I definitely recommend trying better antennas. A stock antenna is more of a compromise at VHF than it is at UHF, so I wouldn't be surprised if a better antenna would at least make VHF do as well as UHF (if you repeated otherwise the same test), if not totally flip your results.
Very interesting. Here in the U.K., the group I'm involved with have used VHF for years as we primarily operate in open country, albeit often with trees and uneven ground. We also have UHF handsets for closer work but don't usually try to run them over any distance. A while back, we had a slight mishap with our VHF antenna at event control part-way through and had to improvise. We stuck a UHF magnetic antenna on a steel frame camping chair and were surprised to find that on that day at least, communications showed a big improvement!
Dual band testing won't get to the heart of the issue. Having antennas ideally matched to your operating frequency in each band is vastly more important than operating from the same radio.
Another thing to consider when doing testing like this is antenna choice, you chose the OEM antennas which I think is useful to compare radios themselves in a useful manner but not to much to compare the frequency bands themselves. As you decrease in frequency like you mentioned your wavelength increases which means your antenna length also has to increase to stay efficient. HT antennas often aren’t long enough to get a fully efficient antenna at vhf because they need to also balance physical size. If you were to use for example 1/4 wave antennas on both radio bands you may see closer results between the 2 but like the manufactures have to do, as a radio user antenna size can be an important consideration when it comes to actual usage.
Awesome comment, absolutely, and if you heard at the conclusion of the last video when I mentioned we were going to get into some antenna stuff, this is exactly what I was referring to. Looking forward to doing it, should be interesting to see what happens.
@@thomthumbe but again, only if feasible… I can tell you, first hand experience, (wildfire medic) they have only ever given me radios with the standard BK antenna attached and to carry it in a chest rig without being cumbersome, it has to be within a reasonable length. A lot of the firefighters have their antenna in their pack so it allows for a longer antenna without getting in their way.
UHF is better for urban traffic. I have uhf repeater that covers well into buildings that VHF won’t BUT vhf is better over long haul unobstructed. If you look a lot of the old state troopers who had huge territory would use VHF low band in the 30-50 MHz bands. Those low band radios would cover a whole county with a big while and 100 watt RF deck. That’s why 6 meters is great for long coverage in rural areas.
You are right sir. Some low VHF (30/50) retransmiters with 120W (GE, MOTOROLA, KENWOOD, etc.) would do 300/600km radius no problem. And you could put an UHF transposer (4/5W) that would keep you in touch inside a house when getting out of the Jeep....
This was such a good video. I already chose to use UHF for my commercial purposes but I always wondered what it would be like to use VHF in urban conditions and this was just shocking to me! Glad to see I made a good choice with UHF (even though I already knew from hearing people talk about this very problem lol)
Appreciate the comment! Yea, we always hear lots of talk and discussion about different radio topics, so our “comms checks” look to actually record these topics in practice.
I would like to see a test of UHF channel spacing of 12.5 kHz channel spacing versus 25 kHz channel spacing with my own testing I noticed 25 kHz channel spacing was considerably better.
You are right, sir. 25 khz wide channel way better than 12.5 kHz one. And more stable with less expensive radios. DMR will have an horrible sound (won't recognize the other guys voice, for security, wich is dangerous) and will fail on fast physical movement in field operations.
@@joshwells4280 No. Only on trunking mode where the TBS remotly controls the portable's power output. Direct (simplex) mode will transmit on full power and the battery will die fast...
I like to use external speaker mics. It helps to hold the radio away from the body and also you can hold the radio up higher above your head for more range.
Be carefull. Some external speaker/mics will reduce the range for several rasons. Test with a RF field meter first, before going outside. Than you use that trick of holding the raduo uphigh and get the better range. Another trick (only on analog): Quicly stear the physical position of the radio until you get the best signal to noise ratio. Then stop right there and din't move an inch: the results will be best on both sides (teach the other guys to do the same at their end and sometimes it will be a 100% increase)
You may sometimes find that the antenna on a handheld radio is optimised for when it's held closer to the user's body...I have certainly found that on my FT-817nd, which has an inbuilt SWR display, the included 6m/ 2m/70cm antenna is a better match when it's held close, though the trade-off may be more loss through absorption of the transmitted signal by that body...
Generally speaking with the about the same watts, in suburbs, I got the best range on 70cm, second best on 2m, and third on 11m CB. The CB was on AM when the other two were FM. And the CB antenna situation was a bit more compromised.
As a radio Tech I can tell the antenna on the ht1000 isnt stock. Thats a aftermarket antenna. Also I can tell the APX audio setting need to be adjusted. Also when were any of these radios properly tuned on a service monitor? APX radios needed to be tuned at least once a year they are known for drifting out of tune. Good test. Curious what you were equipment you were using to receive?
Depends on the area. Without trees in the Mojave Desert, my PNI Escort CB runs circles around my Yaesu on either MURS or GMRS. This is even more true in hills and mountains.
No doubt, terrain and topography will always play incredible roles in performance! This area of dense foliage and moderate hills would be classified as some general harder terrain, so I think for the majority of the US…. They could base a lot of their comms plans off of this testing….. more to come in the future for sure!
