SDS200 initial reviews

[escortz28]

May I ask what did you do to solve the problem and how well did it work in removing the noise? Like you I would rather repair it myself than return it if it can be corrected with average bench skills.

Thank's

https://forums.radioreference.com/t...ified-for-sds-200-speaker-noise-issue.383622/

Became acceptable with digital noise greatly attenuated. Have to be within inches to hear any noise.

 

[KR7CQ]

I wanted to share my initial impressions of my new SDS200 and a few video clips.

First the hum. Yeah, it's there, present in a silent room out to about 2', but I don't find it objectionable and I can live with it, and I don't even feel the need to do the DIY fix, it's that little of a bother for me.

Audio is good, better than my 536, without the "muddy" sound that I get out of my 536 on some systems.

My first important test was to simply monitor Phoenix RWC Simulcast A (Phoenix PD) from my office, sitting within line of site of a Simulcast A tower where other towers are relatively far away and obscured. Sitting next to my PSR-800 (my go-to scanner for this particular situation) the SDS200 doesn't miss a beat. My SDS100 apparently suffered from some form of "interference" (concluded by Uniden, a beta tester, and others), but the SDS200 suffers no such issue. This is big for me.

My second test is also important to me. I need to know how this thing receives on UHF, as the AZ DPS is one of my favorite agencies to monitor and they use an ancient UHF system. For this test I set up the SDS200 next to the PSR-800 (one of my best scanners for weak signal UHF using stock antenna), locked onto DPS Metro South 460.275, with a transmit tower about 21 miles away. From my office reception is always "fringe" with plenty of noise and occasional drop-outs on any scanner, so this seemed a good frequency to use. As you will see the SDS200 does an admirable job of keeping up, though it does drop out a few times at 10 seconds and 13 seconds for a brief period where the PSR-800 stays solid. This is pretty typical of what I'm seeing so far, meaning that the SDS200 might be a touch short of what some older scanners might be capable of on UHF, but it's close enough for this picky hobbyist. Considering all of the things that the SDS200 brings to the table, I'm pretty happy with these results.

The display is perfect and does not flicker.



I have had no issues today monitoring multiple systems / types of systems.

Overall I'm quite happy with initial results. Some may remember that my review of the SDS100 was not as kind, but I call them like I see them and I'm pleased to share a very positive initial report from Phoenix.

*Next up some serious head-to-head testing vs. some of the best analog scanners ever made, all hooked up to a Stridsberg multicoupler and a Diamond discone at 30'. I will be testing VHF, UHF, VHF civilian air, and milair there, and will then pit the SDS200 (hooked to the discone where it can receive signal from every tower in the simulcast at once) against the Unication G4 + stubby. While I don't expect the SDS200 to match my BC780XLT on milair or VHF, or my Pro-2006 on UHF, if it's even close that's a clear win for a Swiss army knife scanner in my book. If it can come close to the G4 on simulcast with the rooftop antenna I will be beyond thrilled. Stay tuned for the results on those tests this weekend.

 

[03msc]

@KR7CQ your display setup like that looks good - kind of a throwback, in a way! Also, thanks for sharing your positive experiences with it.

 

[allend]

Just curious how you got your whole screen that blue color with all of the lettering black in color? I think that is a great color scheme.

 

[UPMan]

I suspect that it is in black/white mode and his camera is adding a blue color cast.

 

[KR7CQ]

Thanks, yeah, it's a throwback...nostalgia I suppose but I like it that way.

It's not black/white but is accomplished easily with settings, just use the Cyan background with black text...except for the "fun" button which is cyan text with black background.

 

[eaf1956]

I suspect that it is in black/white mode and his camera is adding a blue color cast.

Or he changed all the background colors to cyan.

 

[03msc]

Thanks, yeah, it's a throwback...nostalgia I suppose but I like it that way.

It's not black/white but is accomplished easily with settings, just use the Cyan background with black text...except for the "fun" button which is cyan text with black background.

This is what I was thinking you did...looks like some older scanners (from the 90s, maybe?) that had a cyan/blue backlight. Nice!

 

[KR7CQ]

This is what I was thinking you did...looks like some older scanners (from the 90s, maybe?) that had a cyan/blue backlight. Nice!

LOL, yeah. My nostalgia for cyan dates back to the PRO-2004/5/6. I started scanning back in the 70s with a Bearcat 3, but those Realistic scanners which happened to have that Cyan display were the first scanners that I truly fell in love with so I think Cyan is embedded in the scanning portion of my brain.

 

[chill30240]

Now that brings back alot of memories. I changed my SDS100 to Cyan and black and love it. I'll keep it like that.

 

[CQ]

The display is perfect and does not flicker.

View attachment 68847
/QUOTE]

@KR7CQ your display setup like that looks good - kind of a throwback, in a way! Also, thanks for sharing your positive experiences with it.

He was hoping for a TRX-200. But if it were a whistler, the screen would flicker.

Glad you're enjoying this experience better.

 

[WA2QBJ]

Hi ..it's some type of RF overload issue.

 

[garys]

I was struck by how nice that color scheme looks, but based on past experience I think it would be hard (for me at least) to see in a vehicle. If I ever get a SDS100, I will certainly give it a try.

I did something similar to what someone else did, which is a black background with all green lettering. Harking back to the old monochrome computer monitor days. I ended up changing a very small number of fields to other colors.

In the end, I might spend more time playing with the display color scheme than programming frequencies and talk groups.

LOL, yeah. My nostalgia for cyan dates back to the PRO-2004/5/6. I started scanning back in the 70s with a Bearcat 3, but those Realistic scanners which happened to have that Cyan display were the first scanners that I truly fell in love with so I think Cyan is embedded in the scanning portion of my brain.

 

[WA2QBJ]

Hi..what is referenced in my post is what I presume to be some type an RF overload type issue or what I may be incorrectly calling intermod.. I primarily notice it on some of the UHF-T band freqs used by many agencies in New York City. The provided attenuator helps some but of course reduces the overall signal. The overload results in a strong rf signal becoming fuzzy and clipping at times. I have a 536 sitting next to the 200 both using indoor antennas adjacent to each other and the 536 does not exhibit the issue. Hopefully this is something that can be addressed in future updates.

 

[AA6IO]

Been using my SDS-200 for a couple of weeks. Great for the one true simulcast system (LA-STRS) we have but hardly interesting content. Best thing is listening to LA City Traffic Control. P25 sounds good on LAPD, better than audio on 536. The color screen is nice. DMR is OK, NXDN is excellent.
BUT: The intermod issues I experience with the SDS-100 are similar on the SDS-200. The filters help somewhat, but for most listening, the 996P2 and 536HP are better. Don't experience the intermod to any significant degree with those radios. The SDS-100 and 200, even with filters, get hammered with intermod here in Los Angeles basin. Listening to LA Sheriff comms in the 480 Mhz range is absolutely useless on the SDS models. CHP and airband not much better.
Will I keep the SDS-200? Sure, its a nice radio to look at. But I guess UPMAN has commented somewhere that unless you have simulcast issues, you may be better off with earlier models. That is my experience here in Los Angeles.

 

[Badboy536]

Been using my SDS-200 for a couple of weeks. Great for the one true simulcast system (LA-STRS) we have but hardly interesting content. Best thing is listening to LA City Traffic Control. P25 sounds good on LAPD, better than audio on 536. The color screen is nice. DMR is OK, NXDN is excellent.
BUT: The intermod issues I experience with the SDS-100 are similar on the SDS-200. The filters help somewhat, but for most listening, the 996P2 and 536HP are better. Don't experience the intermod to any significant degree with those radios. The SDS-100 and 200, even with filters, get hammered with intermod here in Los Angeles basin. Listening to LA Sheriff comms in the 480 Mhz range is absolutely useless on the SDS models. CHP and airband not much better.
Will I keep the SDS-200? Sure, its a nice radio to look at. But I guess UPMAN has commented somewhere that unless you have simulcast issues, you may be better off with earlier models. That is my experience here in Los Angeles.

Have you noticed the 536 receives better then the sds200. My 536 will stop on most of the LAPD Divisions ,where the sds200 will not stop on some of the same divisions using the same antenna.

 

[KR7CQ]

Reading these posts on the SDS200 not stopping on activity as it should, I'll offer a few thoughts. I'm doing a lot of testing with a Diamond discone at 30' with LMR-400 feed attached to the SDS200, in a big city with tons of RF. I still have a lot of testing to do before I offer a full report, but I want to share what I'm seeing happen when the SDS200 is fed with strong signal from mountaintop sites that are literal line-of-site and within 5-6 miles and where the feed point is high enough to be exposed to a whole world of RF in the 700 MHz band (think almost all public safety + Verizon + Sprint)

Attenuation (at least in my situation) REALLY matters. Going through the many systems I want to listen to I am finding that some nearby systems absolutely require site attenuation, period, end of story. The odd thing is that other systems of the same type, sitting on the same mountain top, at very, very similar frequencies (within 1 MHz for CC/VC), do NOT need attenuation. Without the attenuation the SDS200 cannot properly read control channel data on some sites, and though it will try to occasionally stop on a talk group, it can't make out the voice channel data either and just moves on with maybe a slight sound or two. Once attenuation is turned on for these problem systems, and RSSI averages -90 to -110 dBm things work pretty well, with only the occasional decode failure / garbled transmission, and overall performance is quite acceptable. I breathed a huge sigh of relief after figuring this out and have now solved the issues with all but two systems of lesser importance (out of dozens) and I hope to get those two working properly as well with a bit more tweaking.

Side note: Looking back on my SDS100 issues I wish I had tried more things with attenuation. Until this discovery I have hardly had a need for attenuation since the early 2000s when there was enough RF noise in Phoenix in the VHF band that I had to use the attenuation switch on the back of my PRO-2006 to hear things correctly when Phoenix PD was VHF. I haven't really had any use for attenuation for maybe 15 years, so it was somewhat of an afterthought, especially on the handheld SDS100. Now I want to get my hands on one of those for renewed testing as well.

 

[sparklehorse]

Attenuation (at least in my situation) REALLY matters. Going through the many systems I want to listen to I am finding that some nearby systems absolutely require site attenuation, period, end of story. The odd thing is that other systems of the same type, sitting on the same mountain top, at very, very similar frequencies (within 1 MHz for CC/VC), do NOT need attenuation. Without the attenuation the SDS200 cannot properly read control channel data on some sites, and though it will try to occasionally stop on a talk group, it can't make out the voice channel data either and just moves on with maybe a slight sound or two. Once attenuation is turned on for these problem systems, and RSSI averages -90 to -110 dBm things work pretty well, with only the occasional decode failure / garbled transmission, and overall performance is quite acceptable. I breathed a huge sigh of relief after figuring this out and have now solved the issues with all but two systems of lesser importance (out of dozens) and I hope to get those two working properly as well with a bit more tweaking.

Do you have any broadcast FM or TV transmitters close to your location? I do and found that using a Par FM notch filter and a couple Par TV notch filters made a huge difference with my radios. Particularly ones that are prone to front end overload like the Whistler 1065 I used to have. That radio was essentially deaf on VHF and UHF (450 MHz) on a rooftop antenna, but with the inline filters was as sensitive as the best of them. Those particular filters may not provide much benefit at 700/800 MHz however.
.

 

[KR7CQ]

Do you have any broadcast FM or TV transmitters close to your location? I do and found that using a Par FM notch filter and a couple Par TV notch filters made a huge difference with my radios. Particularly ones that are prone to front end overload like the Whistler 1065 I used to have. That radio was essentially deaf on VHF and UHF (450 MHz) on a rooftop antenna, but with the inline filters was as sensitive as the best of them. Those particular filters may not provide much benefit at 700/800 MHz however.
.

Very interesting, but no, not in my case. In Phoenix we have a relatively high mountain south of Phoenix that holds all FM radio and TV towers, and it's about 21-22 miles away from my north valley home. I'm pretty sure the issue is simply RF overload in the 700 MHz band, and Verizon is almost certainly a prime offender. For a bit of perspective, all scanners and even the Unication G4 go completely deaf within 200-300 feet of a Verizon tower, and those towers are everywhere as you might imagine. Verizon and Sprint transmit in the 700 MHz band here in Phoenix, where almost all public safety systems now reside as well. 700 MHz is now as crowded as VHF once was, and the same issues seem to be cropping up. I'm very happy to see that these issues can be overcome with attenuation though, at least so far.

 

[KR7CQ]

Have you noticed the 536 receives better then the sds200. My 536 will stop on most of the LAPD Divisions ,where the sds200 will not stop on some of the same divisions using the same antenna.

Once placed on an outdoor antenna with a decently high feed point, it becomes crystal clear that the SDS200 blows the 536 out of the water on simulcast, I'll say that with confidence. The 536 is rarely able to even stop on a talk group with any simulcast in this situation regardless of settings, whereas the SDS200 is 95%. The SDR solution for simulcast works. RF overload and interference are additional factors that may be causing your issues. I believe those things may have factored into issues that I observed during SDS100 testing and I will now be going back to revisit that question with future testing when time allows, after my SDS200 has been fully vetted and dialed-in.