15/996 Speed Up Trick: Myth Confirmed

[cpuerror]

Naturally, but you should have at least come up with a "real world" benchmark that benefits people, not something that suits nobody.

I'm certainly not interested in a 500 channel system. A cute stat but it's hardly going to change the way folks program their scanners. That's what you were saying!

Andy
Scannist

I know its not a realistic representation of how scanners are setup, but its not really meant to be. What it is meant to do is show that the scanner will tune sorted channels much faster then random channels and in the way I have it setup the time gap is much more pronounced then what you might have in a real-life system. The high number of channels also help keep any human error from effecting the numbers much.

If you did this on a real system, results are going to vary because each person's setup is unique, but it shows that there will be at least some increase in scan speed vs no sorting.

I did this test on my 246 of curiosity. The sorted systems took 5 seconds each to scan, the random one took 32 seconds to scan. There was someone else on this thread who said it helped double the scan speed on his 396. Thats 3 tests on 3 different scanners and the results agree.

 

[rhutch]

He tried an experiment and shared what he found?

Andy, in the spirit of peer review, why don't you prove that his findings are wrong or that his methodology is flawed, if thats what you think, rather than just complaining with no evidence what so ever that he is wrong.

 

[W4ELL]

Naturally, but you should have at least come up with a "real world" benchmark that benefits people, not something that suits nobody.

Andy
Scannist

I can't think of anything more "real world" than scan speed.

These tests confirm my experience with every scanner I have ever owned. Is this test exact? NO. Does it need to be? NO. If the results were within one second of each other, then I might question his method but ~8 seconds difference? There is no way he could be off by that much... even with a stopwatch. (I'd wager his margin of error is 1 second or less.)

Arrange your channels in ANY configuration and the results will be very close to the same. He arranged them in 500 channel systems in this experiment for accuracy. The fewer times he has to react and hit the stopwatch, the more accurate his results are likely to be. :lol:

This thread just confirms that it is definitely worth optimizing your channels to increase your scan speed.

 

[737mech]

cpuerror is correct in my case

I have a big difference with just my few groups of airports in my area and this procedure seemed to open up my scanner alot more for me. Good work cpuerror!! I then tried it out on my FD/pd mot II system and just sorting the freqs works better but the talkgroups IMHO will not matter because it all depends on who's talking first. With Mot II I was to believe that the system is set and ready, a user (tgid) hits a mic and the first available freq is used then if another user hits mic/tx another freq is used (trunking 101) you know the rest but you have made a very important discovery with some of the bct15 users. I noted this also a few weeks ago posted "bct15 faster" You should have labeled this post "For some of you willing to get more try this" I like the results and hits are more frequent. Some hits are way better according to idtracker II v1.17.1. Thank you for the info!!!

 

[UPMan]

The results are generally valid for any multiband receiver. If you tune two adjascent frequencies sequentially, there is much less for the receiver to do (for example, they'll use the same band filters, nearly the same PLL setting, so settle time will be faster, etc). Switching between frequencies that are far apart (like in two seperate bands) requires much more programmatic setup of the receiver as well as additional settle time for each major thing switched.

 

[cpuerror]

Well naysayers the man has spoken

 

[Dubbin]

I would like to know what the big controversy is anyway. It has been known for years that it works the way that cpu has said.

 

[socalmike]

Why isn't it already done ....

Why aren't the frequencies automatically sorted by the radio like the ancient Bearcat 8500xlt did ????? You would think with all the bells and whistles in the current Uniden line up like the 996 it could be done for you. Oh well, guess I'll dig in and rearrange my groups.

mike

 

[kenisned]

Why aren't the frequencies automatically sorted by the radio like the ancient Bearcat 8500xlt did ????? You would think with all the bells and whistles in the current Uniden line up like the 996 it could be done for you. Oh well, guess I'll dig in and rearrange my groups.

mike

I wouldn't like it automatically sorted.

I generally don't listen to police, but I have them programmed and locked out immediately after their corresponding fire/ems departments.

This way during an incident, I can stop on the fire/ems channel I want to hear, and go one up and unlock the police to catch more info on the incident.

As someone else mentioned, the Butel software will sort by frequency. I wish it would also sort alphabeticaly by alpha tag (if it does, tell me!).

I did reorganize my trunked frequencies into numerical order (at least the moto systems).