With CB a you have two advantages. First the lower frequency is going to get you further with less free space path loss. Plus with a CB you are running mobile with a much better antenna than a HT. The other real difference is you are run AM on your CB vs FM on the VHF and UHF radios. FM suffers from the “capture effect” where it will be nothing but noise then suddenly the signal is strong enough to “capture” the receiver. AM which is also used by aviation doesn’t have that. You will be able to hear someone deeper in the static with a weaker single. So all radios are tools and it all depends on the applications.
@@BVN-TEXAS No. CB will do better on FM (now legal in USA). CB will outperform everything on SSB (USB or LSB) in the field. Capture is the ability to descriminate betweeen two signals on FM and the 6dB stronger is enough to obliterate to weaker one so you only get one (AM will produce a "beat" high pitch annoying sound when more then one station is present on the air at the same time. From top perfomance to bottom: SSB (wich is a "special kind of AM") FM (mid better then narrow) AM ("ANL on" better in normal circunstances and longer reception with ANL off in RF quiet areas (no static, etc.) 55 + years of tactical HF, VHF low, VHF mid, VHF hi, UHF and SHF comms (Red Cross, Mil, Anti terror SAS type SpecOps, Fireman, Caves, Air, Sea)
What was the receiver? What sort of antenna was it using? Also when were these radios last aligned? The HT1000 has been end of life for like two decades or more. I also believe they can’t be narrow banded, which probably contributed to your troubles.
The radios were all aligned last year (it’s nice having radio techs as friends) and to your point, an identical radio is used as the receiver, so what you were wanting is exactly what we did
I appreciate the test, but it would be better if you used the same antennas on all the radios to rule out the differences amongst the stock antennas. For example: all Nagoa’s or whatever brand you’d like to use. Not sure if it possible or not but just a thought.
It’s definitely possible and we are going to do some antenna specific testing in the future…. This was just to test what the manufactures basically are coming out with saying this is THE antenna that belongs on their radio
Hey Justin… that is the garmin 801. 901s are worth the money if you would have a need for the ballistics calc. I am not a sniper so I do not, Rich, one of other members of RANT is, and he has the 701 because that also has the ballistic calc as a feature.
@RANTStrategies I just purchased the 801 that's the one I ment I was looking at I forgot that they do the two different naming schemes one for ballistics and one for non. I don't need the Ballistics Calc so that'll save me a few dollars there!
awesome! Can’t go wrong, best advice I can give with it is to use the crap out of it. They can do so much but I feel like a lot of people get them and only use them for about 10% of what they can do
Im guessing where you recorded that incoming audio is why ur radios are failing, its a bad test. You would need to record it outside your home base for the VHF to receive. Its probably sending the signal all the way back to your house then your house wall or roof is stopping it from receiving? The UHF frequency recorded fine so the VHF shouldve too if not better, the UHF burst through your wall and into your recording studio where the VHF probably hit your house and stopped? Im guessing you didnt record the incoming audio outside??
Excellent comment! This is what this supposed to be all about. So the receiver is in a garage... so wood frame construction on the house, with the garage door open, which more of less faces the direction of the test range... but not completely, there is definitely some wall coming into play there. With that said, and this is truly based on your comment here... stand by, we are going to redo this test, with the receiver placed outside and see how well the VHF gets through the foliage is that really was where the issue lies. As I had said, I was shocked, you would think with that APX and the size of the antenna, that it would have done a better job. We shall see.
@@RANTStrategies yeah man, and send and recieve both ways need to record both ends. I have a 300 watt fm transmitter that Ive done bounce back licences to a tower, you can double up the antenna and throw twice as much power. I bet you a million bucks you can get those units to work. Ur starting at the wrong end, Id be starting fliming at the base and then work a fix to broadcast to the bush and work on ur receiving antennas then work on the bush antennas, climb a tree if you have too..
Yes, I’d be interested in seeing the results with the receiving radio outside as well. This video demonstrates that you could have “mixed use” scenarios, for example, a hunter in the woods calling a guy who’s back inside at camp. We use GMRS/FRS at our hunting camp (very large acreage) and I have often wondered if we’d get better range with VHF. Our distances between hunters are around the same as your testing, .5 to 1 mile. Most of the time both hunters will be in the woods but this adds a new wrinkle when one person enters a structure. Great video, keep up the good work!
UHF doesn’t penetrate concrete better than VHF. It just passes through window frames better due to its smaller wavelength with respect to the size of the frame and also bounces off walls better.
In other comments, I saw that you wanted to test stock, from the factory. With that in mind, I was still a little surprised at how limited those units were. No idea what your terrain was like, aside from a healthy amount of trees covering it. Just for context, I run a lot of comms support for events, both urban and non-urban. Repeaters and simplex. Variety of terrains and conditions. Multiple licenses. I'm not an electrical engineer, but plenty of hands on and something of a "radio guy." First instinctive reaction? Now that you tested stock, burn those rubber duckies and slap a signal stick antenna on every one of those radios. Test all of those radios against a cheap Baofeng with a 19 inch signal stick and you may be surprised. Put that same signal stick on any of those radios and you will get about as much as you are going to get out of any of them, short of tossing a roll-up j-pole up in a tree.
Hey Matt, appreciate the info! Thank you! We are definitely going to do some antenna testing, it needs to be done. As far as the terrain goes, check out the latest video….. that was a common piece of info people were wanting to see, so we added that in part 2.
