ELK M1G with Uplink 2500 - Easiest Replacement?

[Linwood]

Got contacted by Alarm Relay about the sunset on the Uplink 2500, which I guess I knew was coming but had been ignoring.
 
The 2500 is connected to a M1XSP (I think it has special firmware). 
 
Alarm Relay tells e to buy a Telguard TG-1 Express or IPDataTel CBAT, and claims both are plug compatible,   I don't think that is true, I do not see similar serial links on either one.  They are offering them for $141 (incl S&H).
 
Is there a new unit that is plug compatible?   I do not need new features, such as the C1M1 would bring.  I'm perfectly happy with the way it is working now, if that's practical.   I do use Cellular with Internet backup already with the M1EXP, and have no pressing need to swap it out either.
 
The 4500EZ is still listed on the Elk site as compatible, and I can get those cheap on Amazon ($115 - actually is cheap enough I worry a bit). 
 
I guess I could trash the serial card and ethernet and replace with the C1M1 but I do not see any big win there, I already have space and power.

 

[RAL]

The Uplink 4500EZ has a non-standard serial connector on it, and you can connect it to the M1's serial port.  There is a tech note on Elk's website explaining how to do this.  It requires a special cable, which you can make yourself, or, one is supposedly available from Uplink.
 
The TG-1 and C-BAT can't be connected via a serial port, and would use dialer capture via the telephone line interface.  As a result, you won't be able to use the advanced functions the C-BAT supports with DSC/GE/Vista systems where it has a data bus connection.

 

[Linwood]

Happen to know if the serial cable for the 4500ez is the same as the 2500? 
 
But regardless, so long as the spec is easy to find I can make a cable.
 
Same serial card/firmware works? 

 

[RAL]

Here is a link to the cable pin out.  I don't know if it is different than what you have on the 2500.
 
http://cocoontech.com/forums/topic/24308-uplink-4500ez-serial-connector-pic-need-to-find-the-pin-out/
 
The XSP and firmware should be ok with the 4500EZ. 

 

[drvnbysound]

RAL, any drawbacks of using the TG-1 that you know of?  I understand that they are dialer capture via the telephone port, but assuming the connection is for monitoring only (as I already have network connection to the panel for remote access).

 

[Linwood]

RAL, any drawbacks of using the TG-1 that you know of?  I understand that they are dialer capture via the telephone port, but assuming the connection is for monitoring only (as I already have network connection to the panel for remote access).

 
Does dialer capture slow things down significantly? 
 
The bigger concern is that, as I understand it now, the XSP can detect some failures of the Uplink 2500 (I think basically connection failure) and report back, and I get an email (I can't recall if I had it send a report to the CO).   WIth dialer capture, am I correct that the only indication of failure is the periodic self test?  I have a vague recollection Alarm Rely won't permit that but once  a month or some such -- I need to check, maybe that was the prior monitoring company.
 
It almost seems as thought the 4500EZ is a simple, drop in replacement, any reason why not? 
 
Though I am still concerned one site on Amazon has it $40 cheaper than all the rest, listed as new.

 

[TurboSam]

I have a TG-1 Express, and when properly set up, it supervises the cellular communications path and reports to the monitoring station and to the Elk a variety of trouble conditions so trouble reports are announced and you can take other actions by programming whenever rules.  
 
I also have my TG-1 Express trouble output tied to an Elk zone, and I get service trouble and service restored emails from the monitoring station, from Elk, and from CQC triggered by rules based on the zone violation and/or trouble condition.

 

[RAL]

RAL, any drawbacks of using the TG-1 that you know of?  I understand that they are dialer capture via the telephone port, but assuming the connection is for monitoring only (as I already have network connection to the panel for remote access).

 
I don't know of any downside to the TG-1.  It's UL listed, so seems like a good unit. 

 

[RAL]

Does dialer capture slow things down significantly? 
 
