen slide. I use the radio as a SFR on DMR inside the trunk of a van, so it doesn't matter how big the screen is.

    hahaha.... Chinese garbage it is, indeed. But the 578 performs better than anything else I've tested in the CCR world... well, that is when the radio doesn't freeze. And so far, with fw r1.11 the radio hasn't frozen in SFR repeater duty like it used to in firmware r1.05... so that's an improvement. I did replace the chrome plated UHF connector with a trimetal N too.

    The 578 required a lot of trial and error to get the tuning right and extract every bit of performance out of it. Even after a good tune up, the radio still required additional filtering to make it comparable to an unfiltered EVX radio. Driving around in busy RF areas the 578 totally requires a good preselector, otherwise its effective sensitivity will be between 6-10 dB lower than an unfiltered Vertex EVX-5400 mobile.

    G.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to gMan1971 For This Useful Post:

    Viper1-6 (3 Weeks Ago)

  21. #238
    Join Date
    Dec 21, 2011
    Posts
    4,948
    Thanks
    5,139
    Thanked 8,727 Times in 2,395 Posts
    Country: Canada

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gMan1971 View Post
    I did replace the chrome plated UHF connector with a trimetal N too.
    IMO, this right here, says everything about the thought process and engineering that went into the radio. 100% hammy idiot mentality. Only people with no concept of how RF works would put a SO-239 on a VHF/UHF radio. I'm not a huge fan of the mini-UHF connector either, but at least it's common. Ideally, a TNC connector would've been the best choice for a mobile. I'm sure everyone has their favourite. N is an excellent choice; it's just large and cumbersome in a vehicle.

    Quote Originally Posted by gMan1971
    the radio still required additional filtering to make it comparable to an unfiltered EVX radio. Driving around in busy RF areas the 578 totally requires a good preselector, otherwise its effective sensitivity will be between 6-10 dB lower than an unfiltered Vertex EVX-5400 mobile.
    And this is why the radio has the pricetag that hammies are attracted to. They left out the critical parts in the receiver, in favour of this "wide band" crap that hams get hard over. Considering several "wideband" commercial radios exist which do 136-174 and 380-470, and have no issues in high RF environments, putting proper tracked preselectors in the 578 would've been a massive selling point. But no -- hammies want every last little bit of sensitivity and they'd complain if the 12 dB SINAD specs for this radio were say 0.22uV instead of 0.12uV. Hammies don't understand most things relating to RF, so it's easy to bamboozle them with silly numbers they don't understand.

    This whole thing reminds me of the time I offered to borrow my MTS2000 VHF to a local hamster who was attempting to make VHF simplex contacts with his Baoturd for some award. He couldn't hear 50W base stations calling him from 1-2 miles away. I honestly didn't think Baoturd receivers were THIS bad; I assumed he had tone squelch on or something. No, they are that bad. I wish I could've tuned up a passband cavity for him to use on the simplex frequency, just to show him what a complete piece of shit his radio was. But it was a lost cause, as I was termed a "Motorola elitist" because I didn't spend $50 on my radio. Apparently $150 is a little rich in the tooth for some cheap hammies.

    The 578/878 definitely lack selectivity and filtering, but they're not the worst I've seen. The radio(s) are still very much, toys for hammies.

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mars For This Useful Post:

    AD0JA (3 Weeks Ago),gMan1971 (3 Weeks Ago),Notarola (3 Weeks Ago),TESTMODE (2 Weeks Ago)

  23. #239
    Join Date
    May 19, 2019
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 168 Times in 44 Posts
    Country: Australia

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mars View Post
    putting proper tracked preselectors in the 578 would've been a massive selling point.
    Actually, they did. The VHF & UHF front end strips each have a four pole varactor tuned front end. You can also play with the tuning voltage slope in the test menus as well. Same arrangement in the 868/878 too.
    Given that, it is somewhat surprising that selectivity isn't better on the 578 than what it actually is. The EVX-5400 has a five pole varactor tuned front end, with auto variable attenuators. You couldn't say that just one extra filter pole is responsible for a far better desense result. Worthy of note is that the 578 has provision for individually shielding each section of the receiver (synth, IF, front end) but none are present [correction: the IF baseband ICs do have individual shielding, as does the DMR codec IC]; and that there's provision for two cascaded IF crystal filters, but the second is padded with a SMD cap. Next quiet day at the shop, might see if these omissions can be remedied and maybe observe any performance improvement?

