avi beacons

[letsroll]

Prior to reading the Jan issue of Off-Piste I was going to buy the Barryvox beacon. But now the Pieps DSP looks like a better product, is it? How do people like the Barryvox? How do peole like the Pieps DSP?

 

Thanks

[ncascademtns]

I used the Pieps once and liked it. Mostly because it was lighter than the Tracker.

[downfall]

I've got the pieps DSP and like it in the mock scenarios I've used it in. The multi-burial feature is much easier than the tracker (though hope you don't have to use it). The only issue I've seen which I've also seen with the older analog pieps beacons is that it has a problem with real old beacons which may have experienced some signal drift which I did not see with the tracker. Anyway if someone has a beacon with signal drift they probably want to get a new one anyway so I would recommend it.

[forrest_m]

i recently upgraded to a DSP and have the same comments as downfall - it is very easy to use & the distance reading seems pretty darn accurate. i really like the scan feature that lets you quickly see how many beacons are within 5m, 20m and 60m - good for the trailhead check as well as multiple burial scenarios. in a recent practice session, my DSP had over twice the range of late model barryvox & tracker beacons, which is huge. i also like the fact that there is a headphone-out jack if you want to get the signals "direct" without processing - a good backup that adds to my peace of mind.

 

one disappointment was that i was psyched to finally have 2 beacons, so that i could practice alone, but my ~12 year old arva is invisible to the DPS, i assume due to signal drift. the arva, OTOH, picks up the DPS just fine. so far, my old arva is the only "invisible" beacon i've encountered, but it makes me worry that i'll go on a trip with someone with an older beacon and it won't work. (of course, since i'm the biggest gear troglodyte out there, maybe i'm the last one with an old beacon and this won't be an issue...)

 

one other minor disappointment is that it has no automatic return to transmit feature, although it is set up to let you "slap" the recieve switch easily back into transmit. i'm less worried about getting caught in a second slide, and more worried about accidentally burying a "receive" beacon during a practice session...

 

i haven't had much of a chance to test this, but one of the reasons i was keen on the DSP is that i understand that the third antenna simplifies the final approach to deep burials, since it can lead you in on the flux line in 3D, rather than tracking to the point where the horizontal projection of the flux line emerges from the snow pack. anyone have any practice with a DSP in deep burials (> 1 meter)?

[letsroll]

From what I have read you should not be the only person with the problem of picking up the older beacons. The larger the range of nearest frequencies the beacon is able to pick up the better. Does someone have the numbers on them, I think I have them at home. My question is that really a problem people have, the inability to pick up other beacons? Or is it just the older ones?

[forrest_m]

from what i have read, the problem exists generally with older beacons because of three related issues:

1) older technology made hitting precisely 457 kHz difficult, so beacons were built to receive a relatively broad range of frequencies on or around 457.

 

2) this is exacerbated by the tendency of older analog beacons to "drift," i.e. even if they were transmitting exactly at 457 when new, over time they wander a bit. i'm not too clear on why this happens, let's call it "age"

 

3) conversely, there is an inverse relationship between receiving range and signal-width reception, i.e. in order to receive at longer distances, beacons are forced to receive a narrower range of frequencies. this becomes a problem, because newer beacons have made a great effort to increase range; since digital processing requires stronger signals to work, 1st generation digital beacons had a lot less range than analogs. this has been addressed in newer beacons by improvements in technology that allow them to hit a narrower "window" around 457 kHz, and therefore allow the range to come back up.

 

so, in conclusion, the newer beacons can sometimes have problems receiving older beacons, but usually not vice-versa. newer beacons should also not have any trouble receiving each other, even across brands, because they are conforming more closely to an international standard. the question for me is whether over time the newer beacons will suffer similar drift and become completely useless, or if the same improvements that increase signal accuracy will prevent this... at least the self-diagnostic routine on most digital beacons should be able to tell you if you've drifted off frequency.

 

bottom line is that it is as important as ever to check that everyone is compatible before skiing away from the trailhead...

[pete_a]

Ortovox recommends that owners of older beacons (like F1's)mail their transceivers back to Ortovox periodically to be tested for signal accuracy and to be recalibrated.

some info on that is here, follow the link to their 'service' page:

http://www.ortovox.com/ortovox_en.php

[David_Parker]

No Forrest, you are not the only one with an older tranceiver. I have an older Ortovox, old enough that I don't know if I should replace it or not. It is one of the frist dual frequency kind. It seemed to be fine last year when I did some practice, but I don't have a clue if it's invisible to the newfangled models. I'm guessing I should put the money into a new one rather than have this one serviced as recommended above.

 

Now I suppose I will get a plethora of opinions on which one is best!

[iain]

You should replace your dual-freq beacon. The requirements to make that beacon operate on both 2.2 and 457 make it a poor performer on both. The 457kHz standard was imposed in the US in 1996, making your beacon almost 10 years old at best. It should be replaced or serviced for that reason alone.

 

Ortovox is notorious for troubles with customer service, though I'm sure some have had good luck with a beacon refurbish. They do provide the above service, however. It will cost you a good portion of a new beacon to pay for it.

 

I recommend the BCA Tracker beacon, for what that's worth. I'm sure the other digital beacons are as good if used enough. I prefer to wait on "new" beacon designs such as the Pieps model to see what issues arise during the first season or two. They're also fricken expensive, even on "deal".

[cj001f]

The American Avalanche Association declared dual frequency beacons obsolete 6/1/2001. Bout time to replace it.

 

I've used Trackers and Barryvoxes, but not the new Pieps. Both are easy to use, Barryvox has more options. When I spend the money to replace my current beacon it'll probably be a Barryvox - but by next fall who know

[thelawgoddess]

barryvox.

[chris]

Most ski guides I speak with recommend that your avalanche transeiver be handled like a rope - replaced at least every five years. One guide I met this winter said he refuses to guide clients who insist on using dual frequency beacons.

 

I have a barryvox that I'm extremely happy with. I particularly like how I can change the default settings.