Are commercial radios really better for scanning?

[slobonmycob]

Long time lurker here. Are P25 radios really better at scanning? One thing I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone point out is that a lot of public safety agencies, fire, police and EMS use scanners to monitor other channels, not P25 radios.

Scanners are all band and can be programmed with multiple different systems. It's cheaper and quite frankly I can't tell much of a difference in performance when it comes to scanning. The programming is easier and agencies don't have to do so much d*m paper work to program another agencies talkgroups into a radio. Honestly, I kinda prefer to use my scanner over my mobile in the vehicle. I leave my mobile on our main dispatch so it can focus on that and let my scanner do the work and I've had no problems. I scan numerous system types at work too.

The one unfortunate downfall is it's not possible to program encrypted channels into a scanner, even if you're an authorized agency/user, which forces departments to use more costly radio's to monitor.

Just my two cent's on the whole ordeal. While I think it is cool and rugged to have, I don't see much difference in performance. Was curious what others have to say?

 

[KevinC]

The one unfortunate downfall is it's not possible to program encrypted channels into a scanner, even if you're an authorized agency/user, which forces departments to use more costly radio's to monitor.

GitHub - x27/openscanner: OpenScanner FWs

OpenScanner FWs. Contribute to x27/openscanner development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

 

[slobonmycob]

GitHub - x27/openscanner: OpenScanner FWs

OpenScanner FWs. Contribute to x27/openscanner development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

Hopefully this gains more traction...

 

[mmckenna]

What makes a scanner "better" will depend on what the end user is looking for.

LMR radios usually have better receivers and better filtering. They'll often outperform a consumer scanner in high RF environments like big cities.
LMR radios have better audio output, which is nice in a vehicle.
LMR radios, especially the older Motorola gear, are limited in how much they can scan. They also tend to scan slower.
LMR gives you the option of loading encryption keys without loading non-OEM firmware into the radio.
LMR radios have the option of being rekeyed or zeroized over the air.

Using your primary dispatch radio as a scanner is not ideal as you risk missing traffic unless you have your priority scan settings set well. Also, setting up the radio to only scan one or two other channels can make this work if it's a small agency with not a lot of traffic.


The limitation of bands is an issue for some. Multiband radios are expensive. In some areas, all/some/most of the public safety agencies are all on the same band, so a single band radio works fine.



Scanners give a lot more capability.
Scanners often have wide open front ends which can make scanning in high RF environments a challenge.
Scanners scan faster.
Scanners don't tie up the dispatch radio.
In a jam, someone can easily add new channels to the scanner without needing a laptop and cable.
Scanners are less expensive, which is handy for some agencies.
Scanners take up additional room in the console, which might already be crowded.
Scanners can't be rekeyed over the air, and don't have the facilities to have their keys zeroized remotely.
Adding a scanner means adding another antenna. I'm all for more properly installed antennas, but sometimes real estate becomes a challenge.


And some of those are the same reason we tell people to "Buy a scanner" when they start talking about buying an LMR radio to listen to their local agency.

 

[DeoVindice]

I find scanners a bit of a pain to use compared to subscriber radios. There's just something about the Uniden quick key system compared to zone/channel navigation with discrete scanlists that doesn't click for me mentally. I'd definitely buy the scanner again and it's a great tool, just clumsy.

My work truck has a dual-deck VM7000 with decks routed to separate external speakers for simultaneous RX. It helps that one deck is primarily used for internal communication and the other is primarily used for monitoring. A scanner wouldn't be any more useful for my use case.

 

[Spitfire8520]

Along with high RF envrionments, radios also tend to outperform scanners on very weak signals, so you can hear a little bit more from a little farther away.

Trying to scan with a radio is a headache if there is a need to monitor more than one site due to affiliations, and even more so if an administrator has bothered to touch the TG site access profiles to restrict talkgroups to certain sites.

