SDS100: Another slow scan speed question

werinshades

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
4,179
Location
Chicago , IL
I have a few analog systems I monitor regularly so here's my suggestions other than what's been mentioned already. Change your filters around to see if it makes any difference. But, before you do that, change the Modulation to FM from Auto (which is the default). My SDS scanners are night and day difference doing that on analog systems, and others have found this to be the same result. If you find the FM modulation is helping, go into each of the 3 channels and change the Volume Offset to +2 or +3 which compensates for the audio drop in FM Modulation.
 

beaterbox

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
32
I have a few analog systems I monitor regularly so here's my suggestions other than what's been mentioned already. Change your filters around to see if it makes any difference. But, before you do that, change the Modulation to FM from Auto (which is the default). My SDS scanners are night and day difference doing that on analog systems, and others have found this to be the same result. If you find the FM modulation is helping, go into each of the 3 channels and change the Volume Offset to +2 or +3 which compensates for the audio drop in FM Modulation.
Currently, I've tried the filters with no noticeable difference. The channels were imported from the database and were set to NFM already (which is listed as such on RR). I'm really at a loss for the slow scanning of 3 simple analog channels.
 

werinshades

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
4,179
Location
Chicago , IL
Currently, I've tried the filters with no noticeable difference. The channels were imported from the database and were set to NFM already (which is listed as such on RR). I'm really at a loss for the slow scanning of 3 simple analog channels.
That's why I suggested the modulation change. You might have to modify the programming.

Are you missing transmissions?
 

wtp

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
3,741
Location
Port Charlotte FL
high noise floor maybe.
you could look for a possible close transmitter by setting up a full scan.
lowest to highest frequency search with the antenna off the radio.
you will find birdies (internally generated signals) and very close transmitters.
 

Icanhearit

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2021
Messages
48
Location
San Francisco Bay
Slow or not is really subject or where we come from.

It certainly OK compare with human.

If I start with SDS100, I won't say SDS100 is slow. But coming from, say BCD436HP, with expectation that SDS100 is the next generation scanner, it is natural to feel like a downgrade in this area, and from pragmatic reality I do find SDS100 fails to pickup as many active channels (especially analogue ones, using DND) due to SDS100 is lurking around inactive one longer (again I tried different filter). We can argue SDS100 is SDR based blah but it does not help on slower scan fact (see, I hesitate to call it slow).

The experience is also site dependent. in area where I live (crowded & busy communication), even just monitor P25 only has so many interesting channels I'd like to monitor, the slow scan is more pronounced than to some people living in a calm and peaceful town with moderate traffic.

I have no plan to discard my 436HP after aquire SDS100, just as I have no plan discarding the BC125AT when I picked up 436HP, as the latter is unbeatable (among Uniden scanners) for airband etc...

I appreciate people help on how to improve SDS100 scan speed. But not expecting drastic change.
 

werinshades

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Messages
4,179
Location
Chicago , IL
Slow or not is really subject or where we come from.

It certainly OK compare with human.

If I start with SDS100, I won't say SDS100 is slow. But coming from, say BCD436HP, with expectation that SDS100 is the next generation scanner, it is natural to feel like a downgrade in this area, and from pragmatic reality I do find SDS100 fails to pickup as many active channels (especially analogue ones, using DND) due to SDS100 is lurking around inactive one longer (again I tried different filter). We can argue SDS100 is SDR based blah but it does not help on slower scan fact (see, I hesitate to call it slow).

The experience is also site dependent. in area where I live (crowded & busy communication), even just monitor P25 only has so many interesting channels I'd like to monitor, the slow scan is more pronounced than to some people living in a calm and peaceful town with moderate traffic.

I have no plan to discard my 436HP after aquire SDS100, just as I have no plan discarding the BC125AT when I picked up 436HP, as the latter is unbeatable (among Uniden scanners) for airband etc...

I appreciate people help on how to improve SDS100 scan speed. But not expecting drastic change.
I wouldn't consider Chicago a "calm and peaceful town with moderate traffic", and CPD is still using an antiquated analog 460Mhz system so my suggestions have been utilized and successful. I also have P25 simulcast , DMR OFT, MotoTrbo Trunking and both a NXDN OFT and NXDN Trunking system within my range, so I'd think I have a pretty good mix here to make suggestions on improvements. Unfortunately, if you've already resigned yourself to the fact you'll have problems, you probably will.
 

Icanhearit

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2021
Messages
48
Location
San Francisco Bay
I wouldn't consider Chicago a "calm and peaceful town with moderate traffic", and CPD is still using an antiquated analog 460Mhz system so my suggestions have been utilized and successful. I also have P25 simulcast , DMR OFT, MotoTrbo Trunking and both a NXDN OFT and NXDN Trunking system within my range, so I'd think I have a pretty good mix here to make suggestions on improvements. Unfortunately, if you've already resigned yourself to the fact you'll have problems, you probably will.
No not taking it personally, never even think that way in any part of my mind. my post is just trying to set expectation from my experience.

I appreciate your input and glad it works for you and to certain degree for me. I also has DMR/NXDN though in separate favorite list not active in parallel. My comment is based on comparing 436HP and SDS100, running same favorite list (only one is active)). the slow is less so on P25 but more obvious on analogue ones though with fewer channel than the P25 FL .
 

Ubbe

Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
6,529
Location
Stockholm, Sweden
I'm really at a loss for the slow scanning of 3 simple analog channels.
Can you zip those debug files and post? Even if we don't know what all numbers stands for we can see the scan speed and potential problems. At least JoeBearcat could forwards that debug file to Uniden to be analyzed.

/Ubbe
 

JoeBearcat

Active Member
Uniden Representative
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
1,062
I'm not sure what you mean by that...

It's all default imported from the Sentinel software database. The radio squelch is set to 2 and the PL tones are set for each channel.
If your squelch is open, the scanner will take longer to scan channels because it will be looking for a matching CTCSS/CDCSS/NAC/RAN/Etc on each and every channel. If the squelch is not open, the scanner sees that and will not evaluate the channel for those. (much, much faster)

But a squelch setting of '2' should be high enough to not cause that issue.
 

beaterbox

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 26, 2021
Messages
32
Sorry for the delayed reply all... just bouncing back from Covid :/

Appreciate all the replies I've gotten, since I've been down and out. I'll get a debug file and upload soon, thanks!
 
Top