BCD436HP/BCD536HP: 436HP compared to my 396XT

[LIScanner101]

As for "Pilot Error" and you thinking this has nothing to do with the firmware, you are correct

Thank you, I already knew that, and I deleted everything else you wrote after what I quoted above because it was fluff that had nothing at all to do with my question. It was a lot of wasted typing.


My comment was on installing FW, and that you either install it, or you don't. You can't "sort of" install it.

 

[sibbley]

3. IF filtering may also be playing into things a bit. Apparently the x36HP radios narrow IF filters are a bit narrower than previous IF filters. I have not experimented with different IF filter settings yet, but not sure I need to.

As I am still learning how to use the 436hp too, I have to ask. What IF filter settings are you refering to?

 

[JamesO]

My comment was on installing FW, and that you either install it, or you don't. You can't "sort of" install it.

Not sure you are getting the idea that anyone "sort of" installs the firmware?????????????

When I received my scanner, it had the latest firmware, so I have no idea about the mythical problem of "Conventional" receive taking some sort of hit or a loss in performance.

I will/would just call BS on this until someone can prove with test data that the firmware somehow caused any receive issue(s).

Unless there was some screwy clocking/intermod/birdie issue, the only thing that I think could cause a problem might be the selection of early stage bandpass filtering, the squelch behavior or the muting behavior. There were some changes to reduce a squelch tail that some reported and something with EDACS end tone, however, I cannot comment as I have never operated, owned, listened or compared a 436HP with a prior version of firmware.

I would just drop this foolishness and chock it up as an urban myth that you read one some forum on the Internet. You even stated the following:

Seems like good news about the overall conventional analog sensitivity.

However, I can't help but wonder about the large number of posts I've seen from users who experienced a DROP in conventional sensitivity after installing the new FW. What happened to these posters? Did they solve the issue? Did they just get fed up and walk away? Not sure. To the posters on this thread having good success with conventional sensitivity, what version of FW are you running?

How many people really claimed they had problems after the Firmware upgrade and where are they now?? I would assume it was less that half a dozen people and they probably have just figured out that they were imagining things or there was some other issue that was overlooked? Again, unless someone has a Communications Service Monitor test set that can take actual measurements and post the results with both versions of firmware, I would just totally ignore what was stated.

I would expect that about 95+% of the x36HP users are running the latest firmware in their radios. More reason to update than to stick with an earlier version in my opinion.

I will again caution that "Conventional" is a bit broad, I find the community seems to break down AM Aircraft and "Conventional" FM communications. I would want more specific details as to what modulation scheme and what frequency band anyone claimed they were having issues with.

 

[kc5igh]

Analog signal sensitivity with the 436

Greetings!

I, for one, can't claim that my 436's sensitivity suffered following the firmware upgrade.

All I can say with certainty is that my 436 simply does not receive analog signals, either conventional or trunked, as clearly as do my 396T, 396XT, PSR-500, PSR-800, or PRO-106.

The 436 seems to have been designed to function best in an urban, strong-signal rf environment. My 436 worked very well a couple of weeks ago in Denver and Colorado Springs on the Colorado digital trunked radio system. It didn't get overloaded in either urban location as did my PSR-800 last year, which worked fine once I turned on its attenuator.

However, back home in northern New Mexico (rural, mountainous), it has real problems pulling in weak, analog traffic compared to the radios mentioned above.

Your mileage will probably vary.

-Johnnie

 

[AA6IO]

Interesting comments by KC5IGH. I like my 436HP, but I live in the heart of the Los Angeles basin, which has got to be the ultimate urban, strong-signal RF environment. The problems we face here are much more selectivity than sensitivity.
That said, I don't believe that when some experience decreased sensitivity or other issues, that it is always operator error, although the new x36HPs certainly can lead to operator error. I'm starting to believe in "intra-radio" differences. By that, I mean two 396XTs, two PRO-106s, two 436HPs, or two whatever, will not always behave the exact same way. I seen some post that the HomePatrol has great sensitivity. My HomePatrol is not one of those.
Steve AA6IO

 

[Farscan]

I have both the 436 and the 396xt, and my 396 is excellent on the VHF aircraft band. As good as my aircraft transceiver. The 436 seems to show bars on many VHF aircraft signals, but they sound very weak and almost into the noise. With the 396 the signal sounds perfect, so i have concluded that my 436 is almost deaf on VHF aircraft(Using identical antennas-Have even interchanged antennas). The 436 has very good sensitivity in the regular VHF band, same with UHF, and 800.
The digital decoding on the 436 on vhf, and 800 is excellent, and very good on the 396.
I find myself using the 396xt more as i like to listen to aircraft- I like the size better, and battery life is almost
3hrs longer.

