Any gre scanners in the works

[tampatracker]

I like to see GRE develop something like the Uniden's HomePatrol Extreme features for the PSR-500/600 and 800 and be able to view on a computer screen.

I'll second that!

 

[gmclam]

All NFM receivers not created equal

I do still prefer the Uniden's front end design, however. Seems to be significantly better front end filtering and/or dynamic range than GRE's very poor design. Frankly, I seriously wish I could "Frankenstien" the Uniden front end with the GRE's back end IF section and add the Uniden's discriminator audio approach and make a decent final model in terms of the RF signal handling.

And I happen to like GRE's front end much better because I enjoy the better sensitivity and ability to pick up distant signals. I rarely have a problem with signal overload and when I do, I can usually switch in the attenuator ri change antennas to solve my problem.

I too would like a Frankenstein, but I want some of Uniden's features with the GRE radio.

The one thing we apparently agree on is that the narrow filter for NFM is essential and that issue is not clear to most users. That's why some believe one scanner model does handle NFM (because there is a setting - lol) while others realize it doesn't.

 

[Arizona_Scanner]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-us; DROID X2 Build/4.5.1A-DTN-150-30) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)



I was the same way wanted nothing to do with the 800 because of no keypad. I decided to buy one and since then I have not turned on my psr-500 or my pro-106 and those were my favorites, I love the 800. I would want a keypad on the base unit though.

Exactly....once you learn to navigate with the four way button and the menu button you can do it almost without even looking, and quickly.

The school of though against this scanner reminds me of all the complaining I heard when scanners quit using "banks" of "channels"....some people don't adapt very well.

 

[RadioDaze]

Exactly....once you learn to navigate with the four way button and the menu button you can do it without even looking, and quickly.

The school of though against this scanner reminds me of all the complaining I heard when scanners quit using "banks" of "channels"....some people don't adapt very well.

I can switch off one list and switch on a different one with two (2) clicks on my 500 and 600. Completely without looking, and even more quickly. Nothing to learn, nothing to navigate.

That doesn't mean I'm disparaging the 800.

 

[Mike_G_D]

And I happen to like GRE's front end much better because I enjoy the better sensitivity and ability to pick up distant signals. I rarely have a problem with signal overload and when I do, I can usually switch in the attenuator ri change antennas to solve my problem.

I too would like a Frankenstein, but I want some of Uniden's features with the GRE radio.

The one thing we apparently agree on is that the narrow filter for NFM is essential and that issue is not clear to most users. That's why some believe one scanner model does handle NFM (because there is a setting - lol) while others realize it doesn't.

FWIW, I notice virtually no significant difference between the sensitivity of the GRE and the Uniden I have. There is a common bad misconception that better front end sensitivity means a compromise in front end rejection of out-of-band and near-in-band strong signals handling. Correctly designed, with proper consideration of BOTH band-pass filters AND dynamic range (which very few non-RF technically experienced folks seem to understand - they think it is all filtering only) you really can have both. With good talent and experience, it can be done and within a decent cost range. I'm positive that GRE could retain their vaulted "great sensitivity" AND improve their front end strong signal handling (in-band and out-of-band) and do so with minimal impact on final user cost given the right choice of components and design considerations. But "cool features" are more attractive to end users and easier to advertise. To be fair, I can say the same thing about Uniden and it's back-end IF design or lack thereof. Unfortunately, "cool features" are the more "sexy" things to spend money and development time on and much, much more attractive to the marketing folks.

-Mike

 

[gmclam]

The best receiver with poor firmware is really just junk

I notice virtually no significant difference between the sensitivity of the GRE and the Uniden I have. There is a common bad misconception that better front end sensitivity means a compromise in front end rejection of out-of-band and near-in-band strong signals handling. Correctly designed, with proper consideration of BOTH band-pass filters AND dynamic range (which very few non-RF technically experienced folks seem to understand

Mike, I am an RF engineer as well and understand/agree what you mention about what can be designed. But price is an issue for these scanners, as they wouldn't sell as many if they charged what they feel is necessary to recoup the cost of a great design.

I am speaking from personal experience when I discuss things like sensitivity. I have a lot of different radios here, both brands, connected to the same antenna system, and the GREs have always outperformed the others. I don't have problems with (front end) overload like many claim with GREs.

I also agree that while it is far sexier to develop and sell "features" rather than "performance"; it is quite ironic that I encounter all the firmware and software bugs and issues I do. Some of this stuff looks like it was written by someone who has never seen/used a radio and done in "spare time" rather than with professional intent. I am working on a "review" I hope to post soon that clearly points out the shortcomings (in hopes that someone will pay attention and get them corrected).

