Newbie Question: ProScan vs. Freescan (or others) for 396XT

[SuperCraig]

Brand new to the hobby, and my Uniden BCD396XT is scheduled to arrive on Thursday. I'm both excited, and a bit nervous as the learning curve is SO obviously steep!! None-the-less, I'm mostly excited about getting my scanner programmed properly.

I've lurked on the site for a while and am slowly (but surely) starting to pick up some of the lingo.

After choosing the scanner (we are mostly Digital here in Denver), the next big decision is which software to use to program it. It looks like ProScan and FreeScan are the two out there that are currently working with this unit (with more vendors coming out with updates in upcoming weeks from what I've heard).

IF you've had experience with ProScan and/or Freescan, can you please tell me what you did AND didn't like about each. I'm open to waiting for another vendor to release their update if you have another product suggestion (but one requirement is that it does work with multiple scanners as I'm sure to get a base unit as well before too long, and it doesn't seem to me to make sense to pay money for a product that only supports one scanner).

As I said- I'm new to all of this, so ease of use is probably my most important factor. Money is not a factor- the ease of use and effectiveness of the software is what's most important to me.

From looking at their websites- for ProScan I seem to like the visual interface better (especially the control screen for the scanner), and for Freescan the "Automatic Scanner Optimizer" feature sure seems like something a newbie like myself would appreciate. If you've used that feature, let me know how effective it is, or if you think it's just a gimmick.

I'm open to any other input/suggestions regarding my software choice. If I missed a thread with this comparison, or there are other resources online I should be aware of- links to those would be GREATLY appreciated.

OK... now I hope to get lots of feedback to help me make this important decision!

Thanks in advance for any/all input that's offered

[WouffHong]

Try free BCTOOL - I've found it the easiest and well thought out.. Mac

[DDan]

Originally Posted by WouffHong

Try free BCTOOL - I've found it the easiest and well thought out.. Mac

Yes but bcTool does not work for the XT and the developer has stated that his paying job is taking all of his time and he will not commit to a date for 396XT compatibility.

[SuperCraig]

Originally Posted by DDan

Yes but bcTool does not work for the XT and the developer has stated that his paying job is taking all of his time and he will not commit to a date for 396XT compatibility.

Yes, I had taken a look at bcTool and wasn't all that impressed. Didn't look at it very closely though, because I heard the same thing (the developer was pressed for time keeping up with it) and both ProScan and Freescan seem to have fast and consistent support.

[SuperCraig]

If I don't get too many responses, I'll start with Freescan and see if it does what I need it to...I just know there's such a learning curve on this whole hobby, let alone the fine scanner I bought... I was hoping to do enough research to make a good decision about which software to use and have that be a done deal and jump into "schooling" myself

[rchalupajr]

Well, being as Freescan is Free, it's a good place to start. I don't own a 396,T or XT. I have a BCT-15 and it work's great for it. The author has been making many adjustment's and improvement's since the 396xt has been released, just for that unit. Plus he is very responsive to users question's and concerns. see the thread on Freescan 8.c

[SuperCraig]

Originally Posted by rchalupajr

Well, being as Freescan is Free, it's a good place to start.

well, not to toot my own horn- but money's not a factor. I'd GLADLY pay for software if it's significantly better (read: easy to understand and to use). But yes, I agree- if I don't get compelling evidence to use one of the pay-for products, I'll start with Freescan.

I don't own a 396,T or XT. I have a BCT-15 and it work's great for it. The author has been making many adjustment's and improvement's since the 396xt has been released, just for that unit. Plus he is very responsive to users question's and concerns. see the thread on Freescan 8.c

Great, I'll check out that thread too. Thanks for the tip.

Since you use Freescan, let me ask you this: what can you tell me about that "Automatic Scanner Optimizer" feature? Does it work well? Is it the kind of thing that a beginner would appreciate? Sure sounds like it..

thanks for taking the time to reply, your input's appreciated!

