Normally I'm a Uniden bigot and currently have a SDS200, (2) BCD536HP's. At the end of the year Walmart was selling new Whistler TRX-2's for $429.99 so I grabbed one to play with. The first thing I tried was loading it up with both VHF & UHF aircraft frequencies. Must to my surprise it performs excellent as an airband scanner. In fact it appears to do much better than the Uniden's. I'm going to do a little more testing and comparisons for another week at which point I will most likely made it my dedicated airband scanner!
TRX-2: Air Bands on the TRX-2 excellent!
- Thread starter iMONITOR
- Start date
- Status
IMonitor, please let us know what radios you are comparing to the TRX-2, please. I am very interested in your results
eyes00only
Member
Also what kind of antenna?
KB2GOM
Active Member
Does the Whistler TRX-2 have the same facility as the SDS200, to be programmed from a database?
Freescan does not support the SDS200 (or SDS100).
But yes, EZ-Scan is the only option for the TRX-2.
For the 'comparisons' I'm using the supplied stock antennas, although I have others. I'm 10 miles N-W from Selfridge ANGB.
rumcajs_tr
Member
Agreed.
It is well known fact that TRX "shines" compared to SDS series on the AIR band. Not only it is better with reception, but also the AM audio on the TRX is so good that it is directly comparable to professional airband radios.
Also, note that the DMR audio is also excellent on the TRX series.
It is well known fact that TRX "shines" compared to SDS series on the AIR band. Not only it is better with reception, but also the AM audio on the TRX is so good that it is directly comparable to professional airband radios.
Also, note that the DMR audio is also excellent on the TRX series.
MStep
Member
I'm peeking into the Whistler forums since it may be time to look at the way the "other half" lives. I may be interested in picking up a Whistler for comparative purposes. I too am oriented toward Uniden, but in a recent post on one of the Uniden forums, I pointed out how some of the early Uniden models seemed to have "slightly better ears" then my current SDS200. And radios other then Unidens, which are more oriented "communications receivers" and not "scanners" per se (AOR and Icom), also seem to do a better job on the airband. Of couse testing has to be on the same antenna system, switched over rather quikcly, and tested on the ground stations, not the stations in flight. Another method I use are the distant NWS stations, which must also follow the same evaluation rules as the air ground stations so as not to let propagation effect the signals over periods of time as little as 5 or 10 mins. Yes, by all means test, and please get back with your result. Curious minds are eager to know.
That's not valid, either. The only valid method is a single antenna feeding both receivers simultaneously through a splitter or multicoupler.
MStep
Member
Yes, I have noticed that also--- now of course this is very subjective to one's ears, but AM aircraft on the SDS series seems to me not as "punchy" as AM on other radios. To me, when I listen to AM aircraft on the SDS, it seems almost to sound "FM-ish" and dulled down a bit. I can't compare it to the TRX because I don't have one (yet), but certainly on my AOR, the AM aircraft signal is much more punchy and "present" to my ears.
I believe that DMR is also done better on the AOR, as it well may be on the TRX, but that's for another day.
That being said, the SDS is certainly "listenable" on AM aircraft (and DMR) and taken "en toto" (don't ya love Latin?!?) the SDS offers an overall great package of features unlike any other scanner currently available, at least that I know of.
Ubbe
Member
It's the result of SDS using a much more narrow bandwidth in AM, matched more to what are actually transmitted. It will cut off the high frequency audio components in AM, where there's mostly noise.
If you have a more advanced shortwave receiver you are probably familiar with how the different filter bandwidths sounds in AM. A wide filter are necessary when listening to AM broadcast stations and all other transmissions needs a more narrow filter to get rid of the noise.
To me the SDS100 have the best VHF air reception of my scanners but lacks enough dynamic range in its AGC so that nearby aircrafts transmissions makes the AM signal bottom out and the audio gets distorted. If you are unlucky you could also receive transmissions from other frequencies than the one you are tuned to. In most cases filter selections and IFX will change what unwanted frequencies you are receiving.
/Ubbe
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 2,133
What he did (for VHF ground stations) switching back-and-forth using the same antenna is completely acceptable. Unless you can actually sort out the same simultaeous signals in your mind (you cannot) or recording the audio simultaneously to play back to compare, your method impractical on signals of similar strength (comparing meter, analog or digital, of digital receivers does not take into account audio and unless the two have been calibrated is not fair anyway). I have had to compare signals for about 50 years and that is my well repeated experience.
You absolutely can process multiple audio signals simultaneously. That's how stereo and other multi-channel audio works. Wear headphones, and pipe the signal from one scanner into the left side, and the other to the right. Common stuff will sound panned center, while differences will sound panned to one side or the other.
And comparing audio EQ isn't even what I was talking about. If you're swapping antennas, there's no way to know whether a signal being picked by radio A would be picked up by B or not. Swapping the antenna to the other radio changes its location, which changes what it's receiving, which invalidates the comparison. And if a call ends and another begins from a different source in a different location, now you're comparing apples and potatoes. The only valid comparison is feeding both radios the same signal from a common source.
I'm still trying to decide why the Whistler TRX-2 appears to work better for airbands/aircraft than Uniden's SDS-200 and BCD536HP.
I think the TRX-2 audio definitely sounds better/clearer than any of the Unidens when listening to AM/airbands. The noise floor seems lower. Speech is just easier to understand. The Uniden's always have a lower, more mellow tone than the GRE/Whistler scanners. It's a matter of personal preference for most people.
I've had occasional active hits on the BCD536HP that the TRX-2 appeared to miss. But it could just be a matter of scan speed and/or timing. So without having any technical or scientific way to prove anything, I'll just say for me personally in my environment the difference is enough that I've decided to dedicate they TRX-2 to aircraft only and use the Unidens for everything else. The Uniden SDS-200 would be my last choice for aircraft monitoring, so much so that if that was all I listened to, I would sell my SDS-200. The BCD536HP vs the TRX-2 is a coin toss.
I think the TRX-2 audio definitely sounds better/clearer than any of the Unidens when listening to AM/airbands. The noise floor seems lower. Speech is just easier to understand. The Uniden's always have a lower, more mellow tone than the GRE/Whistler scanners. It's a matter of personal preference for most people.
I've had occasional active hits on the BCD536HP that the TRX-2 appeared to miss. But it could just be a matter of scan speed and/or timing. So without having any technical or scientific way to prove anything, I'll just say for me personally in my environment the difference is enough that I've decided to dedicate they TRX-2 to aircraft only and use the Unidens for everything else. The Uniden SDS-200 would be my last choice for aircraft monitoring, so much so that if that was all I listened to, I would sell my SDS-200. The BCD536HP vs the TRX-2 is a coin toss.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,640
Very interesting thread, my observations are very contradictory to others here. I'm a big Aviation listener and have 2 Regional airports near me and quite a bit of Chopper traffic between police, TV news, Medevac and their interactions on the area wide Chopper Unicom frequency where they announce their location and intentions...
Granted oh, I use the same 150 450 800 ground plane for both TRX and the 200. I switch back and forth so if that makes my observations invalid so be it.
I was very disappointed in aviation reception on the 100 and 200 then I tried ifx and it was a world of difference so now I have to apply ifx to every Aviation frequency. Default normal filter works best. Excellent Aviation reception on my 200.
On the other hand, on my TRX on the same rooftop ground plane aviation reception is far from optimal. Always a hash in the background and no were close to the distance I get on the 200.
Just shows to go you. LOL
Granted oh, I use the same 150 450 800 ground plane for both TRX and the 200. I switch back and forth so if that makes my observations invalid so be it.
I was very disappointed in aviation reception on the 100 and 200 then I tried ifx and it was a world of difference so now I have to apply ifx to every Aviation frequency. Default normal filter works best. Excellent Aviation reception on my 200.
On the other hand, on my TRX on the same rooftop ground plane aviation reception is far from optimal. Always a hash in the background and no were close to the distance I get on the 200.
Just shows to go you. LOL
Last edited:
I would suspect the big difference is you are on an external antenna and the OP isn't. GRE-based scanners overload easily when FM broadcast is nearby.
If the OP was on an external antenna or you had a FM broadcast filter your two results would probably be the opposite of what they are now...but I could be wrong.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 2,133
It is not as easy as you make it sound when signals are near the same as they should be. But "Swapping the antenna to the other radio changes its location, which changes what it's receiving, which invalidates the comparison. " leaves me puzzled--who is "its"? Of course one would only compare receiving the same station. (I really did not want to disagree with you twice in a day as much you post is good advice but I do disagree on two recent posts as you seem to be placing "perfection" over the practical experience of others.) I agree that "The only valid comparison is feeding both radios the same signal from a common source." but near in time is generally sufficient if the signal is stable.
That's often not the case when the signal source is moving at 300mph or faster.
The swapping comment referred to moving the antenna itself from radio to radio, vs connecting a coax lead to a different radio without moving the actual antenna.
- Status
Similar threads
