Difference between analog and digital beacons?

Trenchmaster · May 20, 2010

The technology might not be the latest and best out there, but I'm sure glad my friends don't tell me that I have to have a certain level of equipment to go riding with them. I don't know about the SOS sales tactics, seems kind of greasy if they are trying to say it's a digital beacon, but your graph shows the SOS as having twice the range of the Tracker DTS, 65 metres compared to 35 metres. The Tracker DTS is the beacon I see most of my riding buddies use, I'm glad we have both in our group.

Scott · May 20, 2010

What I can say with my experience is....

We've had the newest Tracker DTS beacons along with a handfull of 12 year old SOS analog beacons.

We gave them (3 of the DTS and 3 of the SOS) to a bunch of inexperienced 12 year-olds with a couple of minutes worth of instruction about search techniqes and flux lines...and sent them on their way to find the buried beacon or beacons.

We made sure each kid went back and forth and tried both types of beacon a couple of times.
For two straight days and 75 different kids and probably 10 more adults using them.....

(ALWAYS USED FRESH BATTERIES EACH DAY)

The kids who used the old black and yellow analog SOS beacons found the flux lines FASTER and they follwed them to the buried beacon FASTER and more consistently than the kids using the new DTS.

The kids with the old SOS beacons found their victim QUICKER than those with the DTS.

The analog radio beacons have a faster reaction time to crossing the flux line than the DTS. They beep and light up quicker as you sweep across the path. With the DTS you have to pan slower and give it time to react.

I have done this with kids for 7 years...and each year that we have these DTS beacons to use we find the same result.

Trenchmaster · May 20, 2010

The kids with the old SOS beacons found their victim QUICKER than those with the DTS.

Can't be true!! they should'nt even be allowed to sell those junk beacons anymore (sarcasm)

backcountryislife · May 20, 2010

Scott, I see what you're saying, but just find that so contrary to what we see on a regular basis on the snow in classes & in get togethers. Btw, current technology (not a 10 year old tracker dts, still a good beacon, but a ways from current) is much faster. The tracker 2, s1, pieps, pulse... are all MUCH faster in overall response to movement. Also if you look at the range on any of these it's notably farther than the original tracker.

I can understand how an analog can get you on track quicker, I just find it hard to believe that they got all the way to the beacon quicker than with a digital.

Scott · May 21, 2010

backcountryislife said:
Scott, I see what you're saying, but just find that so contrary to what we see on a regular basis on the snow in classes & in get togethers. Btw, current technology (not a 10 year old tracker dts, still a good beacon, but a ways from current) is much faster. The tracker 2, s1, pieps, pulse... are all MUCH faster in overall response to movement. Also if you look at the range on any of these it's notably farther than the original tracker.

I can understand how an analog can get you on track quicker, I just find it hard to believe that they got all the way to the beacon quicker than with a digital.

I know...I couldn't believe it either. I also had Ben Adkison from the Missoula Avy Center there with me. He and I both saw the results the same. It was weird. I didn't want to believe what we were seeing...but Ben already knew that it was happening. He had seen it before. The search area was about 30 yards wide and 30 yards deep. Just over a 1/4 of a football field. Snow base was about 4 feet deep with about 10" of old fresh on top.

The kids found the flux lines faster with the SOS than the with the DTS and were usually the first ones to find the buried beacon.

Ben told me the computer processors in the digital systems can't react as fast as the analog radio systems.

It might be in part because the newer ones only grab onto that signal when it has a good one, when it knows it's not false...(making it slower to react) then it locks onto that signal and it also holds onto it longer after it leaves the flux line...but the analog is more finicky that picks up and gives up the signal quicker. THUS making it appear that it reacts quicker.

No matter how it works, in this case the kids took the old SOS beacons to the victim quicker almost every time. Probably 9 out of 10 times.

The kids were even coming back and wanting to trade each their DTS beacons to get the SOS so they could win. LOL.

It sorta reinforces the old saying that you just need to know your equipment.

edit: It was the Tracker, and not the Tracker2 that we were using.

mynewuseddoo · May 21, 2010

I like the new generation, 3 antena, Analog/digital beacons. They have the range and speed of the analog and the precision of the digital. They also are extremely usefull in deeper burials with drasticaly reducing spikes and getting you driectly over the victim and not a meter on either side of them. Like I said before technology has come a long way and there are better options. I also apparently said that the SOS was endangering lives and once again I read my post and I don't know where that came from. I would like to see the SOS go against a Peips, Pulse, or S1. They, as we can see by the graph and by web sites who test these units, are the next evolution and much more accurate, efficient and also have the range that straight analog technology has as well. There is no doubt that the SOS will find a victim. Will it find that victim as fast and efficiently as one of the three I mentioned? Thats debateable but I would put my money on no, especialy for a guy who has no experience with beacons. My original post was towards this guys attitude regarding the safety of others and I am sorry you got that misconstruded Trenchmaster. In my opinion I want the best beacon possible. Not for my self but because when someone is burried it comes down to seconds and that is a plain and simple fact. I would prefer to dig out a buddy who was still concious or at least revivable, not one who is gone. Literaly the difference between revivable and unrevivable is seconds. Luck favors the prepared.

