• 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

Post Update BCD396T vs. GREPSR-500

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
2,219
#1
Perhaps this post is a little bit premature, but I would be interested in how the post update BCD396 compares to the GRE PSR-500. I would be particularly interested in anybody that has both and has compared them on a system with CQPSK modulation. I currently have a BCD996 that I use in the house on a discone and a GRE PSR-500 that I use in a vehicle. I do not use an external antenna with the GRE PSR-500; I just use the stock rubber duck antenna. As you can imagine, listening to a multi-packet system on the GRE PSR-500 can sound great one moment and not so good a moment later while in motion. I have a work Motorola XTS5000 that is often monitoring some of the same talkgroups, so I know when the talkgroups are active. I do like the GRE PSR-500, but I do think that there is still some room for improvement of the CQPSK systems.
 

wa8pyr

Technischer Guru
Moderator
Joined
Sep 22, 2002
Messages
4,244
Location
Ohio
#2
JASII said:
Perhaps this post is a little bit premature, but I would be interested in how the post update BCD396 compares to the GRE PSR-500. I would be particularly interested in anybody that has both and has compared them on a system with CQPSK modulation.
I'm running it on both Delaware County, Ohio (CQPSK simulcast) and MARCS ("ordinary" simulcast) and have noticed a definite overall improvement with digital modulation, but still not up to the quality of the PSR500.

That's it in a nutshell.
 

918Dave

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
169
Location
Arizona
#3
No noticeable improvements after upgrading here in Phoenix, AZ. Both the GRE and Uniden units equally suck when attempting to monitor the PRWN system. I'm hoping the next upgrade addresses this system specifically, otherwise I'm sure there will be many current customers in this area who won't consider purchasing future digital units based on the 'hope' that reception will have improved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top