- Joined
- Nov 4, 2016
- Messages
- 850
How does the speaker on the SDS100 compare to the BCD325P2?
SDS100 Initial Review From Phoenix
- Thread starter KR7CQ
- Start date
- Status
How does the speaker on the SDS100 compare to the BCD325P2?
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 405
Audio slightly better than other scanners. Daily use is PSR-800. This week I picked up SDS100 v1.06. Works well between towers & systems, it does at times ignore signal from RWC Thompson Pk 700Mhz site. Most RWC is 800Mhz slowly switching all 700Mhz then do Phase II upgrade which would 100% fix the issue. For now its a puzzle, 996 does same thing on that site. PSR-800 prefers Thompson Pk at home & around most of the valley for certain talkgroups. Thompson Pk signal is great -40db usually & upto -110 inside.
Locking onto system & scan all sites or lock onto system & a certain site works good.
Locking onto system & scan all sites or lock onto system & a certain site works good.
Azgunguy
Member
I bought the SDS100 yesterday from HRO in Phoenix and I have to say, it’s killer. I don’t run into any of the problems you do. I was scanning all over the valley and getting pretty good reception. Shaw butte area gave me a little trouble when I was below the hill but it is what it is.
What I’m not crazy about is how it will pick up radio traffic with system dept and channel locked on. The traffic will come through simulcast H which is what that agency uses for dispatch, but then it will continue to scan on other simulcast systems while the 3 categories are still locked. Any feedback?
What I’m not crazy about is how it will pick up radio traffic with system dept and channel locked on. The traffic will come through simulcast H which is what that agency uses for dispatch, but then it will continue to scan on other simulcast systems while the 3 categories are still locked. Any feedback?
If you want to hold on a specific site, then F+SITE to hold on that site. Otherwise, the scanner is going to look for activity on the TG you've held on on all sites that are enabled and scanning.
Azgunguy
Member
Thank you so much.
I have the 436hp and fails to pick up most of the RWC freqs. I tried importing a new favorites list and for some reason they just dont get picked up. Is it worth the upgrade? At this point, my FREE scanner app on my phone picks up WAY more than my $450 scanner. What are your thoughts? I live in the pPeoria area.
It's whatever makes sense to you.
Scanner apps limit you to whatever people decide to stream. That may or may not include what you want to listen to. Often people stream a scanner that is listening to multiple things, some of which you may not be interested in and those may interfere with what you do want to listen to. The quality of the streamed signals also varies as many people devote an older scanner for streaming. It may not pick up things well, especially from simulcast systems.
I have used the SDS scanners in Peoria, when I was there for a brief visit, and they worked very well for me. They picked-up things that the 436 could not pick-up.
Good luck whatever you decide.
What I did was to create separate Favorites Lists for the Sites I monitor frequently, basically just imported the whole RWC system in via Sentinel then deleted all sites except for one. This allows me to key in on a specific Site if I wish. I also set each of these Systems to ID Search so that I can easily find new or undocumented Talkgroups.
While the Site Hold feature UPMan described works great, this is another method so I can just select the Site and go. Of course I use it more for searching out new stuff than casual monitoring but it might be helpful.
Free scanner apps are a waste of time to me because I don't have the variety and control that I need. I have zero interest in them personally. If I want to hear scanner on my phone I use the web server of Proscan and my SDS200 with rooftop antenna. I can hear a whole lot that way. But still, there is no substitute for a scanner in hand or in front of you if you want serious capability.
Is buying an SDS100 worth it? I can think of no better thread to answer that in (coming up on a year after this was originally posted).
Obviously the first SDS100 I got didn't work out. I'm GLAD that I returned it. It was a dud. Or at least that unit, with that firmware, was a dud.
Fast forward nearly a year later and my RECENT PRODUCTION SDS100 rocks the house. Is it the firmware? The newer build? Better solder joints? All of the above? Not sure, not sure that I care either.
The point is that the NEW SDS100 rocks, and was an instant "keeper". My SDS200 is even better (with Diamond discone w/ 30' feed point). My base setup with the SDS200 is truly choice....but back to the SDS100...
Yeah, buy one with a good return policy (just in case), but from what I'm seeing the newer units are pretty solid. Mine is. And as you already know I will not hesitate to criticize where it's due...I'm a scanner guy, not a fanboy.
Look, you can get a Unication and it's unbeatable at simulcast reception still, but it's a pager. The SDS scanners are still VERY solid on LSM. They are not not quite as good as Unication overall, especially with distant simulcasts, but in the grand scheme they are good. The SDS100 offers "OK" analog VHF / UHF performance as an aside (these are NOT go-to analog scanners, period, IMHO). UHF background noise is nearly unacceptable at times....bad...with weak signals.
But this is first and foremost, a DIGITAL scanner. Once you have your simulcast programming dialed in (what simulcast to use where, and when, to get what you want - there is overlap and the valley has a complex radio network), you will probably be pretty happy with the SDS. They are WAY better on LSM than any other scanner.
I would say start there (so yeah, buy an SDS100), and then worst case (fairly unlikely), return it and get a G4/5.
Last edited:
I have a "recent production" SDS100 purchased last week from Ham Radio Outlet. Took it on a road trip yesterday and was deeply disappointed with extremely poor analog reception and widely varying audio volume.
I don't know if my SDS100 has bad hardware, bad firmware, or both. I am confident that Uniden has NOT worked out both its quality control problems in their Vietnam factory and the firmware issues. I will certainly not be recommending them or purchase any Uniden products in the future.
I understand, and it's a matter of each user's individual situation and needs. If analog is big for you, the SDS may not be what you need. Fortunately there is really just one super-important system in my world that is analog (UHF), so I can get over the fact that the SDS100 doesn't play well with it. I have plenty of other scanners to take care of all serious analog listening.
To be clear on exactly what the problem is, it's not a sensitivity issue. It pulls in distant signals quite well, but the level of white noise on the weaker transmissions is very high. So high that when scanning this system among P25 systems, the sound is just very much harsher even with per-channel negative volume offsets. The tone is super high with analog, and because it "receives" even the weakest transmissions (again, no lack of sensitivity from what I see), once you add in the harsh white noise levels on those weaker transmissions, you have a hot mess. I typically just keep that system off. You can crank squelch up until there are negative effects elsewhere to no avail, the weak stuff gets through.
This is first and foremost built for P25, specifically LSM systems. Having analog reception is somewhat of an afterthought in this device, at this price point, given the constraints that Uniden had to deal with. As UPman has said (in a nutshell), if LSM isn't critical but analog is big for you, you might be happier with a 436/536.
As far as production issues, there have been issues, but it appears that most of them have been resolved, but of course there will always be bad apples with any production of any type of device. If you get a "bad unit", you can return it, so I'm not sure I see a big reason to not try one due to that concern.
Just curious though, since you will never recommend Uniden, which scanner will you be recommending for those struggling with LSM issues?
I agree with you on two points:
1) My SDS100 does quite well with distant digital systems (both P25 and DMR).
2) I should have bought a different scanner. I don't need or listen to simulcast in my area. There is a lot of interesting analog and DMR.
I see no reason that the SDS100 could not do a better job with analog. It 'knows' when its receiving analog and it should be able to make the appropriate gain and volume adjustments automatically.
1) My SDS100 does quite well with distant digital systems (both P25 and DMR).
2) I should have bought a different scanner. I don't need or listen to simulcast in my area. There is a lot of interesting analog and DMR.
I see no reason that the SDS100 could not do a better job with analog. It 'knows' when its receiving analog and it should be able to make the appropriate gain and volume adjustments automatically.
For a certain amount more, it could have been better on analog. Uniden simply made the decision to put the price-point where they put it, for better or worse, betting that $700 was about all that enough users would pay to make the project pencil. They probably based this on research that they have done.
If they ever came out with a Motorola-quality scanner, that did equally well on analog and P25, all bands, with amazing audio, no intermod, loud volume, etc., etc., I would be one of those serious enough in the hobby to shell out several thousand dollars for it. My guess is that it might cost 3-4 grand for such a device. But would there be enough like me (in a shrinking hobby) for Uniden to sell enough of those units for it to be a sound financial decision for Uniden to make them? I doubt it, and apparently Uniden feels the same.
scannersnstuff
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,920
No way Ray, It's a scanner ! . I'll get bashed,but hobby monitoring is already on a slippery slope. The majority,had to think long and hard with parting with the $700, plus upgrades.
K9JLR
Member
I believe the problem is one of engineering, namely the ability to create a consumer grade receiver that incorporates Software Defined Radio technology to bring the listener exemplary digital performance while concomitantly allowing the device to perform as an avant garde receiver on non-digital modes too. In reading between the lines, that seems to be why UPMan had suggested that the 436/536 scanners may still be a better fit for those that still desire to scan more analog systems without the substantial need to monitor LSM systems.
I'm not an electronics engineer, but from my rudimentary understanding, this isn't as simple as some probably assume. Doing so probably, at least early in this juncture, would have fostered input costs that put the price point well above an equilibrium marker, especially when the ability to scan major, local public safety systems is largely becoming a thing of past in some areas (e.g., Denver, CO). Maybe in time this won't be the case, as it seems many find the SDS 200 to be at least marginally better on analog (I don't own one yet).
Perhaps an analogy would be the evolution of the performance of scanners to monitor simulcast systems, for example. I feel that the 436/536 series, which were an improvement over the 396/996 series, saw some gradual improvements via firmware updates, but initially it was a disaster and still is, depending on a variety of factors. However, I haven't seen anything that comes close to the SDS 100 for a consumer grade receiver. I suspect this may be a similar row to hoe, since the variety of digital LMR technology systems in use has become quite varied, in addition to all of the agencies that still use analog in some areas. The technology is more complex and that's not going to change.
Exactly. How much does a police department pay for a brand new 700 MHz Motorola handheld, a few grand? Now imagine the engineering challenge of adding to that things like solid AM reception, and great general performance, across nearly continuous coverage from 25-1300 MHz. Imagine then integrating into that device all of the features that scanner users want including blazing scan speed. Imagine the development costs alone.
Thinking that Uniden is going to pull that off and then sell enough of them to turn a profit is completely unrealistic.
Thinking that Uniden is going to pull that off and then sell enough of them to turn a profit is completely unrealistic.
Last edited:
tumegpc
Member
As much as I would have liked the SDS100 to be the one scanner that does it all, it falls short in the analog department. Taking simulcast out of the equation, My TRX-1 absolutely kills the SDS100 in analog, DMR, and NXDN. You should also consider the Uniden 325P2 or the 436HP depending on which hardware version you get.
scannersnstuff
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 1,920
My local pd use's apx-6000 for patrol and apx-7000 for supervisor's. Give or take, this is approximately 150 radio's. Plus, I think they also have car radio's ! .
I disagree. It's an SDR with the ability to decode complex modulation types (P25, DMR, NXDN, ProVoice). If they (Uniden) can do that, there is no reason they cannot do an equally good job with analog FM.
Demodulating analog FM is simple. I did it two years ago in an SDR program I wrote named 'DR Processor' (at n6by.com ). After mixing the signal to bring it down to baseband, it has to be filtered to the appropriate bandwidth. Then the 'arc tangent' function is used to demodulate FM and it is resampled down to the audio devices sample rate.
AM demodulation is simpler. It just uses the 'absolute value' instead of the arc tangent.
My point is that it takes no additional hardware for an SDR to demodulate AM or FM than it does for digital radio. Once you have an I/Q stream the rest is all software.
So there is no justification in saying that analog would cost more to do properly. I suspect their code to process analog has glitches.
Ubbe
Member
AM/FM/DIGITAL reception are exactly the same in SDS scanners, it's just that in analog modes you hear yourself that it is bleeding over from other channels and hear the interference that degrade reception. In digitial modes you only hear the result of the decode of the datastream and not the actual interferencies. It is also less receive problems in 800MHz where the majority of the digital systems are. VHF are usually the most problematic frequency band with intereferencies for a scanner, where it is mostly analog transmissions.
So there is no analog problem versus a better working digital, it depends mostly of the frequency band.
/Ubbe
So there is no analog problem versus a better working digital, it depends mostly of the frequency band.
/Ubbe
- Status
