536HP Audio Quality vs Reception Quality

Status
Not open for further replies.

Roveer

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
189
I just got my 536HP last night and after setting it up and getting used to the new interface I have a few concerns.

I've read a few posts where folks don't seem to like the deep quality to the audio. Some say it's more like what the in-car Motorola radios sound like. I really don't mind the deeper sound but I do have the following observation:

I'm listening to my P25 radio system in Northern NJ I pulled it from the database and put it into a favorite and added a single conventional system which is our FIRE/EMS dispatch. Sitting inside using the included antenna I'm finding the audio to be:

1. Muffled (to the point where it's almost hard to understand what they are saying)
2. Cut off (beginning and ends of words are so garbled they are almost unintelligible)

I'm doing a side by side with my PRO-106. There's a huge difference in the audio between the two.

having listened for years I can actually recognize many of the dispatchers voices and on the new Uniden it's nothing like any other radio that I've used. Very very digitalized sounding and almost unintelligible.

I'm hoping that this has to do with the supplied antenna and I'm planning on getting something much better. I also detected quite a bit of missed transmissions but it seemed to go both ways (on either radio in my side by side) so it could just be the scanning. I did however notice a few full lengthy transmissions on a talk group that went on for some time that were completely missed by the Uniden. Like 5-7 second xmissions, several times over a few minutes. Almost like the talk group wasn't even part of the programming. I double checked and it was there. Again, I'm hoping a better antenna improves this situation.

Currently the radio is very new to me so I'll probably be posting a lot until I get the swing of it, but I'm looking forward to learning it as well as I know my older radios. It takes a while but it will happen.

Also looking forward to the APP in March. This was the main reason I waiting and bought this radio so I'm hoping it turns out to be a good thing.

Roveer
 

whsbuss

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
534
Location
SE Pa
I just got my 536HP last night and after setting it up and getting used to the new interface I have a few concerns.

I've read a few posts where folks don't seem to like the deep quality to the audio. Some say it's more like what the in-car Motorola radios sound like. I really don't mind the deeper sound but I do have the following observation:

I'm listening to my P25 radio system in Northern NJ I pulled it from the database and put it into a favorite and added a single conventional system which is our FIRE/EMS dispatch. Sitting inside using the included antenna I'm finding the audio to be:

1. Muffled (to the point where it's almost hard to understand what they are saying)
2. Cut off (beginning and ends of words are so garbled they are almost unintelligible)

I'm doing a side by side with my PRO-106. There's a huge difference in the audio between the two.

having listened for years I can actually recognize many of the dispatchers voices and on the new Uniden it's nothing like any other radio that I've used. Very very digitalized sounding and almost unintelligible.

I'm hoping that this has to do with the supplied antenna and I'm planning on getting something much better. I also detected quite a bit of missed transmissions but it seemed to go both ways (on either radio in my side by side) so it could just be the scanning. I did however notice a few full lengthy transmissions on a talk group that went on for some time that were completely missed by the Uniden. Like 5-7 second xmissions, several times over a few minutes. Almost like the talk group wasn't even part of the programming. I double checked and it was there. Again, I'm hoping a better antenna improves this situation.

Currently the radio is very new to me so I'll probably be posting a lot until I get the swing of it, but I'm looking forward to learning it as well as I know my older radios. It takes a while but it will happen.

Also looking forward to the APP in March. This was the main reason I waiting and bought this radio so I'm hoping it turns out to be a good thing.

Roveer
You are not alone on this.

1. What system are you monitoring?
2. What conventional system did you add?
3. Are the issues specific to digital transmissions?
 

Roveer

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
189
You are not alone on this.

1. What system are you monitoring?
2. What conventional system did you add?
3. Are the issues specific to digital transmissions?
Answer to 1:

Morris County Public Safety Trunking System, Morris County, New Jersey - Scanner Frequencies

System Name: Morris County Public Safety
Location: Morris County, NJ
County: Morris
System Type: Project 25 Phase I
System Voice: APCO-25 Common Air Interface Exclusive

Answer to 2:

476.28750 WQKW848 B 71.9 PL Morris FD/EM Fire & EMS Dispatch FMN Fire Dispatch

Answer to 3:

Yes, seems to be. I'll check tonight when listening to the conventional system but I believe my issues are on the digital system. Audio is garbled, digital, like detuned SSB. Hard to understand, voices don't sound right. cut off start and finish of words. Generally unintelligible. It's hard enough to follow lingo and multiple conversations. This issue just makes it that much harder when you are straining to understand what is actually coming out of the speaker. With my Pro-106 sitting in the same room on it's crappy antenna the difference is night and day. The only comparison I can make is when I take my 106 to a bad reception area the audio becomes garbled and it gets annoying. That's what I'm getting from my 536HP right now. Again, maybe a better antenna makes it better, but the 106 is performing just fine right next to it.

Roveer
 

Roveer

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
189

Roveer

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2011
Messages
189
Will give the NFM to FM a try when I get home and become active in UPMAN's quest to "improve performance" I want the 536HP to become my favorite scanner. it's got lots of potential.

Roveer
I tried the FM vs NFM and nothing improved. I posted my results in Upmans thread. This is really dissapointing. I didn't know there was still that much dark science to these types of radios. I'm sitting here listening to garbled transmissions basically unable to understand what they are saying. Turning off the 536 and turning back on the Pro 106. Not quite what I expected for 616 dollars. Let's hope it improves.
 
Last edited:

ofd8001

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
6,313
Location
Louisville, KY
It seems like "feast or famine" with the new scanners. Here in Louisville KY, I've noticed a signficant improvement.

A few years ago our community implemented a new P25 digital trunking system. When us in the fire service received our new radios, there was an entirely different sound to them when compared to our analog radios. It took some of our folks a little longer to develop an ear for hearing the sound.

What I'm hearing on my 536 scanner, when it is clear (which is 90% of the time), the sound is comparable to the "real" system radios. I'm still getting the simulcast garble about 10% of the time. With my other Uniden scanners, I was getting garble about 90% of the time.
 

Mpanella

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 12, 2012
Messages
35
I'm having the same issue when monitoring my local trunked system. The audio sounds incredibly deeper than any of my conventional systems. It's clearer but has too much bass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top