    Not many ham radio front ends cope with being connected to the wideband discone at my work location on the edge of the CBD, only a handful of miles from some very busy transmitter sites, including a monster FM & TV broadcasting site which has a combined EIRP of over 10 MW. The 578 handles this reasonably well, but all the Motos, Taits & Simocos are flawless, as you'd expect them to be.
    The 578's RF performance is about right for it's price point: Moto et al > 578 > Baofart.
    Last edited by mitaux8030; 3 Weeks Ago at 02:11 AM. Reason: Corrected inaccurate information re: shielding

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to mitaux8030 For This Useful Post:

    Mars (3 Weeks Ago)

  25. #240
    Join Date
    Oct 09, 2013
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    57
    Thanks
    201
    Thanked 115 Times in 51 Posts

    Default

    In my 1.21 CPS, the "Encryption code" for AES is either "off" or a number 1 - 255. It doesn't seem to make any difference what you use in terms of the key, and 255 isn't nearly big enuff for a KID I'm thinking it's just an internal reference number of some kind.

  26. #241
    Join Date
    Aug 07, 2020
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    81
    Thanked 29 Times in 16 Posts
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mitaux8030 View Post
    Actually, they did. The VHF & UHF front end strips each have a four pole varactor tuned front end. You can also play with the tuning voltage slope in the test menus as well. Same arrangement in the 868/878 too.
    Given that, it is somewhat surprising that selectivity isn't better on the 578 than what it actually is. The EVX-5400 has a five pole varactor tuned front end, with auto variable attenuators. You couldn't say that just one extra filter pole is responsible for a far better desense result. Worthy of note is that the 578 has provision for individually shielding each section of the receiver (synth, IF, front end) but none are present; and that there's provision for two cascaded IF crystal filters, but the second is padded with a SMD cap. Next quiet day at the shop, might see if these omissions can be remedied and maybe observe any performance improvement?

    Not many ham radio front ends cope with being connected to the wideband discone at my work location on the edge of the CBD, only a handful of miles from some very busy transmitter sites, including a monster FM & TV broadcasting site which has a combined EIRP of over 10 MW. The 578 handles this reasonably well, but all the Motos, Taits & Simocos are flawless, as you'd expect them to be.
    The 578's RF performance is about right for it's price point: Moto et al > 578 > Baofart.
    Well, a 6dB desense isn't that bad when compared to a 60dB desense from the Baofarts.... but yes, the EVX still edges it, ~6 dB in VHF, ~10 dB in UHF. I am not an EE by any stretch of the imagination, but as a "programmer" I can tell you that not all algorithms are created equal... so I am pretty sure to say that not all varactors the same either... also I am sure there are enough differences on how its all done to make the EVX the superior radio.

    On another note: I just got a report that the CrapATone 578 just froze up, again... its a total utter garbage radio. Why smarty pants Motorola doesn't put a SFR on the 5550e is just beyond me... That was the only reason I purchased that 578 AnyTurd... if they added an SFR to the 5550e I'll certainly bite the bullet with CPS 2.0... I really want to surrender all my money to the Moto gods, but alas... they refuse to take it... doing retarded a$$ crap like this and not putting an SFR on the 5550e. Just make it another entitlement for a few extra $$$, whatever... but there are ZERO reasons, to my knowledge, why tha 5550e cannot have such a feature (ie SFR).

    G.

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to gMan1971 For This Useful Post:

    Mars (3 Weeks Ago)

  28. #242
    Join Date
    Aug 06, 2012
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    804
    Thanks
    205
    Thanked 368 Times in 174 Posts
    Country: Canada

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hartley View Post
    In my 1.21 CPS, the "Encryption code" for AES is either "off" or a number 1 - 255. It doesn't seem to make any difference what you use in terms of the key, and 255 isn't nearly big enuff for a KID I'm thinking it's just an internal reference number of some kind.
    The KID is used to assign the key to your digital channel. MotoTRBO CPS is no different, valid KIDs are 1 - 255.