 

[LordJ]

As someone else mentioned, the Butel software will sort by frequency. I wish it would also sort alphabeticaly by alpha tag (if it does, tell me!).

(at least the moto systems).

You could try inputting your frequencies into excel, then data sort as you see fit, then paste back into ARC...

 

[737mech]

I wouldn't like it automatically sorted.

I generally don't listen to police, but I have them programmed and locked out immediately after their corresponding fire/ems departments.

This way during an incident, I can stop on the fire/ems channel I want to hear, and go one up and unlock the police to catch more info on the incident.

As someone else mentioned, the Butel software will sort by frequency. I wish it would also sort alphabeticaly by alpha tag (if it does, tell me!).

I did reorganize my trunked frequencies into numerical order (at least the moto systems).

Yes it sorts in ARC15 just double click the tag id tab and it sorts them.

 

[socalmike]

Let me explain

Hi,

Kenisned , let me explain. The way the 8500xlt "sorts " the frequencies is internal to the scanner. The channel numbers dont matter. If you put channel 1 as "154.00" and channel 2 as "45.00" , channel 1 will always be "154.00" but internal to the scanner , it sorts them sequentially (45 first then 154, etc) for faster scanning. Download the 9000 series manual and see for yourself. http://www.uniden.com/pdf/BC9000XLTom.pdf , page 2, 3rd paragraph . Apparently this was an 'included' feature on most UNIDEN scanners that seems to have been removed for reasons known only to Uniden. That was my beef.
Hope this clears this up.

Mike

 

[eorange]

Exactly, I remember my BC3000XLT having that same feature, which WAS very cool.

 

[DickH]

No kidding?

Your results are less than stellar. So is your "benchmark".

Can WE take your results to the bank?

Not likely.

Try a 50 group with 10 channels system and get back to us.

Andy
Scannist

Since you are raising the question, why don't YOU try "a 50 group with 10 channels" and get back to US?

 

[KE4ZNR]

Since you are raising the question, why don't YOU try "a 50 group with 10 channels" and get back to US?

Dick, a few things:
1) You replied (and bumped) a post from MARCH of this year.
2) You are trying to reply to a poster who was banned in the past and thus will never get a response from him.
Might want to check the dates of posts before replying to them.
No need to bump a 9 month old thread.
Thanks and Happy Holidays!
Marshall KE4ZNR

 

[DickH]

Dick, a few things:
1) You replied (and bumped) a post from MARCH of this year.

And there is some rule against that?

2) You are trying to reply to a poster who was banned in the past and thus will never get a response from him.

How am I supposed to know someone's history?

 

[KE4ZNR]

Dick,
Well considering that you added no new content to the original thread then why bump an almost year old thread just try to provoke a response from a banned poster?
And to help you out as far as knowing someone's history: You replied to Boomeranger. Look under his username in everyone of his posts in this thread...his title gives ya the answer you need:
Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Just trying to help you out.
Happy Holidays & Happy Monitoring!
Marshall KE4ZNR

Dick, a few things:
1) You replied (and bumped) a post from MARCH of this year.

And there is some rule against that?

2) You are trying to reply to a poster who was banned in the past and thus will never get a response from him.

How am I supposed to know someone's history?

 

[slicerwizard]

Dick, a few things:
1) You replied (and bumped) a post from MARCH of this year.

And there is some rule against that?

2) You are trying to reply to a poster who was banned in the past and thus will never get a response from him.

How am I supposed to know someone's history?

I assume that too much turkey dinner or perhaps some liquids used to wash it down have led you to this point. If not, you're not doing it right.

 

[elsinga]

You could try inputting your frequencies into excel, then data sort as you see fit, then paste back into ARC...

I use an Excel sheet (over 7000 frequencies for the Netherlands by now, and still growing ) for this and export to the bctool CSV file format. Sorting can be done in whatever way I like withing a group, but (how surprising!) keeping the frequencies sorted ascending/descending is the best way. But I could sort on the 4th letter of the alpha tag, if I thought that would be of good use.

What Upman describes is indeed comon knowledge among scanner enthousiasts.

 

[Bill_White]

Not exactly a “new” modification to the scanning community but,
If you really want to speed things up a bit, overcock the CPU. The speed of the microprocessor is determined by the frequency of an external oscillator crystal and they are not all that hard to replace. I have overclocked several scanners and receivers over the years. Do so at your own risk.