RadioReference on Facebook   RadioReference on Twitter   RadioReference Blog
 

Go Back   The RadioReference.com Forums > Scanners and Receivers Forums > Uniden Forums > Uniden Thread Archives

Uniden Thread Archives A depository of archived threads from the original Uniden forum.

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2014, 3:21 PM
N2MWE's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: People's Republic of New York
Posts: 1,816
Default Constructive Criticism, BCD536

Well, got my new 536 programmed to my liking and in my Ford Escape. I am using an Austin Antennas Spectra scanner antenna and I live in Putnam County, NY, about an hour north of New York City and just next door to Connecticut.
I have heard complaints about the beep at the end of an EDACS system. Truthfully, I monitored the NYCOMCO EDACS system for Beacon, Poughkeepsie, Orange County Sheriff. Yeah, there was a hint of the beep at the end, but in truth, nothing I would pressure Uniden about. It decoded the EDACS networked system quite nicely.
Programmed in the Westchester County UHF Trunked system. Again, tracked nicely, no dropouts. Conventional VHF/UHF sounds good, though there are some channels where the audio seems low. I am going to put that on the transmitter, not the scanner, since it is not across the board. Also, be sure you check your favorites...there are still a few VHF channels in the database that show regular FM when they are now NFM. I've noticed a difference.
Off to Connecticut to monitor the Connecticut State Police system. Crossing the border, the signal is tough, but once in Connecticut, P25 signals decoded nicely. P25 conventional just as clear.
The only thing that I had a hard time with was the learning curve. With a little patience, this radio is AWESOME. I can't wait when I take a trip down south to try it on a TDMA system. If it does half as good as it has so far,
Almost forgot...one annoyance. The microSD card was corrupt. Easy fix; found a 2GB card and reloaded everything.
Pondering on a BCD436 and selling my other scanners.
__________________
Sic vis pacem, para bellum...
Sponsored links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2014, 4:01 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 135
Default

On the "audio seems low" issue, if the transmitting station has converted to NFM and you have your scanner set to FM the audio can sound low. It is easy enough to try and that may correct that issue.
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2014, 6:22 PM
N2MWE's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: People's Republic of New York
Posts: 1,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by an39511 View Post
On the "audio seems low" issue, if the transmitting station has converted to NFM and you have your scanner set to FM the audio can sound low. It is easy enough to try and that may correct that issue.
Yeah, I had to convert a couple of them, but there were still a couple that were kind of low. I'm listening to my PSR 600 now to check the difference, and so far I think it's the transmitting station. Love this radio!
__________________
Sic vis pacem, para bellum...
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2014, 8:17 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N2MWE View Post
Yeah, I had to convert a couple of them, but there were still a couple that were kind of low. I'm listening to my PSR 600 now to check the difference, and so far I think it's the transmitting station. Love this radio!
Don't forget if going to NFM does not help enough for the volume you need you can use the column labeled (when frequencies are displayed) "Volume Offset". It works on a per channel basis.

I have one low volume channel that needed a +3 and one high volume channel that needed a -2 and now they are about equal to the other channels in volume. No more constantly having to play with the volume knob.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2014, 8:39 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 909
Default

I also use the Volume Offset in a slightly different manner.

In additional to Alert Tones, on some special channels/TG's I am interested in listening to, I will actually use the Volume Offset to increase the Volume on a few channels/TG's that I are important to me.

Also I have a question, just received my 536 this afternoon, what about the audio level overall.

My 996xt I usually run the audio level at about 6, seems the 536 I have to run the audio at about 12 to have the same level between the radios.

I know when I received my 785D many years ago it had a defective speaker from the factory, I ran on an external speaker until I purchased a quality internal replacement speaker.

So I would be curious if others are seeing higher Volume numbers on the 536.
Sponsored links
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2014, 8:58 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesO View Post
My 996xt I usually run the audio level at about 6, seems the 536 I have to run the audio at about 12 to have the same level between the radios.
Just a data point for reference. Mine's on my computer desk in a quiet home office within easy arms reach. I have it on the auto bracket as a base, Velcroed to an old mouse pad with the front of the radio angled up as much as possible. I typically have the volume on 13-15.

Ron
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2014, 9:02 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by testdummy View Post
Just a data point for reference. Mine's on my computer desk in a quiet home office within easy arms reach. I have it on the auto bracket as a base, Velcroed to an old mouse pad with the front of the radio angled up as much as possible. I typically have the volume on 13-15.

Ron
Which one are you talking about?
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2014, 9:14 PM
Member
   
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 31
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N0UDG View Post
Which one are you talking about?
Sorry, 536. I was responding to JamesO's question about the volume setting on his 536 and assumed that, and mentioning the mounting bracket, would make that clear.

Ron
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 02-08-2014, 9:18 PM
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by testdummy View Post
Sorry, 536. I was responding to JamesO's question about the volume setting on his 536 and assumed that, and mentioning the mounting bracket, would make that clear.

Ron
The 996XT also has a mounting bracket and those were the two radios being compared but I suspected since this thread was on the 536HP it was probably it.

Thanks for such a quick reply.
Sponsored links
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2014, 4:00 AM
Member
   
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: McLean, VA
Posts: 909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by testdummy View Post
Just a data point for reference. Mine's on my computer desk in a quiet home office within easy arms reach. I have it on the auto bracket as a base, Velcroed to an old mouse pad with the front of the radio angled up as much as possible. I typically have the volume on 13-15.

Ron
Ron,

Thanks for the reply.

I am wondering if this is the way these scanners were designed to be comparing them to the 996xt?

Or is the audio level off due to the component placement issue with the headphone issue?

I also am finding my scanner is really lacking a lot of treble on the digital transmission. They really seemed muffled/bassy. I have yet try an external speaker to compare for clairy.

My 996xy sounds MUCH better on digital systems than the 536.

I am also thinking there needs to be a firmware change/option for the audio Replay feature. I think there needs to be a Volume Offset feature for the Replay feature. Because many times I may have the scanner on in the background or in the car and a call comes across the radio and you miss part of the transmission due to the person speaking is not very loud and/or I have to over come background noise for some reason and it would be nice to not have to turn the volume up on the radio to listen to the replay to then have to trunk the volume back down when resuming to normal scanning.

I think we need a new option/tweak/bug/firmware suggestion thread for the radios.
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 02-09-2014, 10:19 AM
N2MWE's Avatar
Member
  Premium Subscriber
Premium Subscriber
Amateur Radio Operator
Amateur Radio
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: People's Republic of New York
Posts: 1,816
Default

Just a quick update, as I got to take a ride across to the other side of the Hudson. Decoding on the Rockland TRS was fairly good. Ramapo was a little shaky, but county channels were decoding just fine. I was in northern territory.
__________________
Sic vis pacem, para bellum...
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All information here is Copyright 2012 by RadioReference.com LLC and Lindsay C. Blanton III.Ad Management by RedTyger
Copyright 2011 by RadioReference.com LLC Privacy Policy  |  Terms and Conditions