The bigger concern is that, as I understand it now, the XSP can detect some failures of the Uplink 2500 (I think basically connection failure) and report back, and I get an email (I can't recall if I had it send a report to the CO).   WIth dialer capture, am I correct that the only indication of failure is the periodic self test?  I have a vague recollection Alarm Rely won't permit that but once  a month or some such -- I need to check, maybe that was the prior monitoring company.
 
It almost seems as thought the 4500EZ is a simple, drop in replacement, any reason why not? 
 
Though I am still concerned one site on Amazon has it $40 cheaper than all the rest, listed as new.

 
I don't think the extra time required for dialer capture transmission is all that significant.  A CID message is 16 digits.  That takes about 1 second for the alarm panel to transmit using standard DTMF tone duration/spacing.  There's a few more seconds of handshaking and overhead on top of that. 
 
I suspect the time to set up and complete the call through the cellular network will be more than the time for the alarm panel and the TG-1 to communicate with each other, so I don't think the difference of serial vs dialer capture will make much difference in the final result.

Someone like @DEL probably has a better feel for this.
 
To me, the 4500EZ and the TG1 seem pretty equivalent, other than the benefit of the serial connection on the 4500EZ.

 

[drvnbysound]

OK. I didn't either and seemed like a cheaper solution for installations that don't already have a dedicated XSP.

 

[Del91574]

I don't think the extra time required for dialer capture transmission is all that significant.  A CID message is 16 digits.  That takes about 1 second for the alarm panel to transmit using standard DTMF tone duration/spacing.  There's a few more seconds of handshaking and overhead on top of that. 
 
I suspect the time to set up and complete the call through the cellular network will be more than the time for the alarm panel and the TG-1 to communicate with each other, so I don't think the difference of serial vs dialer capture will make much difference in the final result.

Someone like @DEL probably has a better feel for this.
 
To me, the 4500EZ and the TG1 seem pretty equivalent, other than the benefit of the serial connection on the 4500EZ.

Dialer capture is slower than straight via serial. The panel can only get through the DTMF tones so fast after a dialtone detect sequence. I've put in both manufacturers and various units.
 
The real variable is how the Uplink is ported to the cs, either via DTMF emulation or direct TCP/IP port. Telular is a straight TCP port to the receiver.
 
Cost vs. repurposing the XSP is the next question.
 
The supervision to the panel is essentially a moot point. Either you tie it to a zone or you supervise via the serial, assuming there's not an issue with that route.

 

[drvnbysound]

Dialer capture is slower than straight via serial. The panel can only get through the DTMF tones so fast after a dialtone detect sequence. I've put in both manufacturers and various units.
 
The real variable is how the Uplink is ported to the cs, either via DTMF emulation or direct TCP/IP port. Telular is a straight TCP port to the receiver.
 
Cost vs. repurposing the XSP is the next question.
 
The supervision to the panel is essentially a moot point. Either you tie it to a zone or you supervise via the serial, assuming there's not an issue with that route.

 
Can you quantify slower? Are we talking less than 1s, 1-2s, more than 5s?

 

[Del91574]

You need to consider how the panel is programmed first...if there's a dialer delay, line detection before going OH or what. Then next, you'd need to consider how many digits the dialer is dialing....I think the minimum you're going to get a dialer capture to recognize (top of head) would be the standard 7 digits (not 10 or 11). That in itself is going to add a second or two. Without knowing how the port occurs via uplink to the CS, DTMF emulation could add another (off top of head) 3-10 seconds depending on the DTMF dial, CS ring and the vendor dumping the data as DTMF port.
 
A TCP/IP port cuts that out to basically a second or two, but the up front delay on the dialer capture would still exist.
 
Unless you know the end to end path, it's guesswork.

 

[Linwood]

OK, but back to my point, since I have a working serial card and am monitoring the 2500 with it, and it's working great... .
 
Is there any real reason to switch to dialer capture, as opposed to the 4500EZ? 

 

[Del91574]

I'd just get the 4500 unless you would want to repurpose the XSP or get a service with interactive features that you can't get via your current methods.