  29. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Forts For This Useful Post:

    Hartley (3 Weeks Ago),Mars (3 Weeks Ago),Viper1-6 (3 Weeks Ago)

  30. #243
    Join Date
    Aug 15, 2019
    Posts
    167
    Thanks
    114
    Thanked 365 Times in 134 Posts
    Country: Australia

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gMan1971 View Post
    there are ZERO reasons, to my knowledge, why tha 5550e cannot have such a feature (ie SFR)
    Motorola wants you to buy an SLR1000. That's the reason.

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to syntrx For This Useful Post:

    Mars (3 Weeks Ago),Viper1-6 (3 Weeks Ago)

  32. #244
    Join Date
    Aug 07, 2020
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    81
    Thanked 29 Times in 16 Posts
    Country: United States

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by syntrx View Post
    Motorola wants you to buy an SLR1000. That's the reason.
    Well, while that might be a good reason for Motorola, its not a good reason for me.

    G.

  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gMan1971 For This Useful Post:

    Mars (3 Weeks Ago),Viper1-6 (3 Weeks Ago)

  34. #245
    Join Date
    Oct 09, 2013
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    57
    Thanks
    201
    Thanked 115 Times in 51 Posts

    Default

    Ahh - well, ya learn something new every day - I'm familiar with P25 KIDs and they go way beyond 255. If DMR uses a 255 KID-space, then that's it for sure.

    For sure the radio doesn't use it as a identification, as it only asks you which key to use based on the list number (another 1-255).

    Hartley

  35. The Following User Says Thank You to Hartley For This Useful Post:

    Mars (3 Weeks Ago)

  36. #246
    Join Date
    Nov 05, 2012
    Location
    True North Strong and Free
    Posts
    329
    Thanks
    2,356
    Thanked 623 Times in 270 Posts
    Country: Albania

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hartley View Post
    Ahh - well, ya learn something new every day - I'm familiar with P25 KIDs and they go way beyond 255. If DMR uses a 255 KID-space, then that's it for sure.

    For sure the radio doesn't use it as a identification, as it only asks you which key to use based on the list number (another 1-255).

    Hartley
    The KID is also transmitted over the air to tell the receiving radio which encryption key to use to decrypt the incoming transmissions. Key and KID must match.

  37. The Following User Says Thank You to Viper1-6 For This Useful Post:

    Mars (3 Weeks Ago)

  38. #247
    Join Date
    May 19, 2019
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    72
    Thanks
    50
    Thanked 168 Times in 44 Posts
    Country: Australia

    Default

    Quiet day at the shop today. Added the shields omitted by the factory; the PCB lands to do so were already there. Performed a realignment of the front end BPF (varactor tuning) to compensate for the stray capacitance the shields would add. End result: 2dB noise reduction / sensitivity improvement on VHF, no change UHF, and I doubt any change to IP3. You'd barely notice this in use.



  39. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to mitaux8030 For This Useful Post:

    com501 (2 Weeks Ago),Forts (2 Weeks Ago),gMan1971 (2 Weeks Ago),Hartley (2 Weeks Ago),Mars (2 Weeks Ago),N4KVE (2 Weeks Ago),N9AA (1 Week Ago),OPS (2 Weeks Ago),PSEhub (2 Weeks Ago)

  40. #248
    Join Date
    Feb 04, 2012
    Posts
    2,092
    Thanks
    288
    Thanked 1,037 Times in 464 Posts

    Default

    Nice work

  41. The Following User Says Thank You to Notarola For This Useful Post:

    mitaux8030 (2 Weeks Ago)

  42. #249
    Join Date
    Dec 21, 2011
    Posts
    4,948
    Thanks
    5,139
    Thanked 8,727 Times in 2,395 Posts
    Country: Canada

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mitaux8030 View Post
    You'd barely notice this in use.
    That doesn't matter. The important thing here, is YOU DID IT RIGHT. The way things should be. Not some half-assed excuse for RF engineering. So for that, you get a major tip of the hat!

  43. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mars For This Useful Post:

    gMan1971 (2 Weeks Ago),mitaux8030 (2 Weeks Ago),Notarola (2 Weeks Ago),Viper1-6 (2 Weeks Ago)

  44. #250
    Join Date
    Aug 07, 2020
    Posts
    104
    Thanks
    81
    Thanked 29 Times in 16 Posts
    Country: United States

    Default

    Amazing!!

    Now, f the radio just wouldn't freeze up while in repeater more, then we would have something...

    G.
    Last edited by gMan1971; 2 Weeks Ago at 12:57 AM.