Looking for a Uniden analog only base scanner

[NYRHKY94]

Great thread! While I really like my BCT15X, I recently picked up a new in the box BC898T. I owned one of these true base units previously and always regretted having sold it. Really glad to have it back in my office shack. Love the form factor and big rotary tuning knob as others have said

 

[bigcam406]

Nice find!

 

[scannersnstuff]

Great thread! While I really like my BCT15X, I recently picked up a new in the box BC898T. I owned one of these true base units previously and always regretted having sold it. Really glad to have it back in my office shack. Love the form factor and big rotary tuning knob as others have said

That has been my vhf analog scanner for plus 10 year's. Going with me when I move. Will now see duty as a civil/milair/marine monitor. One fantastic scanner.

 

[rs16]

How does the 996P2 compare to the 15X for analog? I know it’s not analog only, but it is not an IQ scanner either.

 

[mule1075]

You can do much better then Scanner Master. Overstock has it for 149.95 and free shipping.
Overstock.com

You can do better than that. Wait for the weekend. I got mine for $133 and change from Overstock.

 

[mule1075]

There are a ton of 2006's on eBay right now for under 100 bucks.

By the end of the auction though over $100 with shipping. Yes they are excellent but for a few dollars more you can get something more modern. That being said if the price is right i will buy one.

 

[lu81fitter]

How does the 996P2 compare to the 15X for analog? I know it’s not analog only, but it is not an IQ scanner either.

I have 2 15X scanners and a 996p2. Both do well on analog. The 996p2 does good for me on digital. One simulcast system gives me fits at times, but I don't monitor it that often. The 15X is definitely my "go to radio" for anything analog. I do recommend using a band specific antenna when mobile. It makes a big difference for me. An all band antenna, regardless of the manufacturer, just doesn't cut it compared to a band specific, especially when covering VHF, UHF, & 800 in analog. I use a diplexer that splits VHF and UHF. Run an 18" whip for the VHF, and a 6" whip for the rest hooked to that diplexer. Works very well. A brand new 15X can be had for around $150 on JET.com. Appears some are getting better deals elsewhere.

 

[UPMan]

How does the 996P2 compare to the 15X for analog? I know it’s not analog only, but it is not an IQ scanner either.

They should be virtually identical. Same RF design in both.

 

[radio3353]

You can do better than that. Wait for the weekend. I got mine for $133 and change from Overstock.

I'll keep an eye out for it. Thanks.

 

[KR7CQ]

Great comments here. I own most of the scanners mentioned here and have done extensive head to head testing on VHF and UHF with these scanners and dozens more, while sharing the same multicoupler and the same Diamond discone antenna. I'll offer the conclusions that I'm firm on after many hours of comparison testing:

BCT15X - Best all-around analog scanner. Modern enough with things like tone squelch, alpha tags, and great scan speed, but still somewhat old-school in performance. It's not the best in any band, but it's good enough in all bands, and overall it's my go-to analog scanner.

BC780XLT - The best scanner I've ever tested by far in the AM civilian airband, and on milair. Also the best scanner I've tested for weak signal VHF fire ground reception. Time and time again it pulls in the weak stuff in VHF and milair that nothing else will break squelch on. There is too much white noise on UHF audio, a bit of a bummer, but nothing is perfect right?

PRO-2006 - The best UHF scanner I've ever owned or tested. There is no comparison, at all. It pulls in the most distant and faint signals, even from patrol cars going car to car, sometimes many miles away. On one frequency this scanner can clearly pull in transmissions from a site that is about 50 miles away and behind hills to my antenna. We are talking UHF here, not VHF. The audio quality is clean and stellar. White noise during transmissions is minimal compared to other scanners. It has real squelch and volume knobs that feel "right". On UHF it can outperform the 780 head to head on the Arizona DPS frequencies, and can embarrass any digital scanner when it comes to receiving the most distant stuff. Not have tone squelch just sucks in 2019. Monitoring a bunch of AZ DPS frequencies, I'm bombarded by morse code identifiers all the time, and it gets old. Oh how I wish I had one of the rare tone-board equipped models. VHF and milair capabilities are good, but clearly can't match the 780.

