Batboard

Has anyone noticed a difference between receive sensitivity on an MTS vs. an XTS? I have an MTS 2000 and an XTS 3000 side-by-side, and the MTS way out-performs the XTS on sensitivity.

Any thoughts?

d_stew wrote:Has anyone noticed a difference between receive sensitivity on an MTS vs. an XTS? I have an MTS 2000 and an XTS 3000 side-by-side, and the MTS way out-performs the XTS on sensitivity.

Any thoughts?

It should not be much, but yes the Jedi RF boards were better than the XTS3000's. I don't know what the specs show/say. BUT it should not be bad enough that you notice it greatly. I would get the XTS re-aligned and then check it.

Jim

There shouldn't be any real noticeable difference between them in properly working radios...the RF boards are nearly identical.

Todd

I'm just expressing my opinion here... but I agree that the MTS is superior... Hands down!

The whole JEDI line can't be beat! It's a shame this line had to be superseded with digital capable crap...

I'll second Terry's observation. I have in my hand a UHF MTS2000 (I got from Terry BTW) circa 1995/96, and an XTS3000 with the latest HOST/DSP. Both radios have seen a service monitor and were checked for proper operation (RX sens, freq error, TX pwr and deviation) on analog, and the MTS2000 is hands down superior. The XTS has less sensitivity, still within it's rating, but the MTS hears a 12db carrier down to .17uV whereas the XTS goes deaf- it's still within it's rated spec- but I guess what I am saying is the MTS performs BETTER than it's published specification. Same is true with other Jedi's I own including an old "AN" revision VHF HT1000 I recently scored from another fellow Batlabber. It hears better than a 2 month old XTS5000 in analog mode.

Very interesting. Thanks for all the replies. I was considering trading my MTS2000 model 3 in for a digi-capable radio. I think now I need to keep the MTS and get an XTS as well.

d_stew wrote:Very interesting. Thanks for all the replies. I was considering trading my MTS2000 model 3 in for a digi-capable radio. I think now I need to keep the MTS and get an XTS as well.

The Astro Saber RF board is almost the same as the Jedi. Due to size I don't carry one often, but when I do they work very well. I now carry a 5K most of the time, and it is an improvement over the 3K in many ways including RF performance, But my Kenwood TK2180 still hears better. Keep your Jedi, the trade in value has gone way down anyway. But still get that nice shinny XTS3000, or some other P25 unit!!


Jim

Now, I'm not trying to downplay the Jedi's by any means. (I'm proud to hear they are performing so well) However I do want to say that it sounds as if you have an exceptional unit there. I'm not used to seeing the UHF jedi's operating quite that well. As a whole from Mot's point of view any operation below the spec vlue of .38 is just icing on the cake when dealing with the Jedi series as a whole. However I do know that the spec value for the XTS5k is a bit lower but it's tested differently since it's a digital first analog second. I'm not sure if the 3k model is like that or not.

I've personally seen MTS boards range from 12db right at .38 to 12db somewhere around .2 so there does tend to be a big swing there. Visar being no different also see that large swing. Which I suppose would explain why some customer will swear by the MTS forever while others are more than happy to see it go.

MTS2000des wrote:I'll second Terry's observation. I have in my hand a UHF MTS2000 (I got from Terry BTW) circa 1995/96, and an XTS3000 with the latest HOST/DSP. Both radios have seen a service monitor and were checked for proper operation (RX sens, freq error, TX pwr and deviation) on analog, and the MTS2000 is hands down superior.

Thank you kindly Erik. That "R" model you got from me was the pride of my /\/\ collection. The VHF model I got from you in trade is a daily worker now. It works 5 and 6 days a week. It ain't never let me down. It talks when I need it to. It receives what I have programmed into it.

These MTS series, and all JEDI model radios, were the best handheld radios ever produced by any manufacturer.

Most Astro Sabers have the Jedi boards but the receivers are desensed by the VOCOM.
Seems the same problem exists in the XTS line.

So, yes the Jedi radios beat the XTS/Astro Saber receivers.

Makes sense I suppose, since even the analog audio is converted internally to digital & routed though the vocon, then converted back to analog to continue onto the rx audio circuitry. The signal can only get so weak before the conversion can't happen.

Todd

The RF-boards in Jedi and Astro Saber are indeed very similar
(except for the digital backend-chip in Astro-boards) and also
there is a lot of difference in sensitivity on both radio-models - too much difference for the price-class....

I have some real hot Astro`s (< 0.22uV) and some showing only
average sensitivity (0.35uV - every old MX300 can do it better) -
which is a little disapointing in my opinion. On Jedis it is the same
game. But i like the mechanical concept of the Astros better. As
we know, the cheapo screwless construction of the Jedis causes
a lot of noisy problems.

