Re:
I have a 296d and also believe it's better at doing digital than the 396. Keep in mind, you must get the digital settings (manual adjustment) correct to work/sound properly. I have compared the 296 to several 396's, most recently two 396's in the same car as mine while listening to a 3600 baud system. I found the audio quality similar, but the 296 has more bass. However, the 296 seems to decode and pick up talkgroups faster than the 396. Again, with two 396's in the car with a 296, the 296 will get transmissions about 1-2 seconds quicker. I don't know why, but it's a consistant delay on other 396's I have tried. I understand the 396 has several parameters that can be manually adjusted for digital reception, so maybe they can work as well if properly set. I have also found the 296 quicker with conventional systems. On a VHF-hi band digital ASTRO system, the 296 will get all the transmission where the 396 doesn't begin decoding until after a word or two.
I agree with the first posting...the 296 performance wise is as good or better, but the 396 wins as far as wiz-bang features and more memory. I do find the 296 much simpler to operate on trunked systems...I can manually step to whatever talkgroup I want instantly and don't have to scroll through all the groups. I can also set some talkgroups as "priority," so as to not miss important groups/events. The 396 does have have ability to set up priority talkgroups...a feature I use a lot.
BG..