BC9000XLT - I still own a mint condition model purchased in 1998 and I am in love with the large form factor, the top firing speaker, and the big VFO knob. Oh how I wish modern scanners had ergonomics more like this scanner. It's a good performer, but not stellar by any means. It's strong suit is VHF fire ground reception, but it has a high white noise level in the audio that puts a bit of a damper on listening to the weaker signal stuff. Still, it's a cherished part of my collection.

I've tested a lot of the newer Whistler scanners and have found them lacking for analog VHF / UHF. Even the original PSR scanners had a lot of issues for me here with intermod. The PSR-800 was pretty respectable with the UHF DPS system, but it's a handheld and never received head to head testing on the multicoupler so I can't make a definitive statement there.

I own a lot of scanners, but only the top dogs make it into my main cabinet, so I'll let this picture speak for itself.

 

[TailGator911]

That's sexy right there. Dang.

 

[iMONITOR]

They should be virtually identical. Same RF design in both.

Thanks for that info Paul...I've been curious about that for some time now! +1 for Uniden!!!

 

[scannersnstuff]

Great comments here. I own most of the scanners mentioned here and have done extensive head to head testing on VHF and UHF with these scanners and dozens more, while sharing the same multicoupler and the same Diamond discone antenna. I'll offer the conclusions that I'm firm on after many hours of comparison testing:

BCT15X - Best all-around analog scanner. Modern enough with things like tone squelch, alpha tags, and great scan speed, but still somewhat old-school in performance. It's not the best in any band, but it's good enough in all bands, and overall it's my go-to analog scanner.

BC780XLT - The best scanner I've ever tested by far in the AM civilian airband, and on milair. Also the best scanner I've tested for weak signal VHF fire ground reception. Time and time again it pulls in the weak stuff in VHF and milair that nothing else will break squelch on. There is too much white noise on UHF audio, a bit of a bummer, but nothing is perfect right?

PRO-2006 - The best UHF scanner I've ever owned or tested. There is no comparison, at all. It pulls in the most distant and faint signals, even from patrol cars going car to car, sometimes many miles away. On one frequency this scanner can clearly pull in transmissions from a site that is about 50 miles away and behind hills to my antenna. We are talking UHF here, not VHF. The audio quality is clean and stellar. White noise during transmissions is minimal compared to other scanners. It has real squelch and volume knobs that feel "right". On UHF it can outperform the 780 head to head on the Arizona DPS frequencies, and can embarrass any digital scanner when it comes to receiving the most distant stuff. Not have tone squelch just sucks in 2019. Monitoring a bunch of AZ DPS frequencies, I'm bombarded by morse code identifiers all the time, and it gets old. Oh how I wish I had one of the rare tone-board equipped models. VHF and milair capabilities are good, but clearly can't match the 780.

BC9000XLT - I still own a mint condition model purchased in 1998 and I am in love with the large form factor, the top firing speaker, and the big VFO knob. Oh how I wish modern scanners had ergonomics more like this scanner. It's a good performer, but not stellar by any means. It's strong suit is VHF fire ground reception, but it has a high white noise level in the audio that puts a bit of a damper on listening to the weaker signal stuff. Still, it's a cherished part of my collection.

I've tested a lot of the newer Whistler scanners and have found them lacking for analog VHF / UHF. Even the original PSR scanners had a lot of issues for me here with intermod. The PSR-800 was pretty respectable with the UHF DPS system, but it's a handheld and never received head to head testing on the multicoupler so I can't make a definitive statement there.

I own a lot of scanners, but only the top dogs make it into my main cabinet, so I'll let this picture speak for itself.

View attachment 70091

Your choice of radio's and your comparison video's are awesome.

