SDS100/SDS200: SDS100 advice needed

[Aviation_Scanner]

I was considering a 325P2 scanner (See Thread Here), but after I re-read previous comments and did the math, decided to save up for an SDS100 instead.

I intend to use the SDS100 to listen to local ATC (hence my nickname ) with a smattering of railroads and local emergency services.

Are there any pros/cons and/or pitfalls I should take into consideration before making a final decision?

 

[KevinC]

I was considering a 325P2 scanner (See Thread Here), but after I re-read previous comments and did the math, decided to save up for an SDS100 instead.

I intend to use the SDS100 to listen to local ATC (hence my nickname ) with a smattering of railroads and local emergency services.

Are there any pros/cons and/or pitfalls I should take into consideration before making a final decision?

Just my opinion. Stick with your Pro-164 for aircraft/railroad and use the SDS for the simulcast trunking stuff. The more one radio scans the less you’ll hear.

 

[jgorman21]

It’s a hefty price tag for a SDR “radio” that only performs (adequately) on simulcast environments. The Unication G5 works better. With its “limitations.” Personally, I’ve never been so underwhelmed. As the person above says, have your better receivers for other stuff because you might not hear a lot of those things on the SDS 100. 60+ years of radios and I’ve never regretted a purchase - until the 100!

 

[Aviation_Scanner]

It’s a hefty price tag for a SDR “radio” that only performs (adequately) on simulcast environments. The Unication G5 works better. With its “limitations.” Personally, I’ve never been so underwhelmed. As the person above says, have your better receivers for other stuff because you might not hear a lot of those things on the SDS 100. 60+ years of radios and I’ve never regretted a purchase - until the 100!

I am a bit confused. Why do you regret purchasing the SDS100? Are you saying I should reconsider?

 

[Aviation_Scanner]

Just my opinion. Stick with your Pro-164 for aircraft/railroad and use the SDS for the simulcast trunking stuff. The more one radio scans the less you’ll hear.

I wasn't intending on getting rid of my Pro-164, but it is a good thing I asked and found a use for it.

 

[KevinC]

I am a bit confused. Why do you regret purchasing the SDS100? Are you saying I should reconsider?

Speaking for just myself, the SDS-series are less than stellar on analog stuff and V/UHF in particular. The Houston area has so much RF from broadcast TV and FM that (at least in my case) it seems to overwhelm them. But for 7/800 P25 trunked simulcast they work great.

 

[Aviation_Scanner]

Speaking for just myself, the SDS-series are less than stellar on analog stuff and V/UHF in particular. The Houston area has so much RF from broadcast TV and FM that (at least in my case) it seems to overwhelm them. But for 7/800 P25 trunked simulcast they work great.

Ah, that is good to know & thanks for the tip about keeping my pro-164, which I previously mentioned, I am not going to get rid of.

 

[jgorman21]

I am a bit confused. Why do you regret purchasing the SDS100? Are you saying I should reconsider?

Not necessarily. That’s just my experience. If you need it for simulcast it’ll work ok.

 

[phask]

Speaking for just myself, the SDS-series are less than stellar on analog stuff and V/UHF in particular. The Houston area has so much RF from broadcast TV and FM that (at least in my case) it seems to overwhelm them. But for 7/800 P25 trunked simulcast they work great.

That is probably why you hear comments that VHF is poor.
In my small town,rural - ish environment I can discern no difference between an SDS200 and a pp6P2 or a 996T on VHF. I run all through the same multicoupler. Even get the same Close Call.

 

[buddrousa]

The same here in rural West Tennessee I get the same range from my 15x 996p2 536 and 200 all on the same antenna multicoupler at the same time

 

[R0am3r]

@Aviation_Scanner Before you conclude the SDS series are junk in the aero band, consider the following test:

This morning I compared my SDS200 and BCT15X scanners while monitoring Cleveland Center, Jamestown on 132.925. I also used FlightRadar24 to track the aircraft I was monitoring on the scanners. For many of the transmissions, there was little difference in reception between the two scanners. For the most distant aircraft (as determined by FlightRadar24), my SDS200 performed better than the BCT15X. On a couple of the transmissions, the BCT15X wouldn't even break squelch.

Don't believe everything you read about the SDS scanners.

 

[Aviation_Scanner]

@Aviation_Scanner Before you conclude the SDS series are junk in the aero band, consider the following test:

This morning I compared my SDS200 and BCT15X scanners while monitoring Cleveland Center, Jamestown on 132.925. I also used FlightRadar24 to track the aircraft I was monitoring on the scanners. For many of the transmissions, there was little difference in reception between the two scanners. For the most distant aircraft (as determined by FlightRadar24), my SDS200 performed better than the BCT15X. On a couple of the transmissions, the BCT15X wouldn't even break squelch.

