• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

BC 15X scanning speed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
300
Location
Lancaster County pa
#1
So I took notice with the SAME amount of freqs in the scanner as my pro 94, the 94 scans the channels first and faster then the BCT 15x. Why is that? Is there a way to speed up scanning?
 

captclint

Mentor
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
2,448
Location
Mountaintop, PA
#2
So I took notice with the SAME amount of freqs in the scanner as my pro 94, the 94 scans the channels first and faster then the BCT 15x. Why is that? Is there a way to speed up scanning?
Sorting all the frequencies in each group for either ascending or descending order will cut the time in half with 500 channels...less with less. http://forums.radioreference.com/754386-post1.html That would also help the Pro94. Also, setting hold time for each system to 0.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
300
Location
Lancaster County pa
#3
Sorting all the frequencies in each group for either ascending or descending order will cut the time in half with 500 channels...less with less. http://forums.radioreference.com/754386-post1.html That would also help the Pro94. Also, setting hold time for each system to 0.
I'll have to try that. Right now it's a conventional system, with three groups. I think total is less then 100 freqs.

I only have one system turned on as well.
 

UPMan

Uniden Representative
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,080
Location
Arlington, TX
#4
More than likely you have a system hold time of 2 seconds (so it spends 2 seconds scanning and rescanning each channel in each system before moving on to the next system).

If you want to test how long it actually takes to scan the channels, put the local weather channel into the system. With it stopped on a weather broadcast, press SCAN and time how long it takes to return to the weather broadcast (assuming no other channel is active, this will do a single scan of all channels in that system, from which you could derive the scan speed).
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2007
Messages
300
Location
Lancaster County pa
#5
More than likely you have a system hold time of 2 seconds (so it spends 2 seconds scanning and rescanning each channel in each system before moving on to the next system).

If you want to test how long it actually takes to scan the channels, put the local weather channel into the system. With it stopped on a weather broadcast, press SCAN and time how long it takes to return to the weather broadcast (assuming no other channel is active, this will do a single scan of all channels in that system, from which you could derive the scan speed).
Thanks I will do that!
 
Joined
May 29, 2011
Messages
1,466
Location
York county Me.
#6
I got the gmrs search at 0, A bank with little activity, and the search store bank with alot of who is its? All set at 0 hold time and wx enterred. It took 2.75 seconds to go the -loop-... A little longer if 1 of those search channels has a taker - ( someone talks )..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top