396 v1.09 vs Pro-96 Digital Face Off Needed!!

[walter900]

Can someone with these two scanners please do a side by side APCO Digital comparison and report back. This would be very helpful for us and Uniden in determining how good v1.09 is working. I am trying to find out if same digital noise happens on both scanners or just on the 396. Please include the systems information used for the test.

Thanks

 

[bwigg]

I would love to see a shoot out between the two. I almost bought a PRO-96 while they were on sale just to see how it performed. I am still not happy with the BCD396T audio and the coarse steps the squelch control povides. Otherwise it blows the PRO-96 away. Even though it lacks a lot of the features of the BCD396T I may get one next time they are on sale.

 

[John_M]

Finer squelch selectivity has been brought up many times. It seems as though the engineers at Uniden don't think finer adjustments are needed, either that or they just haven't gotten around to investigating it yet.

 

[Dubbin]

Something must be wrong when people are still wanting to compare the now old PRO-96 to these hot new Uniden radios. They are starting to sound like they are not so hot when it comes to performing but only hot when it comes to added features.

 

[rdale]

"Something must be wrong when people are still wanting to compare the now old PRO-96 to these hot new Uniden radios."

What does the age of the radio have to do with its value? Some are scared of dynamic memory, some prefer the muted sound of the Pro96 versus the "Motorola-like" sound of the 396.

- Rob

 

[Dubbin]

I never said anything about value and you missed my point completely.

 

[walter900]

My post is just to see if the digital decododing noise is happening to both radios at the same time. I am trying to figure out if 1.09 for the 396 is now on par with the Pro-96 digital decoding. Thats the only thing i am concerned with right now.

 

[GTO_04]

My post is just to see if the digital decododing noise is happening to both radios at the same time. I am trying to figure out if 1.09 for the 396 is now on par with the Pro-96 digital decoding. Thats the only thing i am concerned with right now.

I own both scanners and they both get decoding noise. All of a sudden my Pro-96 is getting digital decoding noise similar to the 396, so I am thinking it may not be the scanner. I have not downloaded firmware 1.09 yet. I have set the decoding threshholds manually on the 396T and that has helped considerably.

As far as digital receptions goes, I would call it a tossup. Sometimes the 396 sounds better and sometimes the Pro-96 sounds better. It is much easier to step through and select an individual talk group to monitor on the 396. Overall the 396 is more user friendly. I bought my Pro-96 due to extreme dissatisfaction with the performance of the 250D. The 396 has really evened things up!

GTO_04

 

[WayneH]

My post is just to see if the digital decododing noise is happening to both radios at the same time. I am trying to figure out if 1.09 for the 396 is now on par with the Pro-96 digital decoding. Thats the only thing i am concerned with right now.

No, 1.09 is not up to GRE digital quality.

What does the age of the radio have to do with its value? Some are scared of dynamic memory, some prefer the muted sound of the Pro96 versus the "Motorola-like" sound of the 396.

LOL, that's a good one! Ooooo, dynamic memory....ruuuun!

-Wayne

 

[jpm]

If and when this rebanding is finally done will the audio sound better on the bcd396t. I know my audio concern is when I'm 7-10 miles from the TRS tower.

 

[dmaharajh]

i decided to run my Pro 96 (CPU 1.4) and one of my BDC396T (firmware 1.09) side by side for a couple days to compare the digital audio quality on a Smartzone 3600 system - mixed analog/digital .... which i monitor here in Trinidad

The "machine-gun" noise of the 396 i usually experienced has disappeared since i flashed it with v1.09 and it works in sync with the Pro 96 . However i have the Digital Audio setting on the 396 manually set to 4.

The only hitch is the time it take to scan 4 systems on the 396 vs. 1 bank with 4 control channels on the Pro 96. Hopefully the rate of scanning systems can be improved to be as fast as the Pro 97 which scans even faster than the Pro 96

 

[hiegtx]

The only hitch is the time it take to scan 4 systems on the 396 vs. 1 bank with 4 control channels on the Pro 96. Hopefully the rate of scanning systems can be improved to be as fast as the Pro 97 which scans even faster than the Pro 96

Check the "System hold" settings. The default is two seconds, so it will set there on a trunked system (or a conventional system group) for that length of time before moving on to the next one. That's a different setting from the delay, which only specifies how long it will hold waiting for a reply. If you had ten systems, each with a system hold time of 2 seconds, it would take the scanner 20 seconds to go through all the systems, even if no transmissions were received.

That was something that threw me off on my 246 (similar programming setup) when it seemed to be taking so long to scan all the way through. Then I realized the default 2 second system hold was the culprit.

 

[dmaharajh]

I should've mention that.. System Hold is set to 0 and Delay is set to 2. As you mention is Delay is set to 0 as well, you miss the transmission reply and it jumps to the next system.

I was thinking along the line of the firmware 2.05.01 for the BC246T which improved the speed of this great little scanner. However the Pro 97 is the fastest i own

Quote
BC246T Gets Even Better!

Uniden has released firmware version 2.05.01 for our hugely successful BC246T Compact Trunking Scanner. This firmware release includes major enhancements to the BC246T’s operation. We continue to listen to our customers for ideas on how to improve our current and future product line-up.
This update:

Improves Trunked System Scanning Speed – shortens the time the scanner dwells on a trunked system. Now, if no control channel signal is present the BC246T moves on to the next system immediately.

 

[epbernstein]

Check the "System hold" settings. The default is two seconds, so it will set there on a trunked system (or a conventional system group) for that length of time before moving on to the next one. That's a different setting from the delay, which only specifies how long it will hold waiting for a reply. If you had ten systems, each with a system hold time of 2 seconds, it would take the scanner 20 seconds to go through all the systems, even if no transmissions were received.

That was something that threw me off on my 246 (similar programming setup) when it seemed to be taking so long to scan all the way through. Then I realized the default 2 second system hold was the culprit.

Forgive the dumb question, but if system hold is set to zero will the system still be scanned?

 

[dmaharajh]

Forgive the dumb question, but if system hold is set to zero will the system still be scanned?

Yes!
System Hold time acts as a system delay ie. holds that particular system (trunked or conventional) for the duration set

not to be confused with Delay, which is a particular channel/frequency delay time

 

[hiegtx]

Forgive the dumb question, but if system hold is set to zero will the system still be scanned?

As dmaharajh notes, the system (trunked or conventional) would still be scanned (all the conventional channels one time, the talkgroups checked for activity) before it moves on to the next system. If you set system hold to, say, 10 seconds, it would sit on that system, scanning for activity, for ten seconds regardless of any transmissions received.

 

[epbernstein]

As dmaharajh notes, the system (trunked or conventional) would still be scanned (all the conventional channels one time, the talkgroups checked for activity) before it moves on to the next system. If you set system hold to, say, 10 seconds, it would sit on that system, scanning for activity, for ten seconds regardless of any transmissions received.

Got it (and did it)--thanks!

 

[John_M]

To the original question. The only difference that I can see between the two is the AGC is better on the Pro-96. For digital decoding (Decoding Digital Audio) I think they are about the same, the audio on the 396T is loud and clear but the AGC takes awhile to lower the volume.