Announcing the BCD396XT and BC346XT Scanners

[loumaag]

So if you program the channels in sequential order based on the freuqency, the scan speed will be increased (as opposed to, say, putting them in by alphabetical order based on the alpha tag)?

Example:

153.200 Channel C
154.300 Channel B
155.400 Channel A
156.500 Channel E
157.600 Channel D

will scan faster than...

155.400 Channel A
154.300 Channel B
153.200 Channel C
157.600 Channel D
156.500 Channel E
​

I did not know this.

Yes. It has been discussed somewhere, either here in another topic or on one of the appropriate Uniden Yahoo groups, a couple of times in the past few years. Just please don't ask me to find a link to one.

Also, if you put more than one band in a system (like conventional med channels) keep the VHF together, and the UHF together so that the scanner only has to switch bands once in a system.

However, remember, if you are only scanning a dozen or so channels, any speed increase will not be noticeable except on a test bench.

 

[DonS]

Yes. It has been discussed somewhere, either here in another topic or on one of the appropriate Uniden Yahoo groups, a couple of times in the past few years. Just please don't ask me to find a link to one.

http://www.radioreference.com/forum...380-15-996-speed-up-trick-myth-confirmed.html

 

[hotdjdave]

This got me thinking about:

• This method may DECREASE lag time by speeding up the scan speeds by a few nano-seconds or so (I use many groups with fewer channels); however,
• This method would INCREASE the amount of time when I manually changed channels by several seconds, making it harder to scroll to the channel I want because they are no longer in order by channel, but by frequency. I do this often, especially when I "HOLD" on a channel to listen to a particular transmission.

I think I will just keep it in order of channels and not frequencies.

 

[scannersnstuff]

when i'm doing some serious scanning there's just too many frequencies to listen to anyway.i use 3 or more radio's.i don't have time to group my frequencies.you don't miss too much action this way.

 

[SOFA_KING]

I was speaking of the time it would take to scan past the extra channel when the channel is idle. 30 mS would just give you about 33 ch/sec. Since the new channel would be on the same RF baseband frequency as the first channel (assuming the channels are scanned sequentially) there would be no RF switching/settle time, so the new channel would be skipped past very quickly (maybe even faster than my 3 mS guesstimate).

If there is a transmission, then the delay while the scanner checks for valid/matching mode and code would be about the same using your method or a two-channel method (as DonS explained very well). Meanwhile, you'd have a completely new layer of programming you need to do for every conventional channel.

WRONG! Take a look at it next time it lands on a channel programmed for a PL tone and the carrier doesn't have the matching code. It takes a fair amount of time to figure out the tone doesn't match. Better yet, scan 33 channels programmed with PL and turn the squelch all the way to open. How long does it take to scan those 33 channels? More than one second??? It takes a long time. That delay time adds up when you have to go through a couple of these active channels to get to the one you want to hear with the correct code.

You could come up with multi-code detection that could decode multiple tones. That is not impossible, and it would not have to cost a whole lot. As far as "another layer" of programming...what a bunch of crap. The list could have a default of "0's", and you could leave it that way if you only wanted to enter one code like you do now. SIMPLE!

The reason I do not want to by your stuff any more is because of your resistance to make scanners with the features we need ONCE AND FOR ALL. You spoon feed features one at a time instead of just putting out a complete product. I keep thinking maybe the "next model" will have it all together, but no. I used to buy only Uniden scanners. Now I do not want to even look at one. I have lost interest because of this resistance to JUST DO IT RIGHT the first time. I know your game...String us along so we keep buying the "next model". I'm done with that because I know you will never give us what we need. No more "next model" for me. Game over!

Phil

 

[datainmotion]

Sometimes our need to show everyone how right we are really shows everyone something else entirely.

 

[SOFA_KING]

Sometimes our need to show everyone how right we are really shows everyone something else entirely.

Yea...how wrong they are.

Phil

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Yea...how wrong they are.

Phil

If you're referring to yourself then I think you got the spirit of datainmotion post spot on.

 

[bonus1331]

SofaKing,
Guess this means we'll see you back at the GRE forums figuring out which filters to use to monitor with...

 

[loumaag]

Thread Closed

What I am wondering is how this topic got to be 47 pages long when the subject was a simple announcement. Perhaps it is because sofa bound engineers continue to suggest things that won't be part of an already designed radio. Or maybe it because people continue to ask the same question over and over because they don't want to wade thorough 47 pages of stuff.

In any case, the announcement was made. Any real questions have been asked and answered somewhere in the 47 pages; but since we now have the topic spinning completely out of control it is closed. I will leave it as a sticky so anyone who wants to can read through it for the information that is actually there. I would hope that Paul would actually post a new topic when the radio is actually shipping to the dealers. Then we (the moderators) can un-stick this and stick the new one.