The APX audio was definitely low, but it’s not the radio, when setting everything up to do the test, when the radios were close, every one of them had loud, clear audio…. I think the results just had everything to do with the distance and terrain.
Hey in the XPR vs 7550 video….we put P25 up against DMR! Is that what you were referring to? ruclips.net/video/JJZ-9B4uVbo/видео.htmlsi=lHccRFi6k8ikN0uU
@@RANTStrategies Hey sorry, i shouldve been more specific. I meant same test (vhf vs uhf), but in addition you test analog and p25. P25 should reduce a significant amount of the noise in vhf.
Oh it absolutely would! Issue is with the amount of noise and lack of signal I’m guessing it won’t be able to clean it up and will just have no signal at all…. But it’s definitely something we can test out!
@@RANTStrategies I would definitely suggest giving it a try! I think you might be surprised how much of a difference it can make. Based on testing ive done, anytime analog was struggling, p25 was still crystal clear, to a certain range. The nice thing about p25 is the error correction, which means that even if the signal is weak or degraded it can still decode the full audio packet.
I seelike me, youhave a motorola addiction! Lol. Would you try 1 analog, 1 dmr, 1 p25 on both bands. Motorola only. Anwyway, going to part 2. Thanks Glenn
Hey Glenn! 😂 Is the addiction that obvious? first step is admitting you have a problem ✅. Check out the xts vs xpr video for some DMR vs. P25!!!! ruclips.net/video/JJZ-9B4uVbo/видео.htmlsi=upE8YgqUr-9qU_Xn
After using most of the band spectrum for both urban and rural settings, conventional seems to work poorly at range without signal amplification. Wide Area Trunked Networks have the best overall function in a variety of settings and also offer digital audio better for both DMR and P25. Id have to say Conventional Simplex operations do seem to work better in the higher frequencies for both urban and rural settings (both UHF and 7/8)
@@abgcapital4597P25 Conventional unfortunately doesn’t improve range, most of the time where you’d get static at the edge of a conventional range with useable audio, the P25 voice modulation will come across garbled and illegible. DMR Conventional does the same thing. Range for simplex is everything, use the right tool for the right job.
@@abgcapital4597 On the move, the signal will not stabilize and will break all the time. Standing steal depends on the radio (newer radios will beat analog with better sensitivity and internal signal processing, but older units ate terrible....
Are these radio's transmitting at .5 watt's or are they set and able to transmit with more power...? It might be a good idea to try a roll up antenna tossed up into the trees at 20 ft if that would be possible, just to see the gain in distance from the stock antenna.
Hey Mark, they are transmitting on 5 watts, strictly just OEM comparisons being done. As far as the roll up antenna, absolutely that would work, what we wanted to conduct with these series of tests was strictly how they perform from the factory (you would think the higher tier radios would be set up very well) and simply test the capability of the bands….. this is going to build into some off shoots we are planning for future videos. Appreciate the comment!
Six Meter at 50Mhz is also VHF and can get some amazing distances. Everyone forgets about 6 meter which also has FM repeaters available, allows for sideband and AM. Yaesu made a 6 meter handheld once upon a time. The old PRC-77's military radios also operated around 50 Mhz. Just food for thought.
That is a potential option….but to your point, those HTs were made once upon a time. The goal of this testing for for preparedness / emergency comms that could be readily utilized.
50 MHz SSB manpacks (Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, etc.) with long antennas and LiOn battery packs will do the best range on VHF. But not as pratical as handportable units. If you are only into hand portables, go to 25W VHF hi units with long antennas and several high capacity battery packs
Thanks for the content. It is valuable, BUT... in terms of performance, its not the radio model that matters, and using stock antennas doesn't mean you have a fair comparison. You don't need a dual band to make this test better. What is really important is that you have matched the antenna with the frequency in use. These rubber ducks, in spite of being stock, are rarely good, but even worse, they are probably very unequal in how well tuned they are to the particular frequencies used in your test. You can’t properly isolate for comparison until you have removed the most impactful variables. All this test showed is that with your particular operating frequencies, antennas, and radios and terrain, your UHF kit was better. But it didn't show me that UHF is better on that terrain. That's an improper conclusion until you remove the antenna tuning variable.
@@RANTStrategies Great, u need a software to configure the device from anytone and maybe you need a configuration setup for full band access. It has a CTS scanner to scan for CTS signals, man down alert, real dmr crypto, 500.000 dmr contacts, dmr full monitor for ts1 and ts2. In my opinion it's currently one of the very best radios, but you really need to take some time for learning curve. With aprs everyone in your team knows your position. There is 878 model 1 old and 878 uv2 the new model dont buy the old version just in case.
I own a 878 myself (first Gen). But this has nothing to do with range test much, because the video is about VHF analog vs UHF analog. The 878 might have 2W more power on Turbo mode, but that's hardly a big distance difference there. Almost all the features you mentioned are not for analog.
I have one. It's a huge disappointment on analog--the radio is more "deaf" to weak analog signals than some $40 Chinese radios. I've yet to find any digital portable radios that perform well on analog and digital other than single-band UHF or VHF commercial portable radios.
UHF bounces better off objects and goes thru windows with less loss, foliage not so good. The natural noise is much higher on VHF, requiring more power and is more of a mobile service. FM CB has possibilities for hilly forest areas if you don't mind big antennas.
