Whistler 1080 / PSR800 / PSR500 / BCD436HP Shootout

[SCPD]

Just cause we (myself and fellow RR member VE6RHS) had time .. and I love numbers, here is my Scanner Sensitivity Shootout .

Scanners tested - Whistler WS-1080, GRE PSR-800,GRE PSR-500 and Uniden BCD436HP.

These were the 4 scanners we own amongst the 2 of us.

They were tested with identical procedures using the same equipment, connecting cable etc. We used a Ramsey com3010 service monitor for this test.

We tested for "minimum squelch sensitivity" ... on the 5 frequencies listed below.

Minimum Squelch Sensitivity is ... "The minimum received signal strength level which unsquelches the radio ..."

The results are as follows .. (* denotes most sensitive for frequency)

Whistler WS-1080

155.0 - 0.16 uV
447.0 - 0.23 uV
465.0 - 0.21 uV *
770.0 - 0.23 uV
868.0 - 0.23 uV

GRE PSR-800

155.0 - 0.15 uV *
447.0 - 0.20 uV *
465.0 - 0.24 uV
770.0 - 0.13 uV *
868.0 - 0.19 uV

GRE PSR-500

155.0 - 0.20 uV
447.0 - 0.26 uV
465.0 - 0.34 uV
770.0 - 0.16 uV
868.0 - 0.17 uV *

Uniden BCD436HP

155.0 - 0.24 uV
447.0 - 0.27 uV
465.0 - 0.24 uV
770.0 - 0.29 uV
868.0 - 0.40 uV

Thanks .. hope that gives you a better idea how these scanners may perform.

 

[ratboy]

The measurements on the 436HP seem better at 155MHZ than the performance would indicate, as far as my experience goes. None of the 436's I've used have been even remotely as sensitive as my GRE built radios are on VHF. Just a check of the weather freqs shows how far down it is compared to the others. With the attenuator on in my 106, the sensitivity is almost exactly the same on both WX and rail freqs with identical (Telescopic whips) antennas on both radios. An approximate guess is with the loss of sensitivity, the 436 heard 50% less traffic than the other radios did. Pretty useless on VHF, IMHO.

 

[Boatanchor]

Now for giggles, check the 436HP sensitivity on 163Mhz and 510Mhz.

You may be surprised.

 

[MONITORING247]

i had called uniden on this advised them that the sensitivity was bad by reports i received from friends that had the 436HP radio " THAY SAID THAY COULD DO NOTHING ABOUT IT" i had similar experiences with a AOR IOOO AND A PRO97 "BOTH I WAS ABLE TO SEND TO THE SHOP AND HAVE THE SENSITIVITY BROUGHT UP UNIDEN BEARCAT is the first company that has DENIED! this request just a FYI. i was able to tell him what i needed THE AOR RADIO TECHNICIAN EVEN SENT ME A SHEET OF PAPER telling me what he was able to achieve with the wideband unit.ON SENSITIVITY. THAT WAS ANOTHER REASON I SAID GOOD BY UNIDEN. and now run a whistler made PRO 668 AS MY GO TO RADIO.

 

[Forts]

You really think Uniden is about to start hand tuning radios for everyone that complains? The sensitivity is what it is. Depending on your area and other signals around you it could be great, or not so much. My Pro-106 has great sensitivity until I get into a heavy urban environment then it overloads like crazy. I'm not about to call GRE/Radio Shack and complain.

 

[mtindor]

I've got to say that those sensitivity results themselves just cannot tell a complete story. My PSR-500, Pro-106 and PSR-800 all appear to have great sensitivity, but each one of them is very prone to strong signal overload. And, it's pretty obvious to me that they have the sensitivity turned up high on those three scanners that when you hear a weak digital signal it is very difficult to decode it.

On the other hand, my BCD436HP would appear to have lower sensitivity [if you go by the signal meter, and nobody should], but I can regularly decode digital signals on the BCD436HP that are too weak to even trigger the signal meter. And if I put those four scanners side by side, all fed through the same Stridsberg active multicoupler, the BCD436HP wins hands down every time, decoding signals that do not trigger the meter while the GREs are showing 2-3 bars and decoding nothing. And I'm referring to non-LSM digital.

So despite those sensitivity figures that the OP posted suggestive of great sensitivity on the GRE guts, that sensitivity comes at great cost.

For years i've loved my GRE digital scanners, despite the overload. But the more I use my BCD436HP the more I appreciate how well it actually picks up weak analog and digital signals without overloading and without inducing so much noise on the signal that it makes it impossible to decode or (in the case of analog) copy the audio well.

Don't get me wrong, I dislike so much about Uniden that I couldn't even begin to share my thoughts. But the BCD436HP and BCD536HP both are the best in breed that I've had access to when it comes to receiver/decode performance.

Mike

 

[Voyager]

What Mike said hits the nail on the head. I've always said the GRE units tend to be more sensitive (which is supported by the OP). But, better sensitivity isn't always a good thing such as when you're in a high RF area or in an urban area where a more sensitive scanner will overload. See http://forums.radioreference.com/gre-scanners/308876-psr-800-vs-bcd436hp-3.html#post2351449 for a real world example.

 

[ButchGone]

Thanks for the test, and your time and effort to put together a meaningful comparison.
However, sensitivity is only one of several important receiver specs. There is also selectivity, dynamic range, image rejection, receiver architecture and a host of other considerations. My personal experience with GRE is that the receivers are as wide as a barn door, meaning they get overwhelmed with a ton of stuff you don't want leaking through the receiver chain. Uniden made great strides in receiver performance with the x36 series. I have not seen any significant loss in sensitivity with the x36 series, and yes, on digital they perform above and beyond anything else on the consumer scanner market.
BG..