 

[trentbob]

Everybody is on point here. Going back to when I would carry both, on a commercial radio I would listen to several talk groups from my County's phase ll system on scan and I would use a scanner for a wide range of objects I wanted to hear many more options, news helicopters on Aviation band, Coast Guard, UHF repeaters. Etc.

The advantage of the commercial radio was sometimes my job required me to cross the bridge into the next state, deep into an adjoining County.

The commercial radio that I was scanning 2 talk groups from my County system came banging in loud and clear which they would not have done on a scanner.

 

[mikegilbert]

I've owned and used (and sold) several scanners over the years, but never keep 'em, save for a BCT15, 996 and 125AT for airband.

Since 99% of my monitoring is a mix of analog and P25 UHF/VHF conventional, Motorola radios just work better.

When I'm shooting wildfires commercially, I want the same tool professionals count on, so I carry a pair of APX8000s (with the sadly discontinued PMAT4005A antenna) set up with the commplan. Sometimes I'll drag along the 125AT for airband monitoring, but the APXs have way better audio and better RF performance than any scanner I've used. All of my fire zones have additional FPP-able channels at the end in case they add a wildcard to the mix. Also, they mute the MDC1200 signaling, so I don't lose my mind.

I'll delegate one radio for command channels and admin, then the second for A/G and air tactics. I rarely miss transmissions that way, and it's just less fussy than a scanner.

I keep an APX4000XH for monitoring LAFD's system, and call it good.

Getting cover shot is always a mix of luck, intuition, and good intel.

 

[dryfb]

I've owned and used (and sold) several scanners over the years, but never keep 'em, save for a BCT15, 996 and 125AT for airband.

Since 99% of my monitoring is a mix of analog and P25 UHF/VHF conventional, Motorola radios just work better.

When I'm shooting wildfires commercially, I want the same tool professionals count on, so I carry a pair of APX8000s (with the sadly discontinued PMAT4005A antenna) set up with the commplan. Sometimes I'll drag along the 125AT for airband monitoring, but the APXs have way better audio and better RF performance than any scanner I've used. All of my fire zones have additional FPP-able channels at the end in case they add a wildcard to the mix. Also, they mute the MDC1200 signaling, so I don't lose my mind.

I'll delegate one radio for command channels and admin, then the second for A/G and air tactics. I rarely miss transmissions that way, and it's just less fussy than a scanner.

I keep an APX4000XH for monitoring LAFD's system, and call it good.

Getting cover shot is always a mix of luck, intuition, and good intel.

Those pictures are amazing! I just shoot my small town fires but I do the same with 2 radios. Used to use an NX300 an TK3180 so I could see FleetSync IDs and whatnot, now it's an NX5300 with NXDN and DMR plus an analog and P25 only TK5330 (NX5000 family) for the analog only fire channels. Occasionally used to carry a Unication pager so I could grab the call numerics again if I needed to while out and about.

I agree with @DeoVindice about scanners being a pain, the channel navigation never clicked for me, it's been the biggest reason I haven't made any scanner purchases, and the fact I like having TX capabilities since I am a ham and all that.

 

[mikegilbert]

Thank you! Nice shots as well!

You get it! In the heat of the moment, having zones set up exactly the way you want, with dedicated buttons just makes sense.

Back in my hometown, I used a TK-2140 for monitoring VHF, and loved it. Being able to scan all channels in the radio is a very nice bonus.

 

[n3obl]

I will say kenwood and vertex were nice radios as you could scan a large bulk of channels.

 

[Bob1955]

What makes a scanner "better" will depend on what the end user is looking for.

LMR radios usually have better receivers and better filtering. They'll often outperform a consumer scanner in high RF environments like big cities.
LMR radios have better audio output, which is nice in a vehicle.
LMR radios, especially the older Motorola gear, are limited in how much they can scan. They also tend to scan slower.
LMR gives you the option of loading encryption keys without loading non-OEM firmware into the radio.
LMR radios have the option of being rekeyed or zeroized over the air.