This is all true^^^^ The we just approach these tests and topics with a being operational mindset and there are always going to advantages and disadvantages to everything, with this test it was starting to explore, are the tradeoffs of trying to walk around with longer VHF antenna really worth it if UHF can equally perform out out perform it when it comes to HTs.
UHF reflects off of anything worse than aluminum foil like metal screen mesh if any gap in that mesh is more than half the wavelength of the signal. hence 5G signal promotion to get signals thru metal fences etc
Generally speaking the higher the frequency the more it gets absorbed instead of reflected from objects. So not true that UHF bounces off better than VHF.
Gotta say I'm a little disappointed with the results of VHF. It consistently sounded way worse and basically had the same range as UHF. I'm a paramedic for a rural agency and we use a VHF analog network. I lose the ability to transmit almost any time I enter a building, and audio quality just gets destroyed when receiving. I wonder how UHF would perform out here
UHF is for going through buildings not vhf, vhf is good for bush as it blasts through trees, I think something was up with his terrain or recording setup. If he didnt have a line of sight or not a long enough antenna or power boost or a repeater. I think with some hacking and better antennas he could get them all working, really depends on the hills too..
As an EMT in a county that done away with our “legacy” system (analog VHF). It’s terrible. I would much rather have to listen to the static and determine what you said vs it being a transformed garbled mess that you can’t make anything out of.
@@andrewdaniel7873 Interesting. What did you guys swap over to? From my experience, digital definitely takes getting used to, I had to tune my ear to really understand it, but I've never had problems with a digital network like that.
Ive heard multiple people claim they got better signal using uhf in thick brush and your results seem to lean that way as well. Makes me glad that I picked UHF for my motorolas
I would definitely say that is the case here, we are definitely moto fans…….. which radio did you get!?!? What features did you get in it? BT, FPP……???
@RANTStrategies I got a used xpr6550 and a xpr6350 along with some ham radios. I dont remember off the top of my head what features they have on them unfortunately. I really wanted to go for the xts5000 with fpp and aes256 but I decided to go dmr as I thought it would be much easier for my range buddies to acquire compatible gear. Now that I have these motorolas, I can definitely see myself saving up for an apx model or kenwood of some sort down the line.
nice! Let’s be honest, pretty much anything you get from moto is going to be a quality build. We have xpr5550s in our vehicles and utilize the 7550s for certain things. The 6550 is definitely solid and does messing as well as encryption, I don’t think you can go wrong there. Best advice learn how to utilize all its features and take full advantage of them.
@RANTStrategies absolutely. I've been messing around with a btech 6x2 radio for about a year or two now and I've grown very fond of dmr and it's capabilities. I live in a semirural-rural area and all government communication is in dmr except for the game wardens and state troopers. I figured if it worked well for them then I'm probably not losing too much in comparison to p25. I actually ran into a park ranger the other day using an xpr6550 as well and I thought that was pretty neat.
seems like a faulty test to me, the VHF would normally blast through trees but not buildings, something else is going on with his test. Im guessing he recorded the audio inside his house, instead of outside where the VHF would be at its highest strength.
I definitely recommend trying better antennas. A stock antenna is more of a compromise at VHF than it is at UHF, so I wouldn't be surprised if a better antenna would at least make VHF do as well as UHF (if you repeated otherwise the same test), if not totally flip your results.
Very interesting. Here in the U.K., the group I'm involved with have used VHF for years as we primarily operate in open country, albeit often with trees and uneven ground. We also have UHF handsets for closer work but don't usually try to run them over any distance. A while back, we had a slight mishap with our VHF antenna at event control part-way through and had to improvise. We stuck a UHF magnetic antenna on a steel frame camping chair and were surprised to find that on that day at least, communications showed a big improvement!
Very interesting!!! We are finding they to be the base more often than not
Would like to see a VHF / UHF test using the same radio (dual band radio) and same antennas
I like it…. It’s on the schedule ✔️
Dual band testing won't get to the heart of the issue. Having antennas ideally matched to your operating frequency in each band is vastly more important than operating from the same radio.
Another thing to consider when doing testing like this is antenna choice, you chose the OEM antennas which I think is useful to compare radios themselves in a useful manner but not to much to compare the frequency bands themselves. As you decrease in frequency like you mentioned your wavelength increases which means your antenna length also has to increase to stay efficient. HT antennas often aren’t long enough to get a fully efficient antenna at vhf because they need to also balance physical size. If you were to use for example 1/4 wave antennas on both radio bands you may see closer results between the 2 but like the manufactures have to do, as a radio user antenna size can be an important consideration when it comes to actual usage.
Awesome comment, absolutely, and if you heard at the conclusion of the last video when I mentioned we were going to get into some antenna stuff, this is exactly what I was referring to. Looking forward to doing it, should be interesting to see what happens.
You hit it right in the nail! Well said. Antenna is the key and a helical antenna for VHF is a shortened, compromised antenna for VHF.
Which is why you see Forrest fire fighters with much longer antenna on their HT’s.
@@thomthumbe but again, only if feasible… I can tell you, first hand experience, (wildfire medic) they have only ever given me radios with the standard BK antenna attached and to carry it in a chest rig without being cumbersome, it has to be within a reasonable length. A lot of the firefighters have their antenna in their pack so it allows for a longer antenna without getting in their way.