 

[Triangulum]

I am quoting Voyager at the bottom of the post, but this is not only addressing him. Anyone please chime in and give their experience. Since we are discussing issues of sensitivity and related topics, something came to mind.

Close Call vs Spectrum Sweeper.

Are the results just more of the same as discussed above and in other threads (location specific, etc)? Or..... Does the calmer sensitivity in the Uniden models allow for it to more effectively pickup on random, close-by signals (or is it harder to activate)? Do Whistler's more urgent sensitivity pick up random, close-by signals better since its listening for anything and everything (or is it overloaded by other noise)?

Ultimately you can't go wrong either way. So if someone gives the edge to one then its not like its a deal-breaker.

What Mike said hits the nail on the head. I've always said the GRE units tend to be more sensitive (which is supported by the OP). But, better sensitivity isn't always a good thing such as when you're in a high RF area or in an urban area where a more sensitive scanner will overload. See http://forums.radioreference.com/gre-scanners/308876-psr-800-vs-bcd436hp-3.html#post2351449 for a real world example.

 

[Voyager]

My experience with CC/SS is that Close Call is faster (actually, the way they work, this is provable) and will pick up stronger, shorter signals more often, while Signal Stalker will pick up weaker, longer signals more often.

That's not to say each won't pick both up - it's just that each seems to have their strong suits. If it's a short, strong signal, CC will is more likely to hit on it, and if it's a longer, weaker signal, SS is more likely to hit on it.

 

[SCPD]

To the above comments, the numbers do not lie.

You can take out of it what you like.

I also have figures that are the absolute minimum signal detectable by the scanners (the numbers are just lower than what is listed, but really .. that is not really how we use our scanners and is pretty irrelevant)

For example .. BCD436HP on 155 MHz absolute minimum was 0.11uV and minimum squelch was 0.24 uV

The lowest number on any frequency was the Whistler 1080 at 155 MHz at 0.08 uV. But lets face it .. we do not run around with our squelch open.

The frequencies were picked by me ... using the below.

155 MHz .. RCMP area here in Canada
447 MHz .. The 70 cm ham band and where one of my fave repeaters is.
465 MHz .. A UHF freq where I used to listen.
770 MHz .. The area where the new P25 system being built here will be.
868 MHz .. The area where my present local Edacs system is.

Yes the 436HP was less sensitive and the GRE / Whistler models more sensitive, there is no doubt there and I think we all pretty much knew this already. This test just confirms what I think we already knew. And yes, depending on your environment that can be a good or bad thing.

Personally .. in taking my PSR800 mobile the only time I see any remnants of overload is when I get within about a block of a known cell tower, and even here it does not wipe out the desired signal .. it is just not 100% clear as it normally is. Other than that .. no issues.

Re another test .. it is not my test equipment and I do not have access to it. Can we can do another test in the future, maybe .. I cannot rule that out.

Oh .. and close call is definitely way faster. I can confirm that.

For those using a 436HP .. we found in our testing the best location for your squelch is number 2. It is a digital squelch and it was consistent in all frequencies as expected.

Thanks ..
- Kevin -

 

[Voyager]

Agreed on squelch setting 2.

Another interesting test might be to test CC/SS sensitivity. Of course, it won't reflect the real world noise floor (neither did the first test), but the SS *should* outperform CC in raw sensitivity.

 

[Triangulum]

An experiment testing Close Call and Spectrum Sweeper would be very intriguing.

 

[SCPD]

An experiment testing Close Call and Spectrum Sweeper would be very intriguing.

Not really ... I have done testing on both.

Close call is so much better / faster than Signal Sweeper. No doubts on this one. It is night and day the difference.

 

[Voyager]

But what is the sensitivity on each of these models? CC may be faster, but I would expect a more sensitive receiver to have better raw performance under test conditions in the lab.

 

[SCPD]

But what is the sensitivity on each of these models? CC may be faster, but I would expect a more sensitive receiver to have better raw performance under test conditions in the lab.

These are near field receivers at that point. Sensitivity is not the thing that is really important in the Signal Sweeper / Close Call modes.

 

[Voyager]

True. Was just curious how they compared.

 

[Triangulum]

Just to affirm.....

For wide-range scanning, squelch set to 2 has been most effective with my 536 usage so far. As expected, at 0/1 picking up a lot of white noise. But again, this is for wide-range/general scanning and not trying to nail a frequency down or identify one.

For those using a 436HP .. we found in our testing the best location for your squelch is number 2. It is a digital squelch and it was consistent in all frequencies as expected.

Agreed on squelch setting 2.

 

[UPMan]

I should have piped up earlier...signal level to squelch open has several additional variables not directly related to receive sensitivity including:

• Discrete squelch set points (is the squelch set point identical on the units)
• Squelch point granularity (squelch is not a "pot" but is a digital control with 16 settings...each setting is software controlled).

And, there are likely more.

We measure sensitivity by modulating a 1.5 kHz tone then adjusting power to achieve 12dB SINAD. Sensitivity is then measured in different modulation modes, as well (AM, WFM, NFM, FM, FMB) depending on the actual frequency being tuned.

That said, on our unit squelch open measurements were pretty close to what we measured using the above methodology except on 800 MHz band (.2uV in our testing, .4uV in above). However, I have no idea how close the measurements for the other models were to an actual sensitivity measurement.