Need advice for next scanner

BillH1 · Aug 15, 2017

Hello everybody, I am currently in the market for a new scanner, as my beloved BR330t has unfortunately kicked the bucket. I have narrowed my search down to either the BCD436 or the BCD325p2. Most of my listening is on VHF high, and UHF, but I do travel to Las Vegas often so I would like the P25 capability, and should be able to pick up some stuff from LV and Laughlin from my location. I have seen people report that the 436 is less sensitive on VHF high, is this true? I enjoy listening to neighboring towns VHF systems about 25 miles away with my 330t, so which would be best for this? In all honesty the 325p2 is more attractive to me because of how similar the UI looks to the 330t/x96t scanners, and it being a non SD card scanner.. Thanks for any advice

-Bill

jonwienke · Aug 15, 2017

Get the 436, no question.

The 436 has a better receiver. Some older units were missing a capacitor that caused rf noise from the battery compartment to interfere with reception if you were using the stock antenna. But that problem was fixed over a year ago, and does not apply if you are using an outdoor antenna at home.

The database on the SD card, plus a GPS, is a must-have when traveling.

Having all programming and config settings on a sd card means you can change cards to change scanner config, and it is easily changed if there is a problem.

marksmith · Aug 15, 2017

If you look through this beginners section you will find a thread like this one created about once a week. Lots of recommendations are out there.

Nobody can tell you what the right one is for you unless you give a very specific list of attributes. Short of that, read through them, see what fits

The 436 does have issues on vhf high, the 325 p2 is about half the size of the 436.

536/436/ws1095/996p2/996xt/325p2/396xt/psr800/396t/HP-1/HP-2 & others

jonwienke · Aug 15, 2017

marksmith said:
The 436 does have issues on vhf high

Not new ones. Any 436 made in 2017, and most made in 2016, already have C1 installed, and don't have the self-interference issue with VHF-high/UHF noise from the battery compartment. If you buy a scanner from any place that sells them regularly (Amazon, Scanner Master, etc.) you'll get one without any reception issues.

marksmith · Aug 15, 2017

Not referring to battery interference, or issues with c1. The radio is just not as sensitive on vhf high as it is in other bands.

Was specifically replying to listening habits of OP.

536/436/ws1095/996p2/996xt/325p2/396xt/psr800/396t/HP-1/HP-2 & others

jonwienke · Aug 15, 2017

With the stock antenna, maybe. With an antenna tuned for the band, definitely not. With an ST-2 mounted outside I get close call hits from Virginia STARS sites, and I live in Pennsylvania, and have done so with multiple 436s I've tested after modding them. Definitely not a sensitivity issue there.

marksmith · Aug 15, 2017

Many people do not have an ST2 mounted outside.

536/436/ws1095/996p2/996xt/325p2/396xt/psr800/396t/HP-1/HP-2 & others

iMONITOR · Aug 15, 2017

jonwienke said:
Get the 436, no question.

The 436 has a better receiver. Some older units were missing a capacitor that caused rf noise from the battery compartment to interfere with reception if you were using the stock antenna.

How would batteries cause RF noise? Was it caused by recharging?

jonwienke · Aug 15, 2017

marksmith said:
Many people do not have an ST2 mounted outside.

You've missed my point, which is that VHF reception deficiencies are due to the stock antenna, not the scanner itself. When you connect an antenna that is well-tuned to VHF, like the Diamond RH77CA or the ST-2, the 436 has no problems receiving VHF.

jonwienke · Aug 15, 2017

iMONITOR said:
How would batteries cause RF noise?

The batteries don't cause the RFI, it's coming from an IC on the front circuit board near the batteries when C1 is not installed.

iMONITOR · Aug 15, 2017

jonwienke said:
The batteries don't cause the RFI, it's coming from an IC on the front circuit board near the batteries when C1 is not installed.

Got it!

Thanks

goodmore · Aug 15, 2017

Scanners today just do a real crappy job on the P25 systems. I would love to say that scanning these systems was a breeze, but most of us have problems with distortion. You can read post after post on the subject with all kinds of suggestions on how to improve monitoring, but in the end anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of what I listen to is distorted noise.And that is just the scanner companies inability to design a better scanner.