Scott · May 21, 2010

columbus said:
As for compatability, all beacons operating at 457 will work wih eachother. All beacons have been manufactured with this frequency for over 10 years.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the industry standard of 457mhz has been in place since the 1970s.

SnowBigDeal · May 21, 2010

Scott said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the industry standard of 457mhz has been in place since the 1970s.

The industry standard of 457kHz was adopted in 1996. Before that there were essentially two frequencies (2.275 kHz and 457kHz).

Scott · May 21, 2010

SnowBigDeal said:
The industry standard of 457kHz was adopted in 1996. Before that there were essentially two frequencies (2.275 kHz and 457kHz).

OK, I gotcha.
It may be that I am just thinking about when the 457 frequency was first intro'd. Is that more accurate?

backcountryislife · May 21, 2010

SnowBigDeal said:
The industry standard of 457kHz was adopted in 1996. Before that there were essentially two frequencies (2.275 kHz and 457kHz).

Cade, I know you know the beacons better than me, but I'm pretty sure it was in the eighties (I just looked, looks like you just typo'd, it was 1986). I got into BC around 93 & it was already the standard.

Not a clue when the first ones were.

btw, trenchmaster... I'm perfectly fine with eating my words if I'm wrong!!! I think if you used today's beacons (in scott's test) it would be a VERY different story though.

Edit:
This got me thinking about using the different beacons, so I took a couple of our trackers & an S1 outside. My Wife & I are used to the tracker, but with no time on the S1, she blew away her times with the tracker using the S1. In a multiple situation, it's laughable (well, not really all that funny) how poor the tracker is compared to the S1. With a bit of time on the S1 I can find 2 in nearly the time that I can find one with the bca (finding the first one when there's two of them that is).

The pieps & pulse both seem to have similar results to what I get with the S1 in multiples btw.

Trenchmaster · May 22, 2010

of course everyone I have ever met is all about practicing everyday of the week with their beacons to know them inside and out......come on buddy who are you fooling? We have avalanch training and do practice now and again but every ride? Who honestly takes an hour out of the day to do a big group practice session with the beacons to make sure everyone is fully up to snuff for the day? Not many and not anyone I have ever.......EVER run into on the hill.....EVER!!! GO DIGITAL and pull your head out of your bum sir!!!

Mynewuseddoo, once again I will agree that you never used the words, using an analog beacon will put your riding buddies life in danger. It sure seems to me that the comments I quoted from your post are saying just that. Your post just rubbed me the wrong way, thats all.

Trenchmaster · May 22, 2010

btw, trenchmaster... I'm perfectly fine with eating my words if I'm wrong!!! I think if you used today's beacons (in scott's test) it would be a VERY different story though.

I'm sure you are probably right about the new beacons out performing the older stuff. It just bugged me when Mynewuseddoo ragged all over the guy about buying an SOS instead of a new digital. I could afford a newer beacon but I'm comfortable with my SOS, we all decide how we are going to spend our money and it's a personal choice.

backcountryislife · May 22, 2010

Trenchmaster said:
I'm sure you are probably right about the new beacons out performing the older stuff. It just bugged me when Mynewuseddoo ragged all over the guy about buying an SOS instead of a new digital. I could afford a newer beacon but I'm comfortable with my SOS, we all decide how we are going to spend our money and it's a personal choice.

TM,

I think the thing that rubbed both of us the wrong were his comments about not wanting to spend more on his friends than they're spending on him. That was one of the most ignorant, selfish things that I've read in quite a while & that kind of thing tends to bring out a bit more pissy attitudes in other people.

I think we wanted to rag on him no matter what he was buying just because of what he said.

I will give you, I'd rather see someone with an old sos than nothing, plain & simple!

mynewuseddoo · May 23, 2010

Thank you backcountry!!! Like i said before TM my original post and the over the topness was about this guys attitude.....thats it. I still don't know where you are getting any hint that I was even implying that SOS beacons are hazards and dangerous.......they are quite obviously better that nothing and I am sure they have found plenty of victims in the past and still today. For anyone to make a statement like the one I "apparently" implied would be just plain ignorant.

