SDS100 and Ham Bands

Status
Not open for further replies.

AB6YS

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
12
Location
Torrance CA
Here in Los Angeles we have lots of repeaters on all bands. I have noticed my SDS100 is almost deaf on 2m, 220, and 440 bands. Every scanner and ham transceiver I own has WAY better sensitivity. Is it just mine, or is this common to this model?

Thanks and 73's
Scott
 

iMONITOR

Silent Key
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
11,156
Location
S.E. Michigan
I just read another thead today discussing the lack of sensitivity on VHF & UHF when using the SDS200. I think most newer scanners today are optimized more for the 700-800MHz range. I would expect a dedicated ham transceiver to perform bette on 2m/220/440. That is what it was designed to do. With most all wide-band receivers/scanners there will be compromises. For 2m/220/440 you might have been better off with a BCT15X.
 

AB6YS

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
12
Location
Torrance CA
The ham bands are not a big deal, that is not what I bought it for. I was just curious what others found. I saw the 200 thread and agree the 100 is no winner on VHF either.
But the 100 does really well 400 mhz trunked systems. I am getting P25 cells 40 miles away.
 

TailGator911

Silent Key/KF4ANC
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,687
Location
Fairborn, OH
Mine does what I need it to do. I can hear the ham repeaters in a good, quad-county area including Dayton and Xenia during SkyWarn nets. I couldn't ask for better than that in the vhf/uhf bands. That's on a 30ish ft high Diamond 130 with about 20-ft coax. I can't get those Cincy repeaters with my 746Pro and a Cushcraft vertical AR-270b antenna. Very satisfied with all of the features of the SDS200. Quickly becoming my top dawg scanner.

JD
kf4anc
 

NWI_Scanner_Guy

SCANNING THE AIRWAVES SINCE 1987
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
2,298
Location
Hammond, IN
Here in Los Angeles we have lots of repeaters on all bands. I have noticed my SDS100 is almost deaf on 2m, 220, and 440 bands. Every scanner and ham transceiver I own has WAY better sensitivity. Is it just mine, or is this common to this model?

Thanks and 73's
Scott

My SDS100 is pretty deaf on those bands as well. My eight plus year old BCT15X is head and shoulders above the 100 for those bands.
 

fluke281

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
21
Location
Toledo, Ohio
My analog Uniden and Whistler scanners are better on ham frequencies as well. Of course, a Baofeng portable will do a better job since it will be dedicated two or three bands.
 

glimerman

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 17, 2018
Messages
80
Location
Cleveland Ohio
just now starting to mess with my sds 200 for other then p25 stuff ,im new at this and had a g4 pager so all i know is the simulcast stuff and i will say this thing works very good for that , i now need a better antenna and been messing with a few i have a 20 dollar mobile antenna i put out side on a cookie sheet and i was pulling in some ham stuff very well , i didnt mess with any filters on this yet and cant wait to get a big roof antenna so far the 400mhz stuff is comming in nice and low vhf stuff is not so good but i know that's my antenna so for me i think with the right antenna this thing will be great but again im a newbie and just wanted to say mines getting the ham bands decent with a 20 dollar antenna
 

FeedForward

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2014
Messages
75
I don't have an SDS100, but it seems very unlikely that the radio is not sensitive just on the ham frequencies. Lower VHF, such as 2M require something more than a rubber duck antenna. I'll bet your home transceiver doesn't use a rubber duck, yet you are comparing the performance to that setup. The most important element in the station is the antenna, not the electronics.
FF
 

dfw1193

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2015
Messages
292
Location
Venus, Texas
Rubber duck antennas work find on my BC898T and BC785d for 2M, so why would we expect the newest technology out there to perform poorly when compared to the not so new technology, just another excuse why its not meeting specs I guess.
 

TailGator911

Silent Key/KF4ANC
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
2,687
Location
Fairborn, OH
I don't have an SDS100, but it seems very unlikely that the radio is not sensitive just on the ham frequencies. Lower VHF, such as 2M require something more than a rubber duck antenna. I'll bet your home transceiver doesn't use a rubber duck, yet you are comparing the performance to that setup. The most important element in the station is the antenna, not the electronics.
FF

For 2m/440 ham frequencies I use a Cushcraft AR-270b vertical on the eave of my roof just outside my shack window. If I put the feed from my discone to my SDS100 I can hear all the repeaters in a quad county area that I can hear on my Icom 746Pro/270b. If I switch to the RS800 (Remtronix) on my SDS100 it does not pull in distant ham repeaters that the 746 hears. That's with any handheld and a rubber duck. My 125AT is the same way. Antenna is everything when it comes to reception performance.