 

[Ubbe]

Practically all scanners with slow scan speed, or any crystal scanner, have low internal hiss. If the VCO that steers the frequency in a synthezised receiver have to be able to quickly switch between frequencies it will need to use less filtering of the PLL jitter noise that will sound as white noise, exactly as it sounds when receiving a weak signal. Old scanners where forced to higher scan speeds by using almost no filtering of the VCO steering voltage, like Pro2042 and BC9000 that has very high background noise levels. Pro2006 are a slow speed scanner with low background hiss. Some professional 2-way radios have an elegant solution where they remove filtering during scan and adds VCO filters when scanning stops.

The 20dB S/N measured sensitivity at 460MHz from my receivers are:

Pro2006 - 0.55uV
UBC780 - 0.25uV
BCD536 - 025uV
MD380 - 0.18uV

The Pro2006 hardly de-sense at all when seeing strong signals and the MD380 are almost the same but the 780 and 536 are loosing sensitivity fairly quickly. If you feel that a Pro2006, with sensitivity specifications that are worse than any modern scanner, are the most sensitive UHF scanner then you probably suffer from strong signal de-sensening. I would suggest adding a $20 variable 0-20dB attenuator between Stridsberg and a non Pro2006 scanner and increase attenuation while listening to a weak signal conversation with background noise and adjust for best reception. You'll probably find that something like a 4-6dB attenuation will work best at UHF and will outperform the Pro2006. Then try the attenuator before the Stridsberg to see if it can be used with a common attenuation for all scanners. But you should really use a $20 USB SDR dongle receiver to be able to look at the frequency spectrum to see where the strong signal are and try to reduce it with a narrow notch filter that PAR and others can supply. Ideally a scanner notch filter should be very narrow and only notch away 20dB so it would still be possible to monitor that strong signal. Maybe it can be done by connecting a coax with a 20dB attenuator in parallell with the filter. Scanners like the 780 and 536 use the same bandpass antenna filter for the whole 310-510MHz range so the interfering frequency could be anywhere whithin that range.

/Ubbe

 

[Bob1955]

I currently have an excellent BCT15X for most all of my analog requirements, which is mostly aircraft. But my all time large-form-factor analog scanners were Uniden's BC9000-XLT, BC895-XLT and BC898T. Mostly due to the larger knobs, keypad, and speaker located in the top.

I have a Bearcat BC-890XLT that I just cleaned up for a Westchester County, NY Fire Department This BASE KICKS ass on AUDIO, low band and VHF high band. The stupid thing is either all channels are on delay or not. Not selectable delay. I may be able to sell this as it is NOT narrow band ready or Apco-25. The backlight is out. I'm thinking it requires (4) blubs. Does anyone know what is required?
Have a nice weekend everyone!

 

[iMONITOR]

Great comments here. I own most of the scanners mentioned here and have done extensive head to head testing on VHF and UHF with these scanners and dozens more, while sharing the same multicoupler and the same Diamond discone antenna. I'll offer the conclusions that I'm firm on after many hours of comparison testing:

BCT15X - Best all-around analog scanner. Modern enough with things like tone squelch, alpha tags, and great scan speed, but still somewhat old-school in performance. It's not the best in any band, but it's good enough in all bands, and overall it's my go-to analog scanner.

BC780XLT - The best scanner I've ever tested by far in the AM civilian airband, and on milair. Also the best scanner I've tested for weak signal VHF fire ground reception. Time and time again it pulls in the weak stuff in VHF and milair that nothing else will break squelch on. There is too much white noise on UHF audio, a bit of a bummer, but nothing is perfect right?

PRO-2006 - The best UHF scanner I've ever owned or tested. There is no comparison, at all. It pulls in the most distant and faint signals, even from patrol cars going car to car, sometimes many miles away. On one frequency this scanner can clearly pull in transmissions from a site that is about 50 miles away and behind hills to my antenna. We are talking UHF here, not VHF. The audio quality is clean and stellar. White noise during transmissions is minimal compared to other scanners. It has real squelch and volume knobs that feel "right". On UHF it can outperform the 780 head to head on the Arizona DPS frequencies, and can embarrass any digital scanner when it comes to receiving the most distant stuff. Not have tone squelch just sucks in 2019. Monitoring a bunch of AZ DPS frequencies, I'm bombarded by morse code identifiers all the time, and it gets old. Oh how I wish I had one of the rare tone-board equipped models. VHF and milair capabilities are good, but clearly can't match the 780.

