780 vs 785 vs 2055 vs 2096

[labdog98f]

Has anyone done a "not so scientific" comparison of these scanners to see which has the best sensitivity/selectivity for air band monitoring?

I would be interested in a breakdown of best to worst for civil band then also mil-air band.

Which one would you pick for each band and why?

From what I have read on the boards on the net it seems that the 780 is the favorite for mil-air, but the 785 has twice as many channels - how do these two compare?

Some on these boards have said that the 2055 is a hot civil air scanner. How does it compare to the Unidens and the 2096?


Also, how would you rate the 2052 as a "back up" scanner for when you want to monitor one active freq. while still scanning with the other scanner? (I picked up a 2052 when RS had them on "closeout" for $99.97)


TIA for any input.

Scott

 

[MacombMonitor]

BC780-XLT
PRO-2055
PRO-2096
BC785D

I think the BC780-XLT was the best consumer grade MilAir scanner ever. The PRO-2055 is a close second, only second because of the smaller display and the inability to be computer controlled. The PRO-2096 comes in third because it really wasn't designed to receive MilAir, but can do so with the help of Don Starr's excellent Win96 software, which opens up the band. Performance is acceptable, but not as good as choice one, and two. The BC785D comes in fourth because for what you'll spend on it, you can buy a new PRO-2055.

The PRO-2052 does excellent on UHF MilAir, but it doesn't do VHF MilAir out of the box. There is a simple mod that will allow VHF MilAir if you feel you need it. No alpha tags is it's only serious shortcoming.

Bill

 

[abqscan]

I pick the 780 for the #1 spot. It really digs deep to put in those distant signals. The 785 would be my second choice. It is almost as sensitive as the 780 in the 225-400 range. Although the 785 seems to do a little better in the 138-144 air-to-air band, compared to the 780. I cannot tell a difference between the 785 and the 796 in any of the air bands. Next would be the 2055. It’s pretty darn good on everything. Too bad it has a tiny screen. Last would be the 2096. The Mil air side is ok if the jet is on top of you, but it’s the first radio to go deaf. I would not recommend the 2096 for a mil air scanner, however the 2096 is HOT from 138-144. I love using a $500 scanner to search in such a small band. No matter what radio you get, the antenna is the most important. Get it outside and high

 

[TinEar]

My choices would put the 785 just ahead of the 780 - but barely. I've used both for MilAir scanning and agree with the above poster that the 785 is a tad better on the 138-144 band. I replaced my 780s with 785s. The other reasons are the 1000 channel capability for the 785 versus 500 for the 780 and the addition of the digital capability of the 785 for the many other services where it may be needed - especially in urban areas. Here in the Baltimore/Washington D.C. area, almost everything has gone to digital trunking.

Contrary to what is posted above, the 780 and 785D (with digital card) are selling used for about the same price - and used is the only way you can get either scanner these days. The last three 785s I've bought (with digital card) I've paid between $225 and $250 (the last more than six months ago). Other than one recent 780 that was practically given away (85 bucks and I cried that I didn't get to it first) at the For Sale thread, most want over $200 for used 780s.

The Pro-2096/96 can open the 225-400 mHz band with software, but it's a crap shoot whether the radio has been tuned for that band even if you can access it. Some seem to be okay - others are practically deaf. In no case have I seen one that can keep up with either the 780 or 785. I have no experience with the 2055 but of all the other older Radio Shack scanners, I still use a 2042 and can attest to it being very good on the MilAir bands even if it isn't in the same class with the 780/785 series.

Alan

 

[eorange]

I only have experience with the 780, but it's a fantastic scanner for VHF and UHF air band scanning. Great sensitivity, fast scan speed (100 channels/sec), and nice alpha tags (16 character channel tags and 16 character bank tags).

Erik
KA3FYU