JD
kf4anc
 

AB6YS

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
12
Location
Torrance CA
i was testing with the same antenna, a Cuscraft CX330. Even my old Bearcat scanner on a 1/4 wave gets the HAM bands much better than the SDS100.
 

UPMan

In Memoriam
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,296
Location
Arlington, TX
The I/Q receiver design in the SDS100/200 is much better at pulling out digital from noise/multipath/simulcast/weak signals than heterodyne receivers used in all other models. We don't expect them to be better at analog, and in some environments could be worse. These are much more affected by RF signal environment than heterodyne receivers, but offer the flexibility of redefinition and refinement via software (a process that is ongoing as we get more varied reports based on this new platform).
 

KR7CQ

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
984
Location
Phoenix
My testing on a multicoupler vs. my best analog scanners tells me that sensitivity isn't the problem. The problems on VHF and UHF for me seem to involve interference / images / intermod, as well as a high level of white noise when listening to analog frequencies. If the signals are stronger these problems are sometimes lessened, but the issues remain, popping up here and there. The weird part is that I can sometimes get my SDS200 to receive weak VHF fireground signals and ham 2 meter simplex signals from miles away, matching closely what my best scanners can do....they even drop off at similar moments squelching from lack of signal. So the SDS200 hears the signal almost as well as the other scanners, but even if there is no intermod or interference, there is always an excessively high white noise level, making the same received signal much less enjoyable to listen to on the SDS200.

Overall, VHF / UHF analog are still good enough that I can avoid weaker stations but still enjoy having my old analog stuff in the scan rotation along with the the simulcast systems that the SDS scanners specialize in. I really appreciate having the ability to do that. For the most part that is "the dream" I've had for a quite a while. Still, for weak signal VHF and UHF analog work, the SDS scanners are just not the best choice. BCT15X's are dirt cheap, you can afford to buy a rack of them for the price of an SDS200.
 

Bob1955

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
827
Location
Eastchester, NY
Here in Los Angeles we have lots of repeaters on all bands. I have noticed my SDS100 is almost deaf on 2m, 220, and 440 bands. Every scanner and ham transceiver I own has WAY better sensitivity. Is it just mine, or is this common to this model?

Thanks and 73's
Scott
I hear that the same thing too. What a waste of $649.95!
 

Bob1955

Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2016
Messages
827
Location
Eastchester, NY
My analog Uniden and Whistler scanners are better on ham frequencies as well. Of course, a Baofeng portable will do a better job since it will be dedicated two or three bands.
The Baofeng UV-82 is better then ANY Uniden Bearcat handheld scanner as far as audio and sensitivity. Go figure and WAY less money then a Bearcat BC-125 AT. I'm glad I sold mine.
 

AB6YS

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
12
Location
Torrance CA
I hear that the same thing too. What a waste of $649.95!

I do not call it waste of money at all. As has been stated, the primary goal of the SDS radios is to listen to digital trunking systems, which it does marvelously. I was just curious if other observed the same thing I did on VHF analog. It makes sense that an I&Q quadature detector (I assume that is what is using) is not going be the best thing for demodulating analog FM signals.

No complaints here.

73"s
Scott
 

mule1075

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Messages
3,958
Location
Washington Pennsylvania
The Baofeng UV-82 is better then ANY Uniden Bearcat handheld scanner as far as audio and sensitivity. Go figure and WAY less money then a Bearcat BC-125 AT. I'm glad I sold mine.
That baofeng also scans brutally slow cannot receive aircraft etc. Also you have talked up how much you liked the 125at many times so please make up you're mind.
 

mule1075

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Jan 20, 2003
Messages
3,958
Location
Washington Pennsylvania
The I/Q receiver design in the SDS100/200 is much better at pulling out digital from noise/multipath/simulcast/weak signals than heterodyne receivers used in all other models. We don't expect them to be better at analog, and in some environments could be worse. These are much more affected by RF signal environment than heterodyne receivers, but offer the flexibility of redefinition and refinement via software (a process that is ongoing as we get more varied reports based on this new platform).
This post should be a sticky. Then you would not have to repeat it over and over again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top