And it is no secrect, that a proper aligned analog radio (Saber...)outperforms all the digital stuff on weak signals. In the worst case the digital radio stays completely quiet, while the analog radio delivers an noisy, but useable signal.

Even Motorola will introduce a XTS10000 some day, i stay with my
analog Sabers until they fall apart......

Keygun

So I want to make sure I am reading this topic right because it sounds like it applies to my situation:
I have an MTS 2000 that works flawlessly. I can use it indoors and still receive a signal, although it may be weak. When the MTS is attached to my belt and I sit in my vehicle I can still hear everything clearly. Just recently I bought an XTS3000. When I go indoors the signal barely comes through, if at all. When the radio is attached to my belt as I am driving it appears as though the signal barely comes through also. Transmissions have skips in them when I use the XTS unless I am out in the middle of now where. Even if I am in between 2 buildings the MTS will receive in areas where the XTS seems like it can barely get a signal. Is this what others are experiencing? The ironic thing though, is I noticed the problem seemed to have gotten worse after I used my Commander Microphone with the XTS. Is there anyone else experiencing the same thing? And is there a way to fix this.

sam

Well, where to start ?
Simply put, you just CAN'T BEAT the MTS2000/Jedi series, period. They were the best radios ever made IMO. I've owned MANY handhelds in the 12 years in radios, and my old (1995) trusty MTS2000, (that MTS2000DES just so happened to fine tune for me not too long ago), is the BEST radio that I've owned. It outperforms everything in RX sensitivity, durability, etc. The Astro saber was a GREAT radio too, but alas, WAY to BIG. For everyday radio ops, the MTS2000 UHF goes with me wherever I go !

So what would everyone recommend?
1) Keep the XTS 3000 and get rid of the MTS 2000
or
2) Get rid of the XTS 3000 and keep the MTS 2000

What about the XTS 5000? Does it have the same sensitivity issues as the XTS 3000?

dungonmyshoe wrote:So what would everyone recommend?
1) Keep the XTS 3000 and get rid of the MTS 2000
or
2) Get rid of the XTS 3000 and keep the MTS 2000

What about the XTS 5000? Does it have the same sensitivity issues as the XTS 3000?

Well, it depends. If you're gonna need Digital then keep your XTS. I would have the best of both worlds and keep both. Obviously the XTS5K has somewhat better sensitivity spec's then the 3K does, but for a $$. For the money, the MTS2000 simply can not be beat. If your staying analog, then by FAR keep the MTS. I've had my MTS for 3 years, and will never do without one again

I highly doubt my company is going to be going digital any time soon. Our analog systems work for what we need. Plus I don't think they want to pay the price. Is there anyone out there that uses an XTS5000 on an analog system? How is the sensitivity?

Four years later...any more views on the analog XTS5000 RX sensitivity performance vs a MTS2000?

Also anybody noticed if there is any analog UHF sensitivity variation between identical XTS5000's ie. one set has a hot RX front end and another identical XTS (which is correctly aligned) is deafer (but still in spec)?

I don't have a UHF XTS5K of my own to compare, but I can say that my VHF 5K is every bit as good as a particular MTS2K and a particular JT1K we have, and also that my 5K is much better than the two VHF XTS3Ks that I have owned. The UHF 5Ks that I do have access to in the system are consistently much better than two of the UHF XTS3Ks still in our group, but there is one 3K that's right in there with the 5K. Go figure. It seems there is an inconsistency in receiver performance across the board in the 3Ks for whatever reason, and especially so in UHF. All of the 5Ks I have had my hands on, VHF and UHF, have been pretty consistent in receiver performance, which has been great, BTW. All the UHF Astro Sabers I have had were also consistently very good on receive specs, too. Again, go figure.

I now have a UHF XTS3000 and RX performance is very good...much better than most of my UHF Jedi's (one Jedi is almost as good...5 are much worse..although all are within the minimum spec)

One thing to note is how the XTS3000 Ultra Narrow 5.76KHz IF Filter selectable option significantly improves sensitivity on narrowband 12.5KHz spaced vs 20KHz spaced signals.

I think the Ultra Narrow IF filter is only available on the 12.5KHz spaced setting..the other option is the 7.8KHz filter which results in a bit less sensitivity.

If you have a deaf XTS3000 try setting up 2 channels on a very weak consistant signal with one channel using the Ultra Narrow 5.76KHz IF filter and 12.5khz spacing and the other using 20/25khz spacing...and then switch between both channels while listening to the weak signal. Do you notice a difference?? In general , the Ultra Narrow filter can cope with the high 4KHz deviation from a 20KHz system..but TX dev will sound a bit quieter.