 

[Michael-SATX]

gmclam, you say "I have a lot of different radios here, both brands"
your GRE models listed are GREat ... but curious about what Uniden models do you have ?
I am thinking that your have more scanner that are just listed in your signature perhaps ?

btw ~ You can see I am biased to GREat scanners, hmmm sounds like Shack discounts right

ps ~ Who OEM'd the Pro-77 ? ( Was it a Uniden made for RS model ? what does the RS date code say ? xxAxx ? )

 

[Rt169Radio]

A black colored PSR-600 would look nice.Just like the PSR-410.

 

[gmclam]

Scanners ... a long list

gmclam, you say "I have a lot of different radios here, both brands" your GRE models listed are GREat ... but curious about what Uniden models do you have ?

My tagline is a fraction of what I have and use. I was able to have a longer tagline until I wanted to post links to my two streams. The text for a link uses up a lot of characters, so I had to list a select few scanners, and only one stream.

I am thinking that your have more scanner that are just listed in your signature perhaps ?

Yes. And that also does not include others' scanners I have in my possession from time to time for programming, etc.

btw ~ You can see I am biased to GREat scanners, hmmm sounds like Shack discounts right

No. Purchases vary from full list to sales to used.

I really do evaluate scanners as "black boxes" without regard to their manufacturer. I put them side by side and let them talk. GREs do tend to win. I am planning a video with two GREs side by side; I think people will be amazed. My words or thoughts won't mean much until people can see what I am seeing. I was surprised/shocked as well. Right now I am working on my written review first, then will create a video and post all at one time.

ps ~ Who OEM'd the Pro-77 ? ( Was it a Uniden made for RS model ? what does the RS date code say ? xxAxx ? )

I am not sure who made it, as it was circa 1974. The PRO-10, which is the same model but with UHF, was one of the few triple conversion receivers out back then.

Ok here's a list; I am sure I'll miss some. This does not count quantities of each I might have, just models. Crystal controlled: PRO-5, PRO-6, PRO-10, PRO-77. Programmable: PRO-2004, PRO-92, PRO-93, PRO-95, PRO-97, PSR-300, PSR-310, PSR-400. Uniden/etc: PRO-433, BC-780XLT, BC3000XLT & BC9000XLT. I've also reviewed PRO-197, BCD396T and a few other newer models for which I don't have model numbers handy.

 

[Mike_G_D]

Mike, I am an RF engineer as well and understand/agree what you mention about what can be designed. But price is an issue for these scanners, as they wouldn't sell as many if they charged what they feel is necessary to recoup the cost of a great design.

I am speaking from personal experience when I discuss things like sensitivity. I have a lot of different radios here, both brands, connected to the same antenna system, and the GREs have always outperformed the others. I don't have problems with (front end) overload like many claim with GREs.

I also agree that while it is far sexier to develop and sell "features" rather than "performance"; it is quite ironic that I encounter all the firmware and software bugs and issues I do. Some of this stuff looks like it was written by someone who has never seen/used a radio and done in "spare time" rather than with professional intent. I am working on a "review" I hope to post soon that clearly points out the shortcomings (in hopes that someone will pay attention and get them corrected).

All I can vouch for is my one BCT15, two 197's, one 500, and one 310 (essentially four GRE's and one Uniden). The BCT15 I have matches in sensitivity my GRE's for all practical purposes and suffers from far and away less front end overload ( I have strong pager signals near me that play havoc with the GRE's on VHF-High band but do nothing at all to the Undien BCT15). I still prefer the GRE's programming methodology and prefer their IF filtering for analog FM/"NFM".

For me, where I am, it's a toss up in some cases when listening to many close in VHF-High signals simultaneously - the GRE's will have a nasty background of pager junk but will adequately separate the close in adjacent channels (poor front end design but good IF filtering) while the Uniden will have zero pager junk but can't separate the close in adjacent channels such that I can sometimes hear two or three adjacent channels simultaneously when parked in the center (poor IF filtering but good RF front end design).

I still maintain that GRE could greatly improve their overall performance by simply matching the Uniden front end design - at least the front end design of the BCT15 that I have. They don't need to achieve perfection at the cost of price just parity with the Uniden units, RF front-end-wise; I mean this to mean parity with the more sensitive Unidens, at least as I cannot speak for the 396T, 396XT, 996T, 996XT and new version of the BCT15(X?). I think they could do this practically and still keep their superior IF design without affecting the price severely.

On the flip side, I think the same in reverse about the Uniden - improve their IF design and keep their current front-end design (at least that of the BCT15 that I have). Frankly, speaking from experience, I think that the easier task would be to start with the Uniden approach so they, if they chose to do this, would have the easier task.