UHF is better for urban traffic. I have uhf repeater that covers well into buildings that VHF won’t BUT vhf is better over long haul unobstructed.
If you look a lot of the old state troopers who had huge territory would use VHF low band in the 30-50 MHz bands.
Those low band radios would cover a whole county with a big while and 100 watt RF deck.
That’s why 6 meters is great for long coverage in rural areas.
Yes, wish more people understood this, and NVIS HF Comms.
You are right sir.
Some low VHF (30/50) retransmiters with 120W (GE, MOTOROLA, KENWOOD, etc.) would do 300/600km radius no problem. And you could put an UHF transposer (4/5W) that would keep you in touch inside a house when getting out of the Jeep....
This was such a good video. I already chose to use UHF for my commercial purposes but I always wondered what it would be like to use VHF in urban conditions and this was just shocking to me! Glad to see I made a good choice with UHF (even though I already knew from hearing people talk about this very problem lol)
Appreciate the comment! Yea, we always hear lots of talk and discussion about different radio topics, so our “comms checks” look to actually record these topics in practice.
I would like to see a test of UHF channel spacing of 12.5 kHz channel spacing versus 25 kHz channel spacing with my own testing I noticed 25 kHz channel spacing was considerably better.
Verrrryyyyyyy interesting 🤔
I would like to see a narrowband comparison as well. Also dmr
You are right, sir.
25 khz wide channel way better than 12.5 kHz one.
And more stable with less expensive radios.
DMR will have an horrible sound (won't recognize the other guys voice, for security, wich is dangerous) and will fail on fast physical movement in field operations.
@@jplacido9999 you do get more distance and less power demands though
@@joshwells4280
No.
Only on trunking mode where the TBS remotly controls the portable's power output.
Direct (simplex) mode will transmit on full power and the battery will die fast...
Dude I've been trying to find a test video like this for a year!
Lots planned and more to come in the future!
Rant I’d like to see a test with Nagoya antenna vs the stock antenna. From my testing it was dramatic!
We are gathering a number of antennas up, for this exact thing! Testing to come!
I like to use external speaker mics. It helps to hold the radio away from the body and also you can hold the radio up higher above your head for more range.
Yes… very true…. speaker mics are going to be coming into play here on an upcoming video, stay tuned!
Be carefull.
Some external speaker/mics will reduce the range for several rasons.
Test with a RF field meter first, before going outside.
Than you use that trick of holding the raduo uphigh and get the better range.
Another trick (only on analog):
Quicly stear the physical position of the radio until you get the best signal to noise ratio. Then stop right there and din't move an inch: the results will be best on both sides (teach the other guys to do the same at their end and sometimes it will be a 100% increase)
The speaker mic might act as a counterpoise.
I found one helped when using 6 meters.
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 Yes they do but more so on lower frequencies
You may sometimes find that the antenna on a handheld radio is optimised for when it's held closer to the user's body...I have certainly found that on my FT-817nd, which has an inbuilt SWR display, the included 6m/ 2m/70cm antenna is a better match when it's held close, though the trade-off may be more loss through absorption of the transmitted signal by that body...
Generally speaking with the about the same watts, in suburbs, I got the best range on 70cm, second best on 2m, and third on 11m CB.
The CB was on AM when the other two were FM.
And the CB antenna situation was a bit more compromised.
As a radio Tech I can tell the antenna on the ht1000 isnt stock. Thats a aftermarket antenna. Also I can tell the APX audio setting need to be adjusted. Also when were any of these radios properly tuned on a service monitor? APX radios needed to be tuned at least once a year they are known for drifting out of tune. Good test. Curious what you were equipment you were using to receive?
Depends on the area. Without trees in the Mojave Desert, my PNI Escort CB runs circles around my Yaesu on either MURS or GMRS.
This is even more true in hills and mountains.
No doubt, terrain and topography will always play incredible roles in performance! This area of dense foliage and moderate hills would be classified as some general harder terrain, so I think for the majority of the US…. They could base a lot of their comms plans off of this testing….. more to come in the future for sure!
With CB a you have two advantages. First the lower frequency is going to get you further with less free space path loss. Plus with a CB you are running mobile with a much better antenna than a HT.
The other real difference is you are run AM on your CB vs FM on the VHF and UHF radios.
FM suffers from the “capture effect” where it will be nothing but noise then suddenly the signal is strong enough to “capture” the receiver.
AM which is also used by aviation doesn’t have that. You will be able to hear someone deeper in the static with a weaker single.
So all radios are tools and it all depends on the applications.
@@BVN-TEXAS
No.
CB will do better on FM (now legal in USA).
CB will outperform everything on SSB (USB or LSB) in the field.
Capture is the ability to descriminate betweeen two signals on FM and the 6dB stronger is enough to obliterate to weaker one so you only get one (AM will produce a "beat" high pitch annoying sound when more then one station is present on the air at the same time.
From top perfomance to bottom:
SSB (wich is a "special kind of AM")
FM (mid better then narrow)
AM ("ANL on" better in normal circunstances and longer reception with ANL off in RF quiet areas (no static, etc.)