BC9000XLT - I still own a mint condition model purchased in 1998 and I am in love with the large form factor, the top firing speaker, and the big VFO knob. Oh how I wish modern scanners had ergonomics more like this scanner. It's a good performer, but not stellar by any means. It's strong suit is VHF fire ground reception, but it has a high white noise level in the audio that puts a bit of a damper on listening to the weaker signal stuff. Still, it's a cherished part of my collection.

I've tested a lot of the newer Whistler scanners and have found them lacking for analog VHF / UHF. Even the original PSR scanners had a lot of issues for me here with intermod. The PSR-800 was pretty respectable with the UHF DPS system, but it's a handheld and never received head to head testing on the multicoupler so I can't make a definitive statement there.

I own a lot of scanners, but only the top dogs make it into my main cabinet, so I'll let this picture speak for itself.

View attachment 70091

I see from the top edge of your picture you're also a fan of the old Motorla Speakers!

 

[KR7CQ]

I see from the top edge of your picture you're also a fan of the old Motorla Speakers!

Love them. They are indestructable and have just the right sound for public safety monitoring.

Practically all scanners with slow scan speed, or any crystal scanner, have low internal hiss. If the VCO that steers the frequency in a synthezised receiver have to be able to quickly switch between frequencies it will need to use less filtering of the PLL jitter noise that will sound as white noise, exactly as it sounds when receiving a weak signal. Old scanners where forced to higher scan speeds by using almost no filtering of the VCO steering voltage, like Pro2042 and BC9000 that has very high background noise levels. Pro2006 are a slow speed scanner with low background hiss. Some professional 2-way radios have an elegant solution where they remove filtering during scan and adds VCO filters when scanning stops.

The 20dB S/N measured sensitivity at 460MHz from my receivers are:

Pro2006 - 0.55uV
UBC780 - 0.25uV
BCD536 - 025uV
MD380 - 0.18uV

The Pro2006 hardly de-sense at all when seeing strong signals and the MD380 are almost the same but the 780 and 536 are loosing sensitivity fairly quickly. If you feel that a Pro2006, with sensitivity specifications that are worse than any modern scanner, are the most sensitive UHF scanner then you probably suffer from strong signal de-sensening. I would suggest adding a $20 variable 0-20dB attenuator between Stridsberg and a non Pro2006 scanner and increase attenuation while listening to a weak signal conversation with background noise and adjust for best reception. You'll probably find that something like a 4-6dB attenuation will work best at UHF and will outperform the Pro2006. Then try the attenuator before the Stridsberg to see if it can be used with a common attenuation for all scanners. But you should really use a $20 USB SDR dongle receiver to be able to look at the frequency spectrum to see where the strong signal are and try to reduce it with a narrow notch filter that PAR and others can supply. Ideally a scanner notch filter should be very narrow and only notch away 20dB so it would still be possible to monitor that strong signal. Maybe it can be done by connecting a coax with a 20dB attenuator in parallell with the filter. Scanners like the 780 and 536 use the same bandpass antenna filter for the whole 310-510MHz range so the interfering frequency could be anywhere whithin that range.

/Ubbe

Not doubting your logic or raw numbers but the reality for a given situation and for a given scanner in terms of the end results is more complex than simple sensitivity specs. But that's basically the point you end up making. I have no desire to insert attenuators or mess with PC dongles. I already have the right scanners for the right jobs and get the performance I need. No need to overthink things.

And yeah, I've tested the 2006 in all sorts of RF environments and it's always great. Currently I live in a city of about 3,000,000 so yeah it's a high RF environment. But I've also used all of these scanners far out in the desert and seen great results there. But this is just one man's experience over the last 28 years or so. YMMV and will.

 

[Ubbe]

. I have no desire to insert attenuators or mess with PC dongles. I already have the right scanners for the right jobs and get the performance I need. No need to overthink things.