To my mind, GRE's primary focus, to gain the most bang-for-buck RF improvement, would be to improve their front end dynamic range. If they could do that, it would significantly improve the end-user experience with these units in RF dense areas for in-band strong signal handling. This requires no additional filtering, just better front end amplifier component choice and/or design and layout. Filtering (in the RF front end) can only help for out-of-band interferers anyway and cannot help with strong signal in-band undesired signals such as in-band pager transmitters, taxi transmitters, and NOAA transmitters - some of the most problematic signals for consumer scanner receiver equipment in the VHF-High range (notwithstanding notch filters which must be targeted specifically to a particular signal and are not too practical for inclusion in a scanning receiver design). Additionally, improving the dynamic range of the front end amp for the 800MHz range will likewise improve the receiver's performance when in the presence of strong in-band signals such as in-band Nextel transmitters, other constant signal transmitters (undesired other system control channels, etc.) and near in-band signals like cellular transmitters (non-Nextel) - again, even with no additional filtering which is useless for in-band stuff anyway. 800MHz in-band overload is also a common problem for the current GRE models. I experience that as well in my area though it is more tolerable, in most cases, than the VHF-High in-band issues.

One can argue back and forth that this unit works good in their particular area and that one doesn't and someone else can say the reverse. The problem is that each area has different RF environments. Just assuming one "dense" area is the same as another is outright wrong. Each superhet receiver design contains a "frequency conversion plan" which will affect whatever weak points it has in terms of susceptibility to strong undesired signals such as images, half IF, and in-unit intermodulation issues (mixer generated and otherwise). Overall strong signal overload, front end noise floor, and "desense" susceptibility is more a function of front end dynamic range and paying proper attention to RF amp third order intercept and P1dB points. From my testing, both the Uniden and the GRE units use very similar frequency conversion plan approaches, however their front end designs obviously differ (in favor of the particular Uniden that I have at hand, anyway). As noted, the GRE's IF filtering is better, at least with the choice of the narrower "NFM" IF filter (which, for some bizarre reason, cannot be engaged in any mode but analog FM when programming a fixed memory channel; it cannot be engaged in search modes and, although it can be "turned on" via programming when in digital APCO25 reception mode I have confirmed that it isn't really actually engaged in this mode).

Pads at the front ends are a panacea, in my opinion, and, although they serve a purpose and can be used effectively, my feeling is that the current generation of consumer scanner receivers use them more for compensation for lazy design up stream. At the very least, I would like to see pads that contain switchable attenuation levels rather than one brute force 20dB heavy-handed chunk - say 3dB, 10dB, 15dB, and 20dB settings or thereabouts would at least be a far better approach or, even better, 3dB up to 20dB(21dB) in 3dB increments user selectable. An even better approach, would be to have both selectable resistive pads and selectable RF amp gain settings so as to be able to vary the actual gain of the front end amp and set it according to system/channel, etc. Pads add to the noise floor while properly designed variable gain RF amps keep it constant across the range. Pads are, however, good for isolating poorly matched antennas at the feedpoint which can occasionally cause issues in some designs - of course, good RF amp design also entails making it as stable as possible across widely varying input impedances.

-Mike

 

[gmclam]

Front Ends

All I can vouch for is my one BCT15, two 197s, one 500, and one 310 (essentially four GREs and one Uniden).

The PRO-92 is a 5v design and not as sensitive on UHF as newer models. The PRO-93,'95,'97 are all essentially the same receiver. When it comes to sensitivity, I've had them connected the same antenna (with passive splitter) side by side next to different Unidens and able to pick up signals that Unidens didn't stop at. In all fairness, with scanners, sensitivity is also a function of scan speed, so it could be related to that and not the actual receiver.

The BCT15 I have matches in sensitivity my GRE's for all practical purposes and suffers from far and away less front end overload (I have strong pager signals near me that play havoc with the GRE's on VHF-High band but do nothing at all to the Uniden BCT15).

I also have a strong VHF paging signal at ~152MHz but it only presents a problem through my multicoupler AND with certain model receivers.

...when listening to many close in VHF-High signals simultaneously - the GREs will have a nasty background of pager junk but will adequately separate the close in adjacent channels (poor front end design but good IF filtering) while the Uniden will have zero pager junk but can't separate the close in adjacent channels such that I can sometimes hear two or three adjacent channels simultaneously when parked in the center (poor IF filtering but good RF front end design).

I am more likely to hear the paging interference on the PRO-9x scanners than the PSR-300 or PSR-310. I have not experienced other "filtering issues" with the GREs.