55 + years of tactical HF, VHF low, VHF mid, VHF hi, UHF and SHF comms (Red Cross, Mil, Anti terror SAS type SpecOps, Fireman, Caves, Air, Sea)
That's some very heavy foliage if you didn't even hit a mile. Were there any dips or height changes in the terrain?
Hey Jakob, not really, check out part two, I included a terrain map where all this is done.
@@RANTStrategies Yeah, my bad. I spotted your part 2 like a minute after making this comment. Viewed, pretty cool!
What was the receiver? What sort of antenna was it using?
Also when were these radios last aligned? The HT1000 has been end of life for like two decades or more. I also believe they can’t be narrow banded, which probably contributed to your troubles.
The whole purpose behind these tests is to stick strictly HT to HT comms. The receiver is affixed to a matching HT with an OEM antenna
@@RANTStrategies that makes sense, but it would be interesting to compare like radio to like radio for the best comparison of sensitivity etc.
The radios were all aligned last year (it’s nice having radio techs as friends) and to your point, an identical radio is used as the receiver, so what you were wanting is exactly what we did
I appreciate the test, but it would be better if you used the same antennas on all the radios to rule out the differences amongst the stock antennas.
For example: all Nagoa’s or whatever brand you’d like to use.
Not sure if it possible or not but just a thought.
It’s definitely possible and we are going to do some antenna specific testing in the future…. This was just to test what the manufactures basically are coming out with saying this is THE antenna that belongs on their radio
Unless I missed it, did u not test 2m and 70cm on each radio at each distance?
The motors, minus the APX only do one band each
What gps do you use? I was looking at the the garmin 901
Hey Justin… that is the garmin 801. 901s are worth the money if you would have a need for the ballistics calc. I am not a sniper so I do not, Rich, one of other members of RANT is, and he has the 701 because that also has the ballistic calc as a feature.
@RANTStrategies I just purchased the 801 that's the one I ment I was looking at I forgot that they do the two different naming schemes one for ballistics and one for non. I don't need the Ballistics Calc so that'll save me a few dollars there!
awesome! Can’t go wrong, best advice I can give with it is to use the crap out of it. They can do so much but I feel like a lot of people get them and only use them for about 10% of what they can do
Im guessing where you recorded that incoming audio is why ur radios are failing, its a bad test. You would need to record it outside your home base for the VHF to receive. Its probably sending the signal all the way back to your house then your house wall or roof is stopping it from receiving? The UHF frequency recorded fine so the VHF shouldve too if not better, the UHF burst through your wall and into your recording studio where the VHF probably hit your house and stopped? Im guessing you didnt record the incoming audio outside??
Excellent comment! This is what this supposed to be all about. So the receiver is in a garage... so wood frame construction on the house, with the garage door open, which more of less faces the direction of the test range... but not completely, there is definitely some wall coming into play there. With that said, and this is truly based on your comment here... stand by, we are going to redo this test, with the receiver placed outside and see how well the VHF gets through the foliage is that really was where the issue lies. As I had said, I was shocked, you would think with that APX and the size of the antenna, that it would have done a better job. We shall see.
@@RANTStrategies yeah man, and send and recieve both ways need to record both ends. I have a 300 watt fm transmitter that Ive done bounce back licences to a tower, you can double up the antenna and throw twice as much power. I bet you a million bucks you can get those units to work. Ur starting at the wrong end, Id be starting fliming at the base and then work a fix to broadcast to the bush and work on ur receiving antennas then work on the bush antennas, climb a tree if you have too..
Yes, I’d be interested in seeing the results with the receiving radio outside as well. This video demonstrates that you could have “mixed use” scenarios, for example, a hunter in the woods calling a guy who’s back inside at camp. We use GMRS/FRS at our hunting camp (very large acreage) and I have often wondered if we’d get better range with VHF. Our distances between hunters are around the same as your testing, .5 to 1 mile. Most of the time both hunters will be in the woods but this adds a new wrinkle when one person enters a structure. Great video, keep up the good work!
UHF doesn’t penetrate concrete better than VHF. It just passes through window frames better due to its smaller wavelength with respect to the size of the frame and also bounces off walls better.
You've beatten me on that comnentary. No breaches (small vents , etc.) no comms....
Try at big Malls and you'll that immediatly....👍👍👍
In other comments, I saw that you wanted to test stock, from the factory. With that in mind, I was still a little surprised at how limited those units were. No idea what your terrain was like, aside from a healthy amount of trees covering it. Just for context, I run a lot of comms support for events, both urban and non-urban. Repeaters and simplex. Variety of terrains and conditions. Multiple licenses. I'm not an electrical engineer, but plenty of hands on and something of a "radio guy." First instinctive reaction? Now that you tested stock, burn those rubber duckies and slap a signal stick antenna on every one of those radios. Test all of those radios against a cheap Baofeng with a 19 inch signal stick and you may be surprised. Put that same signal stick on any of those radios and you will get about as much as you are going to get out of any of them, short of tossing a roll-up j-pole up in a tree.
Hey Matt, appreciate the info! Thank you! We are definitely going to do some antenna testing, it needs to be done. As far as the terrain goes, check out the latest video….. that was a common piece of info people were wanting to see, so we added that in part 2.
Nice to see the HT1000. Was it just me or is your APX audio a little low ? My APX audio seems to be higher
The APX audio was definitely low, but it’s not the radio, when setting everything up to do the test, when the radios were close, every one of them had loud, clear audio…. I think the results just had everything to do with the distance and terrain.