 

[JamesO]

So the million dollar question is this VHF Aircraft issue due to the filter setting??? Did Uniden change the "global" filter settings in the newer firmware due to digital decoding issues???? Can you adjust the IF filter to change/improve the AM Aircraft band??

it would be worth the comparison.

Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk

 

[XTS3000]

Only talking about sensitivity, not digital decoding. I'm finding the 436 is:
VHF Low - untested
VHF high - 436 slightly better sensitivity
UHF - 436 slightly better sensitivity
800 - Same for 396XT and 436

I'm using the same Comet SMA 503 antennas on both scanners. Both Comet antennas were purchased at the same time from same place.

My results are simply just placing both scanners next to each other and monitoring both for well over a month.

Want to see why your 800Mhz TRS's are not decoding properly? Wait for the analyze feature and "analyze" the control channel signal strength. You'll be shocked at what you see. If you have a HP1, try it now (if you have the extreme upgrade)

 

[LIScanner101]

XTS3000,

Thank you for the report, it's very good info. Sometimes just a "side-by-side" like what you did is all you need to determine performance. So far it does seem to show that the 436 has superior sensitivity over earlier XT scanners.

Does anybody have any VHF low experience with the 436????

JamesO, can you check VHF low with your new scanners and report back to us - and can you do it without writing another "War and Peace" reply?

 

[kb8rvp]

BCD436HP 436HP compared to my 396XT

So just received my 436HP today, only have a few hours of use so need some more time to determine how I like it. I also have a 536HP as well, shortly after the release.

One thing that appears to be different is the radios front end and how it deals with Cellular phone towers.

I have to drop off and pick up my son at the local High School almost daily for sports practice and games and I have had my 396XT for months usually with me running in the car.

There are multiple Cellular sites on the main field and integrated into the field light poles.

My 396XT usually goes deaf once I pull inside the main gate as I am in the "Cone Of Silence". The radio seems to go pretty much deaf until I pull back on the main road out of the parking lot.

I happened to have the 436HP with me today and did not even think about the "Cone Of Silence" until I realized the 436HP seems to not be too affected by the same Cellular towers as my 396XT.

I also notices when I initially set the 436HP using the Zip Code function and loaded from the Master Database I was hearing some pretty distant sites from in the house which I do not have loaded in any of my other scanners at this time. But I was very surprised how the 436HP was pulling in these distant stations.

I am currently using the Radio Shack 800 MHz antenna, same antenna that I was using on my 396XT so this makes for a pretty close Apples to Apples comparison.

I will need some more time to really shake down the 436HP, however, from the first hours of owning it, overall I am pretty impressed.

I need to program in a Phase 2 system that is about 25 miles away and see if I can pick up this County while I am out driving around or try and use an external antenna.

Also still need to focus and listen for digital decoding issue and compare to my 396XT.

But so far no real complaints, actually fairly impressed with some of the small difference as compared to the 396XT.

Also I have found the display to work pretty well for me, not too many complaints about the font size, but will need some more time to play with this scanner over the next few weeks.

Same for me. I ran a radio shack PRO-2096 in the car for over 6 years and I took it out and tried the Pro-197 but it was overloaded by the cell towers on my comute on the highway so I put the 2096 back in. Tried the same thing with the 996XT and the PSR-800 and then back to the 2096 because it was the only scanner that worked well around cell towers. Finilly I tried the BCD536HP and I can tell you the 2096 is never going back in my car. It is the best scanner ever and very little issues around cell towers and the reception is fantantic on the Michigan MPSCS 800MHz system as well as the simulcast in my area.

