• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:
    https://forums.radioreference.com/rants/224104-official-thread-live-audio-feeds-scanners-wait-encryption.html

396 Trunking Delay

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dubbin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
4,465
Location
Findlay Ohio
What is with the 1sec + delay on the trunking systems? I have all the "System Hold Times" set to 0 but I still get this annoying delay on every trunked system in the radio. It will scan through all conventional systems without a problem. My PRO-96 and 780 are sitting here BLOWING this 396 away when it comes to scanning through these systems. The 96 scans through 3-4 systems in the time it takes the 396 to do just one. I really like this 396 and this is the only complaint I have against it but if I cant find some speed somewhere then it is going to be history. Oh and these are all motorola type 2 systems.
 

rdale

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Joined
Feb 3, 2001
Messages
11,356
Location
Lansing, MI
That's the way it works - it takes time to scan the CC for all available talkgroups.
 

Dubbin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
4,465
Location
Findlay Ohio
rdale said:
That's the way it works - it takes time to scan the CC for all available talkgroups.
Well it sure dosen't take my PRO-96 or BC780 that much time so what you say isn't true. It also didn't take my 246 that long either. Plus there are only 15-20 TG in each system. I am highly disappointed if this is how is going to be. There isn't one thing about the PRO-96 that I like better then the 396 other then this stupid delay. I hate to think about selling it since I just got it today but I'm missing way to many calls.
 

GTO_04

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
1,778
Dubbin said:
Well it sure dosen't take my PRO-96 or BC780 that much time so what you say isn't true. It also didn't take my 246 that long either. Plus there are only 15-20 TG in each system. I am highly disappointed if this is how is going to be. There isn't one thing about the PRO-96 that I like better then the 396 other then this stupid delay. I hate to think about selling it since I just got it today but I'm missing way to many calls.
Why don't you just return it if you are unhappy with it? You haven't had it that long.

GTO_04
 

Gilligan

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,126
Location
Hagerstown, MD
Dubbin said:
Well it sure dosen't take my PRO-96 or BC780 that much time so what you say isn't true.
Remember, when scanning trunked systems, your scanner is actually like a computer, processing data from the stream.
 

RISC777

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
935
Dubbin said:
Well it sure dosen't take my PRO-96 or BC780 that much time so what you say isn't true. It also didn't take my 246 that long either. Plus there are only 15-20 TG in each system. I am highly disappointed if this is how is going to be. There isn't one thing about the PRO-96 that I like better then the 396 other then this stupid delay. I hate to think about selling it since I just got it today but I'm missing way to many calls.
Dubbin,

My Hold settings are the same, zero. But I don't see my 396 scanning slower than my 796's. Do you have a lot of TGs in your systems?
 

Dubbin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
4,465
Location
Findlay Ohio
RISC777 said:
Dubbin,

My Hold settings are the same, zero. But I don't see my 396 scanning slower than my 796's. Do you have a lot of TGs in your systems?
No there are not many TG's at all in any of the systems. 15-20 tops. It may not scan slower then the 796 but it sure does scan slower then my PRO96 with a BUNCH of TG's. I love this little radio but I'm having a real hard time deciding what I should do with it.
 

UPMan

Uniden Representative
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,287
Location
Arlington, TX
It won't matter how many TGID's you have programmed in. The scanner has to acquire the control channel, wait for the next data frame (because 90% of the time it is going to land in the middle of a frame), then capture at least one full frame of data to see what channels are active on the system. This is not instantaneous on any scanner (I've run the 396 side-by-side with the 246, PRO-96, etc and they all behave basically the same).

The exception is when no control channel is present...then it scans quite rapidly. :lol:
 

Dubbin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
4,465
Location
Findlay Ohio
UPMan said:
(I've run the 396 side-by-side with the 246, PRO-96, etc and they all behave basically the same).
But you have to admit that the PRO-96 wins hands down one this. I am sitting here running them side by side and I am missing all kinds of calls on the 396 while the 96 is doing a great job. I think I have decided that I am just going to live with it though. This little 396 is just too cool to give up.
 

UPMan

Uniden Representative
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
13,287
Location
Arlington, TX
When I scan exactly the same systems programmed exactly the same way and starting scan at exactly the same time on both scanners, they hit almost simultaneously...

When the scanner's do lose "sync" , then it is a toss-up as to which scanner will hit what first. This is something I spent quite a bit of time doing... (and when I did see a major difference between the two I nearly always found it was because I had differences in programming that made the scanners either scan systems in different sequence or similar type issues).
 

Dubbin

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
4,465
Location
Findlay Ohio
UPMan said:
When I scan exactly the same systems programmed exactly the same way and starting scan at exactly the same time on both scanners, they hit almost simultaneously...

When the scanner's do lose "sync" , then it is a toss-up as to which scanner will hit what first. This is something I spent quite a bit of time doing... (and when I did see a major difference between the two I nearly always found it was because I had differences in programming that made the scanners either scan systems in different sequence or similar type issues).
Hmm I must have some other issue then. I had them programmed the exact same way and the 96 was much much faster.
 

dropkick

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
61
The 996 is definately slower than my 780... The 780 does the two systems I monitor in under 1 sec each. 996 looks to be right at 2 seconds each, even with hold times at zero. Like he said above the number of talkgroups doesn't matter; it's not really "scanning" them, just waiting for them to show up in the data. How long it waits is a matter of internal programming.

Oh well... I'm not sending mine back! :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top