It was only a suggestion and a reflection from your listening experiance that with a cost of $20 or less you could very easily improve your listening situation for most of your scanners. Also a $20 dongle installed to a computer are an extremly cost effective way of studying what enters the antenna and to see what possible could be rectified at a very low cost.

Some people have great antennas but scanners are overloaded from strong RF signals and then they try a less performing antenna, like a discone, and the signal levels are reduced to where they don't overload any scanner and the discone are praised for being superior to any other antenna. You are fumbling in the dark not seeing anything if you don't look at the local RF enviroment you have, and a SDR dongle, as well as a variable attenuator, are vital and cheap tools for any scanner listener, when you consider time and money spent on different antennas and new coaxes being blindly installed not understanding the root cause of the problem.

Most people would like to know how to fix their listening post to make it work at its optimum. You can also compensate for the shortcommings by using each scanner where it shines best, but it's not as flexible as eliminating an issue so that every scanner in your shack excels in perfomance.

/Ubbe

 

[KR7CQ]

It was only a suggestion and a reflection from your listening experiance that with a cost of $20 or less you could very easily improve your listening situation for most of your scanners. Also a $20 dongle installed to a computer are an extremly cost effective way of studying what enters the antenna and to see what possible could be rectified at a very low cost.

Some people have great antennas but scanners are overloaded from strong RF signals and then they try a less performing antenna, like a discone, and the signal levels are reduced to where they don't overload any scanner and the discone are praised for being superior to any other antenna. You are fumbling in the dark not seeing anything if you don't look at the local RF enviroment you have, and a SDR dongle, as well as a variable attenuator, are vital and cheap tools for any scanner listener, when you consider time and money spent on different antennas and new coaxes being blindly installed not understanding the root cause of the problem.

Most people would like to know how to fix their listening post to make it work at its optimum. You can also compensate for the shortcommings by using each scanner where it shines best, but it's not as flexible as eliminating an issue so that every scanner in your shack excels in perfomance.

/Ubbe

I fully understand what you are saying and am aware of what attenuation at various levels might do at various points in the coax feed, for various scanners, on various bands. But I already have outstanding reception where I need it, due to inherent equipment performance, again, as you already pointed out. So I have no need to "dial down" the signal on my BC780XLT to get it to match my PRO-2006 for example, and then have to play with attenuation again on the 780 when I move to a different band where the ideal attenuation would be different. There is a domino effect when you start introducing attenuation that has to be dealt with in various ways. Right now I have a plug and play solution, with a scanner for each area of interest, and I'm very happy with those results. There's a saying here in the states, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". There is nothing to fix. I found devices that I can plug in and then they work as needed. Some of us Americans are just simpletons I suppose.

 

[Ubbe]

This is not directed to you, KR7CQ, as you already have your setup dialed in.

A cheap variable attenuator are mostly an analyzing tool, to check if reception could be improved. The solution, if problems are found, could then be of different kinds. I would state that if an amplifier are involved, being it a Stridsberg multicoupler or a straight 20dB amp, testing with an attenuator are a necessity. It takes many hours figuring out when and on what frequencies a scanner works best at a particular location. Something that can be quickly tested out in 10 minutes using a variable attenuator.

I understand that most people just buy scanners and connect them to an antenna and be done with it and few realise that a strong signal makes a scanner receive less without giving any telltale signs of intermod or interference while listening. Maybe more people are starting to understand the difficulties with RF signals when more SDS scanners are being sold that makes radio signal problems more evident and needs user interaction to deal with them.

In many cases a cheap $10 FM broadcast trap filter might be all that's needed. The variable attenuator test will show that. Other times a $50 custom made filter or two, that don't impact on any other frequencies, are needed to make a $600 scanner perform at its best. But you'll never know that until you test with a variable attenuator. Increasing attenuation should make the signal decrease the same amount but if it doesn't, or even increase, you have strong signal desense in your receiver.

Of course, if you are certain that you hear everything you'll need to hear, then it's no point in fixing something that ain't broke.

/Ubbe