Will you also be testing digital (p25) in the updated test?
Hey in the XPR vs 7550 video….we put P25 up against DMR! Is that what you were referring to?
ruclips.net/video/JJZ-9B4uVbo/видео.htmlsi=lHccRFi6k8ikN0uU
@@RANTStrategies Hey sorry, i shouldve been more specific. I meant same test (vhf vs uhf), but in addition you test analog and p25. P25 should reduce a significant amount of the noise in vhf.
Oh it absolutely would! Issue is with the amount of noise and lack of signal I’m guessing it won’t be able to clean it up and will just have no signal at all…. But it’s definitely something we can test out!
@@RANTStrategies I would definitely suggest giving it a try! I think you might be surprised how much of a difference it can make. Based on testing ive done, anytime analog was struggling, p25 was still crystal clear, to a certain range. The nice thing about p25 is the error correction, which means that even if the signal is weak or degraded it can still decode the full audio packet.
@@Googleplex2010 now I’m curious, that’s happening for sure! Thank you
I seelike me, youhave a motorola addiction! Lol. Would you try 1 analog, 1 dmr, 1 p25 on both bands. Motorola only. Anwyway, going to part 2. Thanks
Glenn
Hey Glenn! 😂 Is the addiction that obvious? first step is admitting you have a problem ✅. Check out the xts vs xpr video for some DMR vs. P25!!!! ruclips.net/video/JJZ-9B4uVbo/видео.htmlsi=upE8YgqUr-9qU_Xn
After using most of the band spectrum for both urban and rural settings, conventional seems to work poorly at range without signal amplification. Wide Area Trunked Networks have the best overall function in a variety of settings and also offer digital audio better for both DMR and P25. Id have to say Conventional Simplex operations do seem to work better in the higher frequencies for both urban and rural settings (both UHF and 7/8)
Completely agree, absolutely!
Do you think if he used the radios in digital p25 that he would have had better coverage ?
@@abgcapital4597P25 Conventional unfortunately doesn’t improve range, most of the time where you’d get static at the edge of a conventional range with useable audio, the P25 voice modulation will come across garbled and illegible. DMR Conventional does the same thing. Range for simplex is everything, use the right tool for the right job.
@@abgcapital4597
On the move, the signal will not stabilize and will break all the time.
Standing steal depends on the radio (newer radios will beat analog with better sensitivity and internal signal processing, but older units ate terrible....
Trunking will fail on SHTF .
Only simplex (and simplex repeaters) will do...
Are these radio's transmitting at .5 watt's or are they set and able to transmit with more power...?
It might be a good idea to try a roll up antenna tossed up into the trees at 20 ft if that would be possible, just to see the gain in distance from the stock antenna.
Hey Mark, they are transmitting on 5 watts, strictly just OEM comparisons being done. As far as the roll up antenna, absolutely that would work, what we wanted to conduct with these series of tests was strictly how they perform from the factory (you would think the higher tier radios would be set up very well) and simply test the capability of the bands….. this is going to build into some off shoots we are planning for future videos. Appreciate the comment!
Wish you would have thrown in some uhf digital
all have the same wattage?
Per what they are spec’d to, yes
Six Meter at 50Mhz is also VHF and can get some amazing distances. Everyone forgets about 6 meter which also has FM repeaters available, allows for sideband and AM. Yaesu made a 6 meter handheld once upon a time. The old PRC-77's military radios also operated around 50 Mhz. Just food for thought.
That is a potential option….but to your point, those HTs were made once upon a time. The goal of this testing for for preparedness / emergency comms that could be readily utilized.
Wouxun has current models that cover 6m in an HT form factor.
@@nine7295
You are right, and they are very sensitive...
Use with long antennas only
50 MHz SSB manpacks (Kenwood, Icom, Yaesu, etc.) with long antennas and LiOn battery packs will do the best range on VHF.
But not as pratical as handportable units.
If you are only into hand portables, go to 25W VHF hi units with long antennas and several high capacity battery packs
Where are you located? CB or HF band will work fine though that on AM mode & possibly FM mode if frequency is clear.
VHF works better when there is no obstruction in the way hence the reason marine and aircraft use VHF
You are 💯 right and we are going to test that on the water! Welcome to the channel
Build a jungle antenna and fix the problem.
Thanks for the content. It is valuable, BUT... in terms of performance, its not the radio model that matters, and using stock antennas doesn't mean you have a fair comparison. You don't need a dual band to make this test better. What is really important is that you have matched the antenna with the frequency in use. These rubber ducks, in spite of being stock, are rarely good, but even worse, they are probably very unequal in how well tuned they are to the particular frequencies used in your test. You can’t properly isolate for comparison until you have removed the most impactful variables. All this test showed is that with your particular operating frequencies, antennas, and radios and terrain, your UHF kit was better. But it didn't show me that UHF is better on that terrain. That's an improper conclusion until you remove the antenna tuning variable.
Valid point… we are certainly going to revisit these things and see what results we get! Welcome to the channel
Have u tried the Anytone 878 UV2 radio? It has GPS, APRS, analog, digital and much more... but you need some knowledge to configure/setup this radio.
