780vs396vs996 etc

[scosgt]

Is it just me? I have them all, 330,396.296,796,PRO-96. But the 780 still seems to have the best ears, no beeps on EDACS, no hanging up on control channels etc. The VHF is definately better on my 780 than either the 796 or the 996.

Anyone else think the 780 is the best of the bunch (although non-digital, but in my area there really is no digital of interest at this time anyway, unless you want to listen to the Air Train *NOT*)?

The display also seems to give the most info as well. I stream mine using PROSCAN and I get much better streaming audio with the 780 than with the 796 (and I can't figure out why - ALL equipment is the same, I just switch radios back and forth).

Or maybe I'm just an oldtimer living in the past?

 

[cg]

780 scan speed is far above the 996, another plus

chris

 

[Boomeranger]

I keep the 780 in the kitchen. Ears and display are great. I haven't programmed it in so long, I'd have to take out the manual to reaquaint myself.

Since I can't put the 780 in my pocket and it doesn't run on batteries, the 396 is really my everywhere scanner.

When the power goes out, what good is a base scanner anyway?

Andy
Scannist

 

[pro92b]

The 780 is a favorite among some scannists, especially for mil-air. However it does have serious shortcomings and I haven't regretted selling mine.

On the test bench the 780 is less sensitive than the 796 and 996 except in the 450 MHz range. On 800 MHz the 780 is much less sensitive, around 12dB less than the 996 by my measurements. The 780 also has a poor squelch circuit that doesn't open until the signal is relatively strong so during scanning some of the sensitivity to very weak signals is effectively lost. See http://www.strongsignals.net/access/content/ts_sens.html for some comparative measurements by Phil Roberts that essentially agree with what I measured.

So why does the 780 seem more sensitive than other radios in some environments? I think it comes down to resistance to overload. The 796 and 996 do overload easily and that can ruin the effective sensitivity in a high RF environment. The 780 doesn't overload so easily and can perform better in an urban area. I live in a rural area where that is not a concern so the 796 works better for me.

The 780 also has poor audio output balance between AM and FM. If you use it just for mil-air or just for FM that isn't an issue.

The 780 display is nice for all the information it provides but many 780's have had display failures where the contrast fades over time until it isn't readable. I have not heard of that happening to other Uniden scanners.

Regarding scan speed, I think for just conventional scanning there is not much difference between the 780 and other recent Uniden scanners. The 996 does take about twice as long to evaluate a trunked system control channel and that can really slow things down if you scan several trunked systems.

 

[garys]

The 780 is a favorite among some scannists, especially for mil-air. However it does have serious shortcomings and I haven't regretted selling mine.

On the test bench the 780 ...

There you go injecting facts into a forum debate. Seriously, I've had two 780s, a 785, 796, and a 996. The 780 was feature rich and had a decent receiver. It certainly changed the standards for high end programmable scanners. Each follow on improved on that by adding digital and other features.

Personally, I found the 785/796 display easier to read in my truck, especially if I had sun glasses on.

The 996 is even more ground breaking than the 780 was. In my experience it has the best 800Mhz reception of them all.

With all of these scanners interference in urban areas can be an issue. Channels with no PL or DPL such as Marine band can be problematic. I think it just goes with the territory of having a multiband, multimode scanner at an affordable price.

Gary

 

[a29zuk]

The 780 is a favorite among some scannists, especially for mil-air. However it does have serious shortcomings and I haven't regretted selling mine.

On the test bench the 780 is less sensitive than the 796 and 996 except in the 450 MHz range. On 800 MHz the 780 is much less sensitive, around 12dB less than the 996 by my measurements. The 780 also has a poor squelch circuit that doesn't open until the signal is relatively strong so during scanning some of the sensitivity to very weak signals is effectively lost. See http://www.strongsignals.net/access/content/ts_sens.html for some comparative measurements by Phil Roberts that essentially agree with what I measured.

So why does the 780 seem more sensitive than other radios in some environments? I think it comes down to resistance to overload. The 796 and 996 do overload easily and that can ruin the effective sensitivity in a high RF environment. The 780 doesn't overload so easily and can perform better in an urban area. I live in a rural area where that is not a concern so the 796 works better for me.

The 780 also has poor audio output balance between AM and FM. If you use it just for mil-air or just for FM that isn't an issue.