Using your primary dispatch radio as a scanner is not ideal as you risk missing traffic unless you have your priority scan settings set well. Also, setting up the radio to only scan one or two other channels can make this work if it's a small agency with not a lot of traffic.


The limitation of bands is an issue for some. Multiband radios are expensive. In some areas, all/some/most of the public safety agencies are all on the same band, so a single band radio works fine.



Scanners give a lot more capability.
Scanners often have wide open front ends which can make scanning in high RF environments a challenge.
Scanners scan faster.
Scanners don't tie up the dispatch radio.
In a jam, someone can easily add new channels to the scanner without needing a laptop and cable.
Scanners are less expensive, which is handy for some agencies.
Scanners take up additional room in the console, which might already be crowded.
Scanners can't be rekeyed over the air, and don't have the facilities to have their keys zeroized remotely.
Adding a scanner means adding another antenna. I'm all for more properly installed antennas, but sometimes real estate becomes a challenge.


And some of those are the same reason we tell people to "Buy a scanner" when they start talking about buying an LMR radio to listen to their local agency.

Well explained, mmckenna!

 

[AM909]

Scanning conventional and trunked at the same time with Kenwood NX-5000 is limited in some ways that I'm running into. I have a BCD996T that I haven't had the time to figure out how to use effectively. Definitely odd compared to radios.

 

[railguy5]

Long time lurker here. Are P25 radios really better at scanning? One thing I'm surprised I haven't seen anyone point out is that a lot of public safety agencies, fire, police and EMS use scanners to monitor other channels, not P25 radios.

Scanners are all band and can be programmed with multiple different systems. It's cheaper and quite frankly I can't tell much of a difference in performance when it comes to scanning. The programming is easier and agencies don't have to do so much d*m paper work to program another agencies talkgroups into a radio. Honestly, I kinda prefer to use my scanner over my mobile in the vehicle. I leave my mobile on our main dispatch so it can focus on that and let my scanner do the work and I've had no problems. I scan numerous system types at work too.

The one unfortunate downfall is it's not possible to program encrypted channels into a scanner, even if you're an authorized agency/user, which forces departments to use more costly radio's to monitor.

Just my two cent's on the whole ordeal. While I think it is cool and rugged to have, I don't see much difference in performance. Was curious what others have to say?

I will answer this by repeating what a long-time two-way radio tech told me years ago. It still holds true today:
A scanner is like a Swiss Army knife--it can do a lot of things, but it will do none of them particularly well. A commercial radio is generally designed and built for fairly specific purpose and is designed and built to perform that specific job pretty well.

The flooding of the world (and U.S.) radio markets by a plethora of "supposedly" Part 90-certified cheap commercial radios from China have muddied that water some. There are some that perform pretty well, but most are substandard and many actually have inferior overall performance compared with some scanners.

My personal rule is this: if radio monitoring is just your hobby or a tool to help you enjoy some other hobby of yours, then a scanner or a cheap Chinese radio may do just fine. If you are using your radio for some "mission-critical" function, get a good quality commercial radio designed to perform that specific function. I own both types of radios and have used them for the functions for which they work best.

 

[slobonmycob]

I will answer this by repeating what a long-time two-way radio tech told me years ago. It still holds true today:
A scanner is like a Swiss Army knife--it can do a lot of things, but it will do none of them particularly well. A commercial radio is generally designed and built for fairly specific purpose and is designed and built to perform that specific job pretty well.

The flooding of the world (and U.S.) radio markets by a plethora of "supposedly" Part 90-certified cheap commercial radios from China have muddied that water some. There are some that perform pretty well, but most are substandard and many actually have inferior overall performance compared with some scanners.

My personal rule is this: if radio monitoring is just your hobby or a tool to help you enjoy some other hobby of yours, then a scanner or a cheap Chinese radio may do just fine. If you are using your radio for some "mission-critical" function, get a good quality commercial radio designed to perform that specific function. I own both types of radios and have used them for the functions for which they work best.

Honestly I can’t tell the difference between my scanner and work radio. They both scan well.