I haven’t yet…. But have one on the way because it appears to be very popular and we’re going to put that up to some tests and see how it does!
@@RANTStrategies Great, u need a software to configure the device from anytone and maybe you need a configuration setup for full band access. It has a CTS scanner to scan for CTS signals, man down alert, real dmr crypto, 500.000 dmr contacts, dmr full monitor for ts1 and ts2. In my opinion it's currently one of the very best radios, but you really need to take some time for learning curve. With aprs everyone in your team knows your position. There is 878 model 1 old and 878 uv2 the new model dont buy the old version just in case.
I own a 878 myself (first Gen). But this has nothing to do with range test much, because the video is about VHF analog vs UHF analog. The 878 might have 2W more power on Turbo mode, but that's hardly a big distance difference there.
Almost all the features you mentioned are not for analog.
I have one. It's a huge disappointment on analog--the radio is more "deaf" to weak analog signals than some $40 Chinese radios. I've yet to find any digital portable radios that perform well on analog and digital other than single-band UHF or VHF commercial portable radios.
Were these radios tuned and aligned before the test?
They were within the last 9 months
being a general you know that vhf will typically go farther than UHF . based off simple radio theory
It's going to vary on green trees...... uhf is more urban environment where vhf works better in jungle
When you said "top tier" wouldn't the APX 8000 "tops" the APX 7000?
It’s still the APX series…… same radio just on the 7000 you have to pick whether you want vhf or uhf…. .still a top tier radio though
VHF low band 30 to 88 with the works
Lol a nato military radio sure
UHF bounces better off objects and goes thru windows with less loss, foliage not so good. The natural noise is much higher on VHF, requiring more power and is more of a mobile service. FM CB has possibilities for hilly forest areas if you don't mind big antennas.
This is all true^^^^ The we just approach these tests and topics with a being operational mindset and there are always going to advantages and disadvantages to everything, with this test it was starting to explore, are the tradeoffs of trying to walk around with longer VHF antenna really worth it if UHF can equally perform out out perform it when it comes to HTs.
UHF reflects off of anything worse than aluminum foil like metal screen mesh if any gap in that mesh is more than half the wavelength of the signal. hence 5G signal promotion to get signals thru metal fences etc
Generally speaking the higher the frequency the more it gets absorbed instead of reflected from objects. So not true that UHF bounces off better than VHF.
Gotta say I'm a little disappointed with the results of VHF. It consistently sounded way worse and basically had the same range as UHF. I'm a paramedic for a rural agency and we use a VHF analog network. I lose the ability to transmit almost any time I enter a building, and audio quality just gets destroyed when receiving. I wonder how UHF would perform out here
Completely agree with you! The results were certainly a little shockingly disappointing, but hey, that’s why we wanted to do this.
UHF is for going through buildings not vhf, vhf is good for bush as it blasts through trees, I think something was up with his terrain or recording setup. If he didnt have a line of sight or not a long enough antenna or power boost or a repeater. I think with some hacking and better antennas he could get them all working, really depends on the hills too..
As an EMT in a county that done away with our “legacy” system (analog VHF). It’s terrible. I would much rather have to listen to the static and determine what you said vs it being a transformed garbled mess that you can’t make anything out of.
@@andrewdaniel7873 welcome to the world of public safety and big moto contracts lol. We are on the same page
@@andrewdaniel7873 Interesting. What did you guys swap over to? From my experience, digital definitely takes getting used to, I had to tune my ear to really understand it, but I've never had problems with a digital network like that.
Interesting ... 1/2 mile test on VHF.... and so much white noise... You didnt mention anything about power out and what DB gain the anrannas where?
Meh glad I got my bofeng
Ive heard multiple people claim they got better signal using uhf in thick brush and your results seem to lean that way as well. Makes me glad that I picked UHF for my motorolas
I would definitely say that is the case here, we are definitely moto fans…….. which radio did you get!?!? What features did you get in it? BT, FPP……???
@RANTStrategies I got a used xpr6550 and a xpr6350 along with some ham radios. I dont remember off the top of my head what features they have on them unfortunately. I really wanted to go for the xts5000 with fpp and aes256 but I decided to go dmr as I thought it would be much easier for my range buddies to acquire compatible gear. Now that I have these motorolas, I can definitely see myself saving up for an apx model or kenwood of some sort down the line.
nice! Let’s be honest, pretty much anything you get from moto is going to be a quality build. We have xpr5550s in our vehicles and utilize the 7550s for certain things. The 6550 is definitely solid and does messing as well as encryption, I don’t think you can go wrong there. Best advice learn how to utilize all its features and take full advantage of them.
@RANTStrategies absolutely. I've been messing around with a btech 6x2 radio for about a year or two now and I've grown very fond of dmr and it's capabilities. I live in a semirural-rural area and all government communication is in dmr except for the game wardens and state troopers. I figured if it worked well for them then I'm probably not losing too much in comparison to p25. I actually ran into a park ranger the other day using an xpr6550 as well and I thought that was pretty neat.
seems like a faulty test to me, the VHF would normally blast through trees but not buildings, something else is going on with his test. Im guessing he recorded the audio inside his house, instead of outside where the VHF would be at its highest strength.
WTF are you preparing for? who are u imagining hates you? and when im watching your Paranoid Self with IR, I will never say 'look behind you' Omg lol