Blackswan73 · Aug 15, 2017

goodmore said:
Scanners today just do a real crappy job on the P25 systems. I would love to say that scanning these systems was a breeze, but most of us have problems with distortion. You can read post after post on the subject with all kinds of suggestions on how to improve monitoring, but in the end anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of what I listen to is distorted noise.And that is just the scanner companies inability to design a getter scanner.

Actually, most of the scanners work fine on P25. It is LSM simulcast that gives problems. If you are not in a simulcast area, and 75% of scanner users aren't, the scanners work fine. I use two Whistlers, and one Uniden. All work just fine on P25.

jonwienke · Aug 15, 2017

goodmore said:
Scanners today just do a real crappy job on the P25 systems. I would love to say that scanning these systems was a breeze, but most of us have problems with distortion.

Not true. Scanners only have issues with simulcast systems were signals from multiple towers on the same frequency at roughly the same strength interfere with each other. On non-simulcast digital systems (P25, DMR, and others), most scanners will work just as well as on FM analog.

Valeriy · Aug 17, 2017

marksmith said:
Not referring to battery interference, or issues with c1. The radio is just not as sensitive on vhf high as it is in other bands.

Was specifically replying to listening habits of OP.

536/436/ws1095/996p2/996xt/325p2/396xt/psr800/396t/HP-1/HP-2 & others

I experience exactly the opposite:
my 436 is very sensitive in VHF Hi band, less in UHF (not to mention the bug in Discovery mode), and not very sensitive in VHF Low band.

Chris516 · Aug 19, 2017

I just wanted to throw in my two cents. No direct or overt criticism of those who suggested the 436HP over the 325P2. Unless ScannerMaster has it completely wrong. Comparing the two scanners, the site data says that the 325p2 can do trunking, but the 436HP can't.

In the same comparison, while I didn't do an actual Yes/No count on the in individual capabilities. The 325p2 had far more 'Yes's, than 'No's. Compared to the 436HP.

One thing that struck me. It said the 436HP only had 6 channels, compared to the 325p2 having 25,000.

jonwienke · Aug 19, 2017

NONE of that is accurate. The 436 handles more channels than the 325P2, and does every flavor of trunking that the 325P2 does. The 436 wins every head-to-head feature comparison to the 325P2 except in regard to size and possibly battery life. I have been a 436 owner for years.

marksmith · Aug 19, 2017

Chris516 said:
I just wanted to throw in my two cents. No direct or overt criticism of those who suggested the 436HP over the 325P2. Unless ScannerMaster has it completely wrong. Comparing the two scanners, the site data says that the 325p2 can do trunking, but the 436HP can't.

In the same comparison, while I didn't do an actual Yes/No count on the in individual capabilities. The 325p2 had far more 'Yes's, than 'No's. Compared to the 436HP.

One thing that struck me. It said the 436HP only had 6 channels, compared to the 325p2 having 25,000.

You are giving people advice on what to buy when you obviously don't own either radio or know anything about them.

I am sure the original poster knows that the 436 is a digital trunking scanner with an onboard database.

The 325 p2 is a digital trunking scanner without database, but about half the size.
Both radios receive basically everything.

The keys are really size, database, and SD card.

536/436/ws1095/996p2/996xt/325p2/396xt/psr800/396t/HP-1/HP-2 & others

phask · Aug 19, 2017

I have no idea what you are reading - but your comprehension is sorely off.

Chris516 said:
I just wanted to throw in my two cents. No direct or overt criticism of those who suggested the 436HP over the 325P2. Unless ScannerMaster has it completely wrong. Comparing the two scanners, the site data says that the 325p2 can do trunking, but the 436HP can't.

In the same comparison, while I didn't do an actual Yes/No count on the in individual capabilities. The 325p2 had far more 'Yes's, than 'No's. Compared to the 436HP.

One thing that struck me. It said the 436HP only had 6 channels, compared to the 325p2 having 25,000.

K2KOH · Aug 19, 2017

I own two 436's, very happy with them. I cannot speak for the 325P2, but one of the nice things about the 436 is throw in the zip code, pick out your services and away you go. One thing I do NOT like about radios like the 325p2 is you cannot set delay for individual channels.

Need advice for next scanner

Member

More Info Coming Soon!

Member

More Info Coming Soon!

Member

More Info Coming Soon!

Member

Silent Key

More Info Coming Soon!

More Info Coming Soon!

Silent Key

Member

Active Member

More Info Coming Soon!

Member

Member

More Info Coming Soon!

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads