I remember when I first saw the BC125AT advertised I thought GREAT! An analog only scanner that included MilAir and did not include 800. I had an RS PRO-60 which has great audio, but image reception from the 800 MHZ region in the 225 -400 range was intolerable. So when I saw an inexpensive analog to cover MilAir without 800, that piqued my interest. Then I read the specifications looking for sensitivity, selectivity and IF frequencies to try and judge it's design for performance. When I saw it did not cover 380-400, but did cover 400-512 I was in disbelief. I thought surely this is a mistake and started checking the forums here about it. Then I was shocked to find it was true and then dismayed that the reasoning was 380-400 was being repurposed to trunking.
My main interest in pointing out the mistake is so it does not happen in future models. If the BC125AT had covered 225-400 I would have jumped at owning one immediately. I can't see how not including it would be an RF design limitation. No front end filtering in that small a package could have sharp enough skirts to restrict 380-400 yet allow decent coverage below 380 and above 400. The LO wouldn't be a technically limiting factor unless designed that way on purpose in firmware. And the IF would not have such a limiting bandwidth for the same reason as the front end filtering. Could not a firmware update allow coverage?
It is possible that image rejection could be seriously impaired in 380-400, but that would be odd too. But it is possible. Do we know the IF frequencies? I didn't find them in the manual. Knowing the IF frequencies it would be possible to predict image rejection. Actual image response would require testing a unit.
My main interest in pointing out the mistake is so it does not happen in future models. If the BC125AT had covered 225-400 I would have jumped at owning one immediately. I can't see how not including it would be an RF design limitation. No front end filtering in that small a package could have sharp enough skirts to restrict 380-400 yet allow decent coverage below 380 and above 400. The LO wouldn't be a technically limiting factor unless designed that way on purpose in firmware. And the IF would not have such a limiting bandwidth for the same reason as the front end filtering. Could not a firmware update allow coverage?
It is possible that image rejection could be seriously impaired in 380-400, but that would be odd too. But it is possible. Do we know the IF frequencies? I didn't find them in the manual. Knowing the IF frequencies it would be possible to predict image rejection. Actual image response would require testing a unit.