Don't believe everything you read about the SDS scanners.

Interesting.
Given the above, I could try programming ATC frequencies into the SDS100 and if it doesn't work out, can switch back to the pro-164.
Like I said, I have absolutely zero intention of abandoing my Pro 164.

 

[hiegtx]

Interesting.
Given the above, I could try programming ATC frequencies into the SDS100 and if it doesn't work out, can switch back to the pro-164.
Like I said, I have absolutely zero intention of abandoing my Pro 164.

Rather than programming by hand, you can simply append them from the main database. Don't forget, you can download & install Sentinel and 'test drive it' even before you order the scanner.

 

[Aviation_Scanner]

Rather than programming by hand, you can simply append them from the main database. Don't forget, you can download & install Sentinel and 'test drive it' even before you order the scanner.

Just did that.
The UI looks very similar to ARC300, which I use for my Pro-164.
Obviously, I do not know what the programming interface looks like, since I do not have an SDS100 yet, but if it looks like ARC300, I should get the hang of it in no time.
With the above being said, I know it is easier to get frequencies from the database, but is there any way to put in the frequencies yourself, like I can with ARC300?

 

[sallen07]

With the above being said, I know it is easier to get frequencies from the database, but is there any way to put in the frequencies yourself, like I can with ARC300?

ARC536 or ProScan. They both have 30 day free trials, and both (IMHO) are far superior to Sentinal for programming the SDS scanners.

OK before someone jumps on me ... maybe you can do that with Sentinal too, but I don't know because I never bothered to try.

 

[Aviation_Scanner]

ARC536 or ProScan. They both have 30 day free trials, and both (IMHO) are far superior to Sentinal for programming the SDS scanners.

Since I am using ARC300 currently, ARC536 sounds like something I can pick up in no time

 

[hiegtx]

Since I am using ARC300 currently, ARC536 sounds like something I can pick up in no time

Before you pull the trigger on ARC536, at least try ProScan for it's 30 day free trial. ARC536 Basic will handle programming, either imports (if you become a Premium Subscriber) or copy & paste from a web page. However, if you want logging & virtual control of the scanner, you have to upgrade to the Pro version, @ around $70.00

ProScan also can do imports, or cut & paste from web pages or other documents, and costs $50.00 At that price, you also get logging and virtual control, among other features. Plus, while ARC536 covers the x36HP and SDS series scanners, ProScan covers those four plus a large number of other models of Uniden scanners. See ProScan's web page for more details: ProScan

If you still feel like going ARC536, since you are familiar with their interface, go ahead. There is nothing "wrong" with that software. Merely pointing out that with ProScan, you get more for your money.

 

[donc13]

It’s a hefty price tag for a SDR “radio” that only performs (adequately) on simulcast environments. The Unication G5 works better. With its “limitations.” Personally, I’ve never been so underwhelmed. As the person above says, have your better receivers for other stuff because you might not hear a lot of those things on the SDS 100. 60+ years of radios and I’ve never regretted a purchase - until the 100!

The G5 isn't a scanner. It's fine if you are only interested in listening to one channel. Other than that, it's worthless for "scanning".

 

[hiegtx]

OK before someone jumps on me ... maybe you can do that with Sentinal too, but I don't know because I never bothered to try.

You can use Sentinel to manually create systems, both trunked & conventional. I occasionally manually enter system data in Sentinel for a suspected new system that is not in the database, as well as appending from the main database. Of course, I can do the manual creation in ProScan, and importing from the database as a Premium Subscriber.

 

[hiegtx]

It’s a hefty price tag for a SDR “radio” that only performs (adequately) on simulcast environments. The Unication G5 works better. With its “limitations.”

The G5 isn't a scanner. It's fine if you are only interested in listening to one channel. Other than that, it's worthless for "scanning".

As Don has noted, the Unication pagers are not scanners. While, from all reports I've read in the forums (I do not own one of these) indicate it can do a good job on simulcast systems, but your drawback is that you are limited to only one site, with a set number of talkgroups per scanlist (I believe 64). Sure, you can program additional sites, as well as additional scanlists of talkgroups, but only scan one site & one list at any one time.

The OP is in the Houston Metro area. Almost all of the local public safety agencies are on TxWARN. These are utilizing a number of different sites, almost all simulcast. Limiting yourself to only a single site (at a time) means that you may miss a lot of things.