Filter choice in the HP-2?

UPMan said:

BCD436/536HP have a true NFM RF filter.

Click to expand...

Why on earth would the latest scanner HP2 not have such a filter?



Please advise. This seems to be a deal breaker for people like me who live in congested areas.

More importantly. Is the NFM filter hardware or can it be addressed via firmware?

dwiniger said:

Why on earth would the latest scanner HP2 not have such a filter?
Please advise. This seems to be a deal breaker for people like me who live in congested areas.
More importantly. Is the NFM filter hardware or can it be addressed via firmware?

Click to expand...

Dwiniger
I think the NFM filter is hardware. I have been using my new HP-2 for about a week. As I commented before, the P25 decode is good, and the audio is good. I suggested the HP-2 as perhaps an alternative with a bit less steep learning curve compared to the x36HPs a couple of days ago. I certainly like the color display and analyze features.
However, if you live in a radio-congested area, then I would go with x36HPs. The HP-2 does pretty well on most of trunking systems here in Los Angeles/Orange County. However, as an example, we have the Los Angeles City (STRS - Simulcast Trunked Radio System) Project 25 Trunking system in Los Angeles. This is one system that is very borderline for me in terms of distance and reliable control channel (CC) decoding. The problem is a lot of other adjacent voice channels for other trunking systems on 800 Mhz here in LA/Orange County. Its like the freeway system, very congested.
The decoding of the CCs for both sites 1 and 8 ranges from 0 to maybe 60%, depending on adjacent frequency traffic. This is where the NFM filter plays a big role. My HP-2 picks up some of the data, enough to display the TG, and the analyze feature will show some activity. But usually not enough that the P25 audio is decoded. My WS-1080 picks up some of the TGs, but you can see the T (trunking indicator) most times is off, and if P25 voice is decoded, it is Donald Duck quality (not sure if the WS-1080 has a NFM filter).
Now go to my 536HP and 436HP, they consistently hold onto the CC data more reliably (not perfectly), and the P25 voice decode is OK. For most digital trunking systems here in Los Angeles (and there are many), any of the top name digital trunking scanners will do a reasonable job.
But in marginal cases, the 436HP and 536HP are hands down the best for decoding when the going gets rough. If you are going to be monitoring UHF/800 Mhz trunking systems in an area with congested frequencies. I would seriously consider the 436HP or 536HP.

Steve AA6IO

Thanks but the question was for Upman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ANYBODY have any idea why UNIDEN would leave off the NFM filter on the HP2. From all I have read it is THE biggest collective attribute missing versus the x36 units.

I am not following why a $500 scanner in 2014 (almost 2015) would not feature this key piece of hardware/firmware.

Makes no sense to me.

Same question..different day

This is what I got when I asked the exact Q a week or so ago.

Both units are similar and have their fans depending on personal preferences.

The 2 units appear to part ways when it comes to congested signals.

Biggest issue I have heard is that if you live in a congested area, the 536 wins out because for some STUPID reason, UNIDEN did not include the NFM filter on the HP1/HP2 models. The filter must be the answer to the congested impact.

Why the HP2 design goes "backward" in this regard has yet to be answered given its price point.

Apparently the 436/536 have the NFM filters.

Other than that I can't get any better advice across this entire forum.

UPMAN will NOT respond to me as to why the NFM filter is not on the HP2.

#dealbreaker for most

dwiniger said:

ANYBODY have any idea why UNIDEN would leave off the NFM filter on the HP2. From all I have read it is THE biggest collective attribute missing versus the x36 units.

I am not following why a $500 scanner in 2014 (almost 2015) would not feature this key piece of hardware/firmware.

Makes no sense to me.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing, but I think changing the NFM in the HP-2 from that in the HP-1 would have required a re-submission to the FCC as a new device which would have required extensive testing/certification. I believe it was mentioned in other threads that the RF design in the HP-2 remains the same as the HP-1, the HP-2 changed to a different DSP.

Really odd that Upman is always silent when honest questions are in play.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, he's commented on this exact question in other threads.

Plz provide a link that explains from Upman why Uniden chose to not include the NFM filter in their HP2. I have looked and did not see this directly from Uniden. I really don't care to hear from trolls but rather from the source with all due respect on this one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why not a true NFM filter in the HP2? Want to only hear back from UPMan plz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dwiniger, I've merged all your filter questions into this thread.

Hopefully you'll get the answer you want whether it's from UPMan or someone else.

And yes, other people are allowed to try and answer your question.

We will see and I did respectfully ask on this one !!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, you've always been respectful. Didn't say you haven't been.

Cool. I do think I am invisible to the man but I really don't get it from a marketing aspect which is my personal area of expertise. The avoidance of an answer from him implies much disarray at Uniden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a decision made based on cost, performance, and marketability. If it does not meet your needs, then I would recommend you purchase the BCD436HP or BCD536HP.

I will add that this is the same essential answer to "Why did you include..." or "Why didn't you include..." any other feature.

Thanks for the response. Only logical consumer interpretation must be cost since performance is impeded and at this current price point you lose your marketability without it. Must be really expensive!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dwiniger said:

...Must be really expensive!

Click to expand...

Relatively speaking, and in comparison to other components, filters aren't cheap.

Leaving out the NFM filter can be a valid decision in a scanner. Multiple filters is a pricey option, and with many scanner owners being cheapskates, cost is a factor.

90% of The Home Patrol Users, only use The Rubber ducky antenna and only monitor Local systems around there there home. so a NFM filter would be overkill.

Robertolson said:

90% of The Home Patrol Users, only use The Rubber ducky antenna and only monitor Local systems around there there home. so a NFM filter would be overkill.

Click to expand...

Agree but in a $500 scanner like HP2?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

$500 for a scanner really isn't all that high. Back in the day when I bought my pro 2004 it cost $400 and it didn't do anything like the hp scanners do. Company's have to make cuts somewhere to make a profit otherwise what's the point of making it. If they didn't our $500 scanners would be $1500 scanners or more.

Just my 2 cent's