[jnewell]

I've been using FreeScan, just started experimenting with ProScan and have used many Butel programs over the years. The Butel UI is somewhat different. You should try it during the trial period to see if it agrees with you or not. It's hard to say anything bad about someone like Assaf who works very hard on a freeware product, but I am leaning toward ProScan because the UI works a little more intuitively for me. YMMV, though. What I really wish is that Don Starr would write a program for Uniden scanners, but that isn't likely to happen.

[SuperCraig]

Originally Posted by jnewell

I've been using FreeScan,

Do you have any opinion on the "Automatic Scanner Optimization" feature? Is it something a beginner would appreciated?

have used many Butel programs over the years. The Butel UI is somewhat different. You should try it during the trial period to see if it agrees with you or not.

I liked what I saw when I looked at the Butel, except that it seems you need to purchase one version for each scanner. I'd rather have a program that can do multiple units, as I'm pretty sure I'll eventually get a base unit to compliment my handheld.

I am leaning toward ProScan because the UI works a little more intuitively for me.

Anything besides being more intuitive (for you) that has you lean towards ProScan over Freescan?

Thanks for your input, it's appreciated!!

[davidmc36]

I have at least two programs for nearly every scanner that I own because there are good and bad things about each, and each one does things that I specifically got it for. My most up to date scanner is a 996. One of the main reasons that I have Pro Scan is the built in streaming. I am sitting right now 2100nm away from home listening to my scanner, controlling it, and updating the programming. I don't know of any other way to do that as easily. I guess if you had multiple apps set up like remote control of your computer and streaming of your scanner, which I have not yet mastered. I really have not tried streaming to be honest, I could not see any way that was as easy as through Pro Scan. Everything else seems to involve setting up two or more programs to talk to one another, and then finding a server to host your stream, configuring everything to work together etc. etc. etc. Anyway, I digress. The Pro Scan license allows you to set up the full version on two computers, and no you can't do any more because it phones home to activate. You can deactivate and then re-activate if you change computers though, and you can have multiple instances of it running on a computer that has it activated. Having it on two computers allows you to do like I do, have full control of your scanner remotely, and there is also the free Client App that allows you to just listen, you or anybody else can do that on as many computers as they like. The developer, Bob Aune, is great to deal with and responds quickly to emails and posts on the support bulliten board. I even had a problem the other day where I deactivated on one of my laptops so I could upgrade from W98 to XP. Something happened and when I went to fire it up it said I already had two copies activated. I emailed Bob and it was fixed within an hour or two, no questions asked. Hard to beat that for support.

[brandon]

FreeSCAN hands down is the best for programming the newer Uniden scanners. It is very good at taking raw cut and pasted data and importing without a hitch. The only thing I don't like about FreeSCAN is the Windows Installer that is used and because it often prompts for the installation MSI file even though the program is already loaded. I believe FreeSCAN works under Linux too, although I have not personally tested for myself.

ProScan is the best when it comes to features, especially scanner-over-IP, remote programming and the beautiful user interface. It's also the best software for programming older non DMA Uniden scanners in my opinion. The only thing I don't like about ProScan is the .NET Framework, but once installed is no big deal. It just makes running this under Linux or on Thin Clients a bit trickier, but still possible with enough patience

Both products are really good and I would recommend using them both

[ka3jjz]

The current version of FreeScan (.8d) is also under .net framework....73 Mike

[jnewell]

Originally Posted by SuperCraig

Do you have any opinion on the "Automatic Scanner Optimization" feature? Is it something a beginner would appreciated?

Without knowing exactly what's going on under the hood, I doubt it. If it's just re-ordering objects by freq order, that's nice but it's not going to speed things up much, in theory or in practice. I am open to correction by someone who knows more about what the software is doing.

Originally Posted by SuperCraig

I liked what I saw when I looked at the Butel, except that it seems you need to purchase one version for each scanner. I'd rather have a program that can do multiple units, as I'm pretty sure I'll eventually get a base unit to compliment my handheld.

