BCD436HP/BCD536HP: Does anyone know by what number the "improved scan rate" actctually is?

I am noticing the faster scan rate on conventional channels as advertised by Uniden from the latest firmware update, but I would really like to find out what the hard figure is on the improvement. I guess one imprecise way wold be to set up a favorites list with just conventional channels, get a stopwatch and do my best to hit stop at the moment the F. L. recycles, but that just sounds inherently inaccurate. So, if this info has been calculated already or if Uniden has disclosed it somewhere I'd sure like to hear about it. Thanks in Advance, TT.

tampatracker said:

I am noticing the faster scan rate on conventional channels as advertised by Uniden from the latest firmware update, but I would really like to find out what the hard figure is on the improvement. I guess one imprecise way wold be to set up a favorites list with just conventional channels, get a stopwatch and do my best to hit stop at the moment the F. L. recycles, but that just sounds inherently inaccurate. So, if this info has been calculated already or if Uniden has disclosed it somewhere I'd sure like to hear about it. Thanks in Advance, TT.

Click to expand...

Well, I'd like to read your results!

joeuser said:

Well, I'd like to read your results!

Click to expand...

I guess maybe I'll never know joe that method might give me a ballpark figure, but that's probably about it. Sounds like one that only UPMan can handle. Any thoughts on this one, UPMan?

I'm thinking I'd heard someone had done this before - or maybe I'm just crazy... but... something to try...

For conventional:

Program a bunch of frequencies - maybe 100-200 - just enter one frequency after another at the closest possible step value for that frequency band. Scan and lock out any that are is use/active. Then, add a broadcast frequency (maybe NOAA weather - 162.4, 162.55, etc.) that is active in your area. Scan and see how long it takes to hear the broadcast channel. Repeat. Repeat.

Some variables to consider that may (or may not) affect results:
- randomize the order of the list of frequencies above
- squelch settings (0 will lock on everything, 2 will probably scan well, 15 will still catch a strong NOAA broadcast)
- variables between VHF lo (e.g. 33 Mhz) and 800 bands

We could probably find a similar test plan for trunking tests as well.... but, first things first...

Maybe Proscan could be used and the log feature studied. A large list of freqs could be entered with one weather channel and the log would indicate the time between hits.

I think the reason why UPMan has been mum on this is because the answer is: it varies. It's far better to say "It's faster now" than to claim "It can now scan X number of channels per second" only to have all the anti Uniden wonks show up en masse to claim that THEIR x36 scanners don't come anywhere near this figure, which then has to be followed by an official response that says, in short, it varies. By simply not giving specifics, they avoid that whole mess, and the dozens of forum posts and noise that go with it.

-AZ

Where is that darn LIKE button???

AZScanner said:

I think the reason why UPMan has been mum on this is because the answer is: it varies. It's far better to say "It's faster now" than to claim "It can now scan X number of channels per second" only to have all the anti Uniden wonks show up en masse to claim that THEIR x36 scanners don't come anywhere near this figure, which then has to be followed by an official response that says, in short, it varies. By simply not giving specifics, they avoid that whole mess, and the dozens of forum posts and noise that go with it.

-AZ

Click to expand...

Yes, that makes sense, but still there must be some kind of magic number I bet they have in the Uniden info vault, so I'll wager THEY know and the only way WE'LL know is to implement some of the creative solutions mentioned above. And why is this of any concern to me at all you might be asking and there are two answers. One is just plain old curiosity and when there is an update for something I've spent $500+ dollars on I would like to know specifics. Second and perhaps more relevant is that I have a huge amount of conventional frequencies programed in and knowing the scan rate gives me a better idea of what I can expect from that programming. Anyway, perhaps more will be revealed........

There might be a magic range, but not a specific magic number for the reasons AZ mentioned.

Well, thanks for all the input, I've got a idea of whats going on now, much appreciated, TT.

Does anyone know by what number the "improved scan rate" actctually is?

I have been wondering the same. It would be a rough test to put in say 1000 conventional freqs that do not have an active carrier or birdies and time how long it takes to scan. It would not be an exact number, but it would give an idea. I have also read in the forums that organizing freqs in a sequential manner improves scan speed. That would be something to experiment with.

It was about a 25-30% increase. Absolute numbers depend on how far apart frequencies are, how many out-of-band jumps there are, etc.

Thanks UPMan, that's great! I thank you for that info and your reply. Enjoy your holiday, regards,TT.