I want to preface this post by saying that your mileage will vary (YMWV) depending on where you live and what you scan. I bought a 996P2 the other day and am just getting around to making some comparisons with my 996XT and 536HP.
I have used the 996XT for years, and it is a solid performer, with lots of nice features. My first few days with the 996P2 seems to indicate performance like that of the 996XT, very good. But unfortunately, at least here in my QTH in Cerritos, about 20 miles SE of Los Angeles, the 996P2, like the 996XT, can't pass the Burbank/Culver City site test.
These sites are part of LA ICIS, a Motorola Type 2 Mixed Analog/Digital system, with mostly digital TGs. Its sister LA ICIS P25 system is a Project P25 system (all digital). Both have many sites and cover a wide area of Los Angeles County.
From my location, the Glendale and Montebello site control channels on LA ICIS are always strong. All of my digital scanners do a very good job on these sites, including my 996XT, 996P2, and my GRE/RS/Whistler.
Burbank is about 25 miles away and Culver City, about 20 miles, not particularly distant, but these sites are more limited in area, at least I don't usually receive them that well with a mini discone. My 440 Yagi is another story, no problem.
So one of my tests for how well scanners decode P25 is to lock on to the Burbank and Culver City sites using a marginal antenna, and see how well weaker P25 channels/TGs are decoded. The 436HP and 536HP consistently are able to decode these weaker (about 1 bar) P25 stations. That was the main difference I noticed with the 436HP/536HP vs 396XT/996XT.
At least from my early experience, the 996P2, as good as it is, still can't pass the Burbank/Culver City test. Using the same antenna via an MCA204M multicoupler, the 536HP is decoding P25 signals very well on these sites, despite a less than optimum CC signal, whereas the 996P2, like the 996XT, motorboat, stutter, or just don't decode any of these weaker signals.
I began to notice that the 996P2 stuttered occasionally, and drop out, on weaker LAPD channels. The 436HP/536HP decoded very reliably in almost all cases. So I went ahead and did this Burbank/Culver City test.
Again, this is only my limited experience in the Los Angeles basin, and for a short time with the 996P2. Perhaps tweaking of the P25 settings will help somewhat. But my initial impressions are that the x36HPs win in the weak P25 decode department. Of note, we have very few P25 Phase 2 stations active here. But in Las Vegas on the LVMPD P25 P2 system a couple of weeks ago, my 436HP/536HP were near perfect on decoding many sites and TGs in Vegas.
Again, YMWV with different scanners in different scenarios.
Steve AA6IO
I have used the 996XT for years, and it is a solid performer, with lots of nice features. My first few days with the 996P2 seems to indicate performance like that of the 996XT, very good. But unfortunately, at least here in my QTH in Cerritos, about 20 miles SE of Los Angeles, the 996P2, like the 996XT, can't pass the Burbank/Culver City site test.
These sites are part of LA ICIS, a Motorola Type 2 Mixed Analog/Digital system, with mostly digital TGs. Its sister LA ICIS P25 system is a Project P25 system (all digital). Both have many sites and cover a wide area of Los Angeles County.
From my location, the Glendale and Montebello site control channels on LA ICIS are always strong. All of my digital scanners do a very good job on these sites, including my 996XT, 996P2, and my GRE/RS/Whistler.
Burbank is about 25 miles away and Culver City, about 20 miles, not particularly distant, but these sites are more limited in area, at least I don't usually receive them that well with a mini discone. My 440 Yagi is another story, no problem.
So one of my tests for how well scanners decode P25 is to lock on to the Burbank and Culver City sites using a marginal antenna, and see how well weaker P25 channels/TGs are decoded. The 436HP and 536HP consistently are able to decode these weaker (about 1 bar) P25 stations. That was the main difference I noticed with the 436HP/536HP vs 396XT/996XT.
At least from my early experience, the 996P2, as good as it is, still can't pass the Burbank/Culver City test. Using the same antenna via an MCA204M multicoupler, the 536HP is decoding P25 signals very well on these sites, despite a less than optimum CC signal, whereas the 996P2, like the 996XT, motorboat, stutter, or just don't decode any of these weaker signals.
I began to notice that the 996P2 stuttered occasionally, and drop out, on weaker LAPD channels. The 436HP/536HP decoded very reliably in almost all cases. So I went ahead and did this Burbank/Culver City test.
Again, this is only my limited experience in the Los Angeles basin, and for a short time with the 996P2. Perhaps tweaking of the P25 settings will help somewhat. But my initial impressions are that the x36HPs win in the weak P25 decode department. Of note, we have very few P25 Phase 2 stations active here. But in Las Vegas on the LVMPD P25 P2 system a couple of weeks ago, my 436HP/536HP were near perfect on decoding many sites and TGs in Vegas.
Again, YMWV with different scanners in different scenarios.
Steve AA6IO