Something to be aware of with ARC for Uniden radios is that each system is a separate file. It will save a global configuration but it's still assembling the data from discrete data files. This might be good, or bad, or indifferent.

Originally Posted by SuperCraig

Anything besides being more intuitive (for you) that has you lean towards ProScan over Freescan?

Mostly the UI. I like the way the tabs work. I also like the way the logging works and the history tab. And I think I'm coming to strongly prefer the way it allows me to manage quick keys. This is a YMMV stuff, though. Finally, I've had a lot of problems getting logging to work consistently with FreeScan on my laptop, which (obviously, today) has no serial port. I haven't sprung for the Uniden USB cable - it might work better.

[jnewell]

Originally Posted by ka3jjz

The current version of FreeScan (.8d) is also under .net framework....73 Mike

Additionally, I believe you have to go back to v. 0.7x to run FS under Linux; don't know which scanners that might eliminate.

[mike_s104]

I would suggest ProScan. From a standpoint of tech support, Bob is great and very responsive. I does logging, recording, is very stable (main reason I went to it from Butel software), supports IP control and streaming plus it works with more than just one scanner model. I can use the same software for my 369T, 996T, and 396XT. During the DC inauguration for Obama, I had 20+ concurrent streams going without any issue. Another plus is a single license gives you the ability to install the server piece on 2 PCs.

If you don’t need remote control or streaming and don’t want to spend $50, then I believe FreeScan will work great for you.

[SuperCraig]

In response to: Do you have any opinion on the "Automatic Scanner Optimization" feature? Is it something a beginner would appreciated?

Originally Posted by jnewell

Without knowing exactly what's going on under the hood, I doubt it. If it's just re-ordering objects by freq order, that's nice but it's not going to speed things up much, in theory or in practice. I am open to correction by someone who knows more about what the software is doing.

Yes, I'd like to hear more about this as well. I actually started a different thread for that very topic, but haven't gotten much response at all yet. I'm starting to think it doesn't get much use...

[DonS]

Originally Posted by jnewell

Without knowing exactly what's going on under the hood, I doubt it. If it's just re-ordering objects by freq order, that's nice but it's not going to speed things up much, in theory or in practice. I am open to correction by someone who knows more about what the software is doing.

This was discussed at some length several months ago. UPMan confirmed that having the scanner tune to frequencies "near" each other (e.g. in ascending or descending frequency order) could/would decrease the time required to tune to each frequency; Paul even described the reasons why this was so.

Depending on what frequencies you were scanning, how many different frequencies were programmed, etc., the difference in "scan speed" can be significant - in both theory and practice.

For example, if you were tuning to 10 frequencies in the VHF-Lo band and 10 frequencies in the 400MHz band, cycling through those 20 freqs, it would be much faster to tune to the VHF freqs then the UHF freqs, in order of frequency, rather than "interleaving" VHF/UHF/VHF/.../VHF/UHF.

[davidmc36]

Originally Posted by DonS

This was discussed at some length several months ago. UPMan confirmed that having the scanner tune to frequencies "near" each other (e.g. in ascending or descending frequency order) could/would decrease the time required to tune to each frequency.

I remember somebody describing the results of his experimenting with the difference of having something on the order of 500-1000 freqs either all jumbled up or all in sequential order and it took a 17 second scan down to a 7 or 8 or less, or something like that, I forget the precise details but it was dramatic.

[DonS]

Originally Posted by davidmc36

I remember somebody describing the results of his experimenting with the difference of having something on the order of 500-1000 freqs either all jumbled up or all in sequential order and it took a 17 second scan down to a 7 or 8 or less, or something like that, I forget the precise details but it was dramatic.

That sounds like the discussion to which I was referring. Paul eventually jumped in and explained the "why" of it (reasons which were pretty obvious to those of us who have, over the years, written code that "tunes" a PLL and its supporting hardware).

[jnewell]

What Don says is true, but IIRC Paul said that it was a marginal improvement in scan speed.