So for the record.......

Ole Johnrodgers attitude towards safety is pi$$ poor in my opinion.

There are better beacons with the same range as the old analog beacons

and I never implied that SOS beacons are a danger or a hazard......because that would be plain ignorant and then Mr Johnrodgers and I would both have our heads up our arses.

Like backcountry said, doesn't matter what this guys would have bought for a beacon, his attitude and comments toward safety stink and in my opinion he should just stay home. If someone is burried and its him and someone else digging is he going to be concerned if he moves more snow than the other guy? Just sayin....

SnowBigDeal · May 23, 2010

backcountryislife said:
Cade, I know you know the beacons better than me, but I'm pretty sure it was in the eighties (I just looked, looks like you just typo'd, it was 1986). I got into BC around 93 & it was already the standard.

Kaleb,

The early frequency of 2.275 kHz was used through the 70's & 80's, then in 1986 the standard became 457kHz. However, up until 1996 a lot of beacons operated on both frequencies (2.257 kHz and 457kHz). In 1996 EVERYONE adopted the 457kHz frequency, including the manufacturers, the standards boards, and the testers. So yes, we are both correct. 1986 and 1996 is when the standard was adopted :face-icon-small-coo

backcountryislife · May 23, 2010

Cade, just looked into it more, you were right. There was one agency that made it a standard in 86, then astm made it a standard in 96... Man, eating my words TWICE IN ONE THREAD... killin me here.:face-icon-small-hap

Scott · May 23, 2010

SnowBigDeal said:
Kaleb,

The early frequency of 2.275 kHz was used through the 70's & 80's, then in 1986 the standard became 457kHz. However, up until 1996 a lot of beacons operated on both frequencies (2.257 kHz and 457kHz). In 1996 EVERYONE adopted the 457kHz frequency, including the manufacturers, the standards boards, and the testers. So yes, we are both correct. 1986 and 1996 is when the standard was adopted :face-icon-small-coo

OK, I was pretty sure that 457 had been intro'd in the 1970s. Thanks for helping me....I knew I wasn't crazy.

imdoo'n · May 24, 2010

not sure why you guys are on his azz, he wants the same beacon as his buds, because they can help him figure it out. any one who doesn't practice with their beacons at least once per riding weekend is dangerous, has no idea if his beacon is working or not. check your ego at the trail head. if you ride with less experienced riders, not doing beacon training can get you killed, and i don't see how a digital beacon will change this. i have both a tracker beacon and a sos find sb. both work well, a new rider will have trouble with either, tracker trouble starts as you get closer, short range, slow. sos you have to turn signal down as you approach buried transmitter, check signal direction and go, basic and simple. how fast can you go in waist deep snow,
digital beacons are the way to go, but they seem to have there problems, try to make the decisions for you. practice will make you proficient at there use.
i'll ride with someone who knows how to use an analog beacon any time.

backcountryislife · May 24, 2010

imdoo'n said:
not sure why you guys are on his azz, he wants the same beacon as his buds, because they can help him figure it out.

Ummm... read above, this is not the case & not what he said.

As for your question as to why, it's been stated a couple times.

Johnrodgers said:
but i dont see the point in me investing in a digital beacon when the rest are using analog, i am simply putting more money into the safety of them then they are of me .

mynewuseddoo · May 25, 2010

He's got ya there imdoo'n. All of this is because of the second statement by Johnrodgers which was quoted in backcountries post. You can't argue with what johnny wrote about being concerned with spending more to save someone eles than what they spent on him. And backcountry and I are both in agreeance that it wouldn't matter what this guy bought, his statement is just plain ignorant. Try rereading the posts again for what they are and don't read into them. It is simply a case of this guys attitued toward safety. We both admit the SOS is more than capable of locating a burried beacon but there are better choices out there with the new 3 antena digital/analog beacons especialy in close proximity because of there ability to eliminate spikes and get you where you need to be not one meter or so on either side of the victim. This helps in the speed of the probing aspect of the search. A little research on the subject will uncover droves of info, just need to look. Try one of the new gen beacons and then let us know what you think. But once again don't take this out of context, this was all about a persons attitued toward safety, thats it.

Difference between analog and digital beacons?

Well-known member

Scott Stiegler

Well-known member

Well-known member

Scott Stiegler

Well-known member

Scott Stiegler

SnoWest Paid Sponsor

Scott Stiegler

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

SnoWest Paid Sponsor

Well-known member

Scott Stiegler

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads