436 portable vs. 536 base, what would I lose?

[dcisive]

I'm wondering if one were to go with say the 436 portable......are they going to miss or lose out on something the base 536 offers? I'm not aware of any so called "features" that either has over the other. I would of course add DMR to either one. Just wondering. Thanks for letting me know. Going to jump in next week and get something at the higher end such as these.

 

[hiegtx]

I'm wondering if one were to go with say the 436 portable......are they going to miss or lose out on something the base 536 offers? I'm not aware of any so called "features" that either has over the other. I would of course add DMR to either one. Just wondering. Thanks for letting me know. Going to jump in next week and get something at the higher end such as these.

The only feature of the 536HP that is not on the 436HP is the Siren app on WiFi. Some people have reported really enjoying using it, others not so much.

The base/mobile 536HP has a metal case, which can help reduce interference from other devices near it (modems, printers, your pc, whatever). The 436HP, being portable, can more easily be moved room to room, and keep scanning as long as you have spare batteries or an alternate power source, such as you vehicle's battery, whereas the 536HP is dependent on either ac power, or if installed mobile, your vehicle's electrical system. But frequency and system capabilities are the same for both.

Other than that, there's nothing specific one has over the other.

 

[UPMan]

Other than what Steve has mentioned, you cannot charge batteries in the BCD536HP, nor can you (easily) carry it on your belt.

Other than WiFi related, virtually the same firmware for both.

 

[jonwienke]

RF capabilities are pretty much identical. The 436 gives you portability, the 536 gives you WiFi streaming. Which is most important to you?

 

[dcisive]

Ahh well said indeed. I'm leaning towards the 436. I like the idea of taking it easily in my living room if desired, let alone on a vacation.

 

[rwier]

I would be surprised if the speakers (size, magnet weight, power, etc.) were the same.

 

[dcisive]

I was reading a scary thread regarding the addition of noise on the 436 due to some poor shielding discovered located in the battery compartment allowing for noise to enter via lack of isolation of the antenna. Something to do with the battery in the compartment acting as it's own antenna adding noise in the VHF and UHF areas of reception. That doesn't make me feel to wonderful about getting a 436 if it's going to need a user mod added of copper shielding tape on the inside of the back battery compartment cover as recommended. Sheesh.....I'm in preference of a unit that was designed without such flaws if possible. I'd love to hear how that situation ended up shaking down.

 

[ShyFlyer]

I have a 436 and I'm unaware of this battery compartment issue. I mostly use it my vehicle with an external antenna, so maybe that's why?

I will say that, in comparison to my old 396XT, the 436 seems a little less sensitive in the VHF range, nothing drastic, just enough to be noticeable. Other than that, I'm mostly happy with the 436.

 

[weathermedic]

I am not new to scanners (been scanning for over 30 years) but was a little hesitant to purchase the xx36hp units due to many of the reported issues on these forums. I decided to purchase the 436hp this past week (I've had it for 4 days) so I am still learning a lot about it. So far I like what the radio can do, and I'm learning more and more every day. It is nice to be able to take it with me around the house and keep it next to me at work.

I am now thinking about purchasing the 536 for the car at some point in the near future.

 

[ChrisABQ]

I have a later model 436 and there is STILL the reception issue, especially in the UHF range. A 2" x 2" piece of aluminum foil inside the battery compartment has resolved this issue. As I do charge my batteries using the 436, I never notice the foil being there. Just a bit of character with the 436.

 

[dcisive]

yeah I guess picking up a bit of EMI Copper tape and treating the inside of the back of the battery door is a small price to pay for known improvements in lowering any noise leakage into the bands as has seem to have been proven by a good number of users on the forum and elsewhere. If that's the worst thing it's no biggie. I have upgraded antennas to use on board as well so expecting that the performance would thereby be superior to the standard duck it comes with anyway.