Mike

 

[JamesO]

Still jumping back and forth between scanners a bit for different reasons.

I did finally monitor a Phase 2 system in the area and there is a clicking sound on Phase 2 systems. Others have mentioned this as well. Hopefully this can be corrected in firmware. Annoying but should not happen and does not impeded monitoring of Phase 2 systems.

I need to try an compare VHF Lowband, not a lot close for me to monitor. I also have to buy another Radio Shack 800 MHz antenna as well so I can compare side by side.

On a slightly different note, I installed a narrow 450 kHz IF filter in one of my 396XT and was surprised how well the 396XT does in close to cell/land mobile sites. I have an area in the local High School parking lot that I am in almost daily (picking son up from practice) and usually the 396XT would go deaf in the parking lot. Now when in the parking lot the 396XT with the narrower IF filter it will still continue to capture and decode the local P25 Public Safety system that used to go stone silent until I drove about 1/8 mile back out of the parking lot.

The 436HP does not seem to get overloaded like the 396XT used to before the filter change.

One quick observation is my 396XT with the narrower IF filter is actually slight more sensitive in the Weather band than my 436HP. Not by a wide margin, but by just a small bit. I need to experiment with some more bands and see what the end result is.

The 436HP has better overall P25 decoding stability. My x96XT seem to get choppy at home while the x46HP seem to be a bit more immune to the choppy audio that may be due to Simulcast??

Overall very pleased with both the 436HP and 536HP performance. I just need to master using them and then fully reprogram them for better/more logical Quick Key layout.

But I am also starting to like my x96XT better due to the new narrower IF filter and will soon modify my HP1 with a narrower IF filter as well.

 

[al95]

I was going to buy one bcd436hp but now my city went p25 enc I'm unable to listen any traffic. I'm going to buy the bcd396xt. I sad the city went this route.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[XTS3000]

XTS3000,

Thank you for the report, it's very good info. Sometimes just a "side-by-side" like what you did is all you need to determine performance. So far it does seem to show that the 436 has superior sensitivity over earlier XT scanners.

Does anybody have any VHF low experience with the 436????

JamesO, can you check VHF low with your new scanners and report back to us - and can you do it without writing another "War and Peace" reply?

I bet if we compare the schematics on the 396XT vs 436HP, it would be almost identical. The only major difference is the 436HP has a true narrowband (NFM) IF filter. That last IF filter can make all the difference, especially when it comes to broadband receivers like scanners.

Another thing I noticed was the 436HP scans through my conventional VHF & UHF frequencies faster. I do NOT think the 436HP is actually scanning faster, but it's not getting hung up on static and/or other interference. I'll usually scan 100-200 conventional frequencies, all with PL/DPL, and the 436 sure seems to rip through them faster. I am in a mid to high RF environment with 2 FM radio transmitters 1-3 miles away and a 150kW UHF HDTV tower 1 mile away. The only way to make the 396XT catch up with the 346HP is to crank up the squelch or remove the 396XT's antenna. Once that is done, both scan very close to the same speed.

I'd like to test the VHF Low, but there is nothing transmitting in my area for the most part and this antenna I'm using is very poor at those frequencies.

 

[JamesO]

Just a quick update after using my 436HP a bit more.

Because I am still trying to figure out the 436HP features and settings, I still tend to take my 396XT with me in the car. Since I have more hours using the 396XT, I am a bit more comfortable handling this while in the car as compared to the 436HP.

As a quick and dirty comparison to my 396XT, neither radio running any form of AGC, the 436HP does seem to have a better/more stable RF front end. Less problem with the 436HP overloading or going deaf as I get close or under cell/land mobile towers. The audio decoding is less choppy and overall more stable. The audio quality does appear to be slightly better than the 396XT as well.

I believe one of my local systems is in the process of rolling out new Motorola Phase 2 complaint radios, not sure the exact model, but I can tell there are some of what I assume are the newer radios (still standard P25 operation) that are far superior in overall sound quality and they actually sound VERY good on the 439HP.

So just some additional observations for anyone considering the 436HP.