To my mind, GRE's primary focus, to gain the most bang-for-buck RF improvement, would be to improve their front end dynamic range. If they could do that, it would significantly improve the end-user experience with these units in RF dense areas for in-band strong signal handling.

I could agree with that, as long as done properly and no corners cut. Otherwise, they are better leaving it as is. The 20dB attenuator can get many people out of some jams.

Filtering (in the RF front end) can only help for out-of-band interferers anyway and cannot help with strong signal in-band undesired signals such as in-band pager transmitters, taxi transmitters, and NOAA transmitters - some of the most problematic signals for consumer scanner receiver equipment in the VHF-High range

The GREs do have band pass filters on their front ends now... and yeah I can think of one NOAA transmitter that, when I am within 1/2 mile of it, I will hear it on an image when the service on that frequency is transmitting. Since I am not near NOAA, nor anything of that power level (100KW), it's not an issue for me.

...improving the dynamic range of the front end amp for the 800MHz range will likewise improve the receiver's performance when in the presence of strong in-band signals such as in-band Nextel transmitters, other constant signal transmitters (undesired other system control channels, etc.) and near in-band signals like cellular transmitters (non-Nextel) - again, even with no additional filtering which is useless for in-band stuff anyway. 800MHz in-band overload is also a common problem for the current GRE models.

Again, if I happen to be a dozen yards or so away from a cell tower I've experienced this problem. Kick in the attenuator and it puts a band-aid on the problem for the moment.

All this makes me wonder how many listeners (at a practical level) are really THAT CLOSE to NOAA, Paging, Cell, Broadcast, Trunking CC, or other "constant" transmissions that they have these problems? I am not in the boonies, use an external antenna, and intentionally amplify signals to overcome splitting loss and receive signals from quite the distance. It's only when I am moble and momentarily near one of these transmitters that I have any problems. And when I say near, I am talking fairly close.

One can argue back and forth that this unit works good in their particular area and that one doesn't and someone else can say the reverse. The problem is that each area has different RF environments. Just assuming one "dense" area is the same as another is outright wrong.

Mike, I pretty much agree with your assessment/comparison of the two brands. Some might wonder if the design differences are because of different RF designer talents or cost or "that's the way we've always done it" or what between the companies. While a good design with certain filters and variable gain RF amps looks great on paper (it is THE way to go), you know there has to be a real reason it hasn't been implemented. I would be concerned about how much extra cost the proper design costs (that's why there are receivers out there that cost a heckuva lot more) as much as they could make things worse.

I did notice "receiver improvements" between the PRO-97 and PRO-164/PSR-300; but I am seeing a different trend with the PSR-310.

 

[BeerNutz]

Don't expect any new radios soon. GRE missed a release in time for the holiday shopping season. Good for GRE for not releasing a buggy product to meet a dead line.

Myself, can't wait for the base version of the PSR-800.

 

[K4APR]

I'm still pushing for a blackbox style scanner without a display or any controls on it. Just connections for power (including ignition sense), RF, external speaker and line out. The control interface would be 100% PC based. Maybe, just maybe include a control port, with an open protocol standard so third party devs could design control heads for it and replace the need for a full blown PC, if so desired.

 

[DaveIN]

You want an updated OptoCom.

 

[K4APR]

You want an updated OptoCom.

Pretty much! I would just opt to have no controls on the box, just connections. Do everything in software.

 

[UPMan]

WiNRADiO WR-G305e Receiver

 

[SCPD]

I agree; without the keypad I feel I have "lost control" over the scanner. What would be nice is to have a 500 with the capabilities of the 800 and a better, that is "clearer" display.

I think that a PSR500 type interface with the PSR800 sd card / record feature would be a great scanner. I personally have no problem with the PSR500 display.

 

[n1das]

I would want to have a 600 and 800, each with detachable faceplate / remote head to make a real slick mobile installation. Design it right, like ham transcievers and commercial VHF/UHF 2-way gear have done. I don't like Uniden's remote head accessory for the 796D since it's still BIG and a bit kludgey from a design standpoint. I like how modern ham transcievers and commercial VHF & UHF transceivers are designed to have the control head remoted right from the outset. In the case where you don't remote the head, the head stays attached to the radio and connects with a very short cable inside but is still deisgned to be remoted if desired.

The lack of a practical remote head solution from GRE is the one and only thing keeping me from installing any GRE scanners in my vehicles.

 

[kmh603]

At the Santa Clara Hamfest GRE was there. The Rep said they are coming out with a GRE 900 this spring. He told me it would be a GRE 800 type base station. The Hamfest I went to was in October 2011.