The 780 display is nice for all the information it provides but many 780's have had display failures where the contrast fades over time until it isn't readable. I have not heard of that happening to other Uniden scanners.

Regarding scan speed, I think for just conventional scanning there is not much difference between the 780 and other recent Uniden scanners. The 996 does take about twice as long to evaluate a trunked system control channel and that can really slow things down if you scan several trunked systems.

I agree with the 800MHZ performance. My 396, when hooked to the same antenna, outperformes the 780 when I listen to two neighboring counties analog trunk systems.
But I used my 780 for about six years and never had a problem with the display.

 

[cg]

I had done this about 6 months ago and posted it on another board where a discussion on scan speed was going on:

780 vs 996 scan speed test. (very low tech)

Both radios were programmed each time from a 2, 9, manual reset.

First test:
I programmed a 780 with 162.475 (strong signal) on the first channel and 160.0000 on every other one (no signal) to a total of 250 channels. I also programmed a 996 with 162.475 on one channel and 162.0000 on 249 others.

780 - Average of 4 seconds over 10 tries from hearing wx audio, pressing scan and then hearing wx audio again. 60 CH/Sec
996 - Average of 9.1 seconds over 10 tries from hitting scan to hearing audio again. 27.5 Ch.Sec

Test 2:
Radios programmed with 162.475 in Ch 1, 51, 101, 150, & 201 (or corresponding 996 memory position). All but Ch 1 had PL of 82.5 to have radio stop and resume scan on 4 channels without opening squelch. Remainder of 250 channels have 160.0000 (w/ no traffic)

780 - Average of 5.7 seconds to scan 250 channels w/ 5 active channels. 43.8 Ch/Sec

996 - Average of 12.6 seconds to scan 250 channels w/ 5 active channels.
19.8 Ch/Sec

chris

Regarding scan speed, I think for just conventional scanning there is not much difference between the 780 and other recent Uniden scanners. The 996 does take about twice as long to evaluate a trunked system control channel and that can really slow things down if you scan several trunked systems.

 

[scosgt]

I do use my 780 with a GRE amplifier, and the RS duckie (no rooftop 800Mhz antenna). It outperforms both radios mentioned on 800Mhz. But I had noticed in the past that the 780 is less prone to front end overload, and works well with an amp. Others, such as the PRO-96, do not. Side by side in my shack the 780 is more sensitive on 800 than the 396 and 996, although the 996 ain't bad.

 

[N9JIG]

I have 4 780's and while most work very well on VHF one is pretty deaf there, but works well on UHF and 800. While certain models tend to work better than others on certain bands even within the came model specific radios will vary.

I had at one time 4 Pro2006's and a couple 2005's. One radio in particular was so good on VHF that I used it almost exclusively to DX on VHF. Another was particularly good on 800 and so I used it as a Trunker receiver.

In my current collection I have a batch of BC15's and found them to be very good as a rule on VHF highband and tend to used them mostly for Fire tone out. My 996's tend to be very good on 800, not bad on UHF but not real good on VHF, at least compared with the BC15's.

One thing I have found in all my years of scanning is that the antenna is much more important that the radio it is attached to in determining sensitivity.

 

[pro92b]

Chris: I set up a test like yours on the 996. 162.475 was programmed once and 160.0 was programmed 999 times, all in one channel group. Delays were set to 0 and only that system was scanned. Turning off the system caused the radio to display 'nothing to scan'. Average scan time through 1000 channels was 18 seconds, about 55 channels per second. I'm not sure why we don't get the same results but my 996 compares well to your 780 speed results.

Bruce: I've measured many different Uniden and GRE radios and the 996 is the most sensitive on 800 MHz that I have found. Something is desensing your 996 if the 780 beats it. If the difference is constant it may be something that broadcasts continuously like FM broadcast, TV, or cell control channels. Uniden has tinkered with the balance between overload capability and sensitivity over the years. The PRO-2052 and 780 were designed around the same time and both have worse 800 MHz sensitivity than almost any other Uniden model. I saw an article that indicated the losses were in the front end filter and the author recovered the sensitivity by changing some capacitor values in the filter.

I'd have to take exception to the idea that the antenna is more important than the radio. They form a system of equally important elements. Making wrong choices can result in very poor performance. For example running a PRO-96 on a discone with FM broadcast transmitters nearby will guarantee horrible VHF-HI performance. A Uniden radio might fare better because it has better front end filters for VHF-HI.