BCD396T Sensitivity

[DaveIN]

Interesting comments on BCD396T's sensitivity from http://www.ukmidlandscanner.co.uk/unibcd396t.htm

Quotes:

"First of all I wanted to test the sensitivity of the 396. First thing I did was remove the fitted rubber duck (I have heard its only good for 800MHz) Screwing on the aforementioned sma-bnc converter and attaching my test bench Watson W-889 Telescopic, Quickly entering some test features into a system that I named...well, "Test" I found the 396T not very sensitive at all on all bands and was very disappointed. It wasn't until I played with the squelch settings and found it was preset on the highest setting that that was the reason for the poor sensitivity.

The squelch setting is not adjusted by just rotating a knob like most scanners first of all you press function button on the side of the radio and simultaneously down on the rotary control knob and from there you can adjust it to whatever you like. I settled for setting "1" select "0" and all you will get is the harsh crud that you normally do when squelch is turned right down. Letting the 396 scan My inputted frequencies it was obvious this little baby is about as sensitive as it gets. Picking up My local airport comm's both ground and air on 119Mhz in my kitchen has been a feat no scanner I have owned to date has been able to do. Right up into the pmr vhf bands this scanner performed flawlessly. I wanted to try it on the fleetcomm trunked frequencies at 180MHz (The 246 does not cover this area) I was fascinated when doing a search to find out it was picking up control channels from miles away. Again better than other scanners I have owned. I now had to try 70MHz fire again an area the 246 did not cover. Now my local fire stations have had many a scanner struggling as the signal is not that strong. I even stood next to a fire engine once that had it's door open and even that was struggling. The 396 had the signals booming in. So much in fact that I have now become a keen fire listening enthusiast. "

Could this issue of lack of sensitivity be related to the squelch setting?

It could be "part" of the issue, but I have yet to understand why anyone would buy a ~$500 radio, use the stock antenna only, and expect the performance to be exactly what they needed.

 

[Dewey]

Interesting comments on BCD396T's sensitivity from http://www.ukmidlandscanner.co.uk/unibcd396t.htm

Quotes:

"First of all I wanted to test the sensitivity of the 396. First thing I did was remove the fitted rubber duck (I have heard its only good for 800MHz) Screwing on the aforementioned sma-bnc converter and attaching my test bench Watson W-889 Telescopic, Quickly entering some test features into a system that I named...well, "Test" I found the 396T not very sensitive at all on all bands and was very disappointed. It wasn't until I played with the squelch settings and found it was preset on the highest setting that that was the reason for the poor sensitivity.

{SNIP}

Could this issue of lack of sensitivity be related to the squelch setting?

The short, but still accurate answer is no. The 396 is NOT sensitive when it comes to the UHF bands. With the exception of the Pro-92, my Pro-34, BC235, BC245, BC895, BC250D, and PRO-96 pick up DC PD (460's) very well from the part of P.G. County where I live. Yes, DC has gone digital, but these other receivers will still lock onto any of the frequnecies that are active, to include the control channel (and the non-digitals were used to receive DC PD before they went digital). The 396 will not receive the control channel regardless of the squelch setting... and this includes zero.

I will also sometimes get choopy reception when listening to my PG Co district (494's) while at home. The other receivers get this channel with full quieting.

The other bands are fine, but I still stick to my guns that the 396 does not have a hot receiver... at least on UHF.

Dewey

 

[alins]

Since the BCD36T and BR330T are somewhat similar, does the same sensitivity problem appear in the BR330T also? Or do they have different radios for the bands they cover?

 

[800crazy1]

my 2 cents worth , and i only read the first 4 or 5 posts......just got out of work and im tired, but im about 1 mile and a half from multiple repeaters for springfield Ma. police depts. and i cant believe i have very fuzzy reception from the 396 , there freq. of 460.1 pl 156.7 , i thought it was me , maybe i had the attenuater on , but nope , and reprogrammed the freq. and what not , and to this day its just very fuzzy and staticy , so i tried my 250-D and absolutly night and day difference.....love the features of the 396 , but believe the ones noticing the problems with there sinsitivity issue , are right on target. the question asked on a firmware upgrade , i cant anser , id like to know if anybody noticed a difference in there sinsitivity over the other upgrade that uniden put out before the last one. thanks

 

[RoninJoliet]

Your 2 cents worth are rite on the money, my 245,246,PRO96 are more sensitive than my 396. I have been using a old Uniden 245xlt rubber duck on it and it seems the same as the stock on 800, better on UHF and VHF than the stock.I live 30 miles south of Chicago , the other three hear some CPD zones on 460mgz fine but the 396 passes them by. i really like the 396 but the audio quality is worse on it than the other three also. I luv this hobby and been at it for 35 years and really hoped for better things that are very important like audio and sensitivity on a new $500.00 scanner. I can copy a digital ham repeater in Chicago perfect with the stock rubber duck in digital with the PRO96 but have to stand by the window in the perfect spot with the same antenna duck on the 396 to keep the signal...Just my 3 cents and personal opinion...

 

[hiegtx]

Since the BCD36T and BR330T are somewhat similar, does the same sensitivity problem appear in the BR330T also? Or do they have different radios for the bands they cover?

My experience is that the 330 seems more sensitive than the 396, so the receivers may be a little different. Haven't compared specs to see if my impression is borne out there. That impression is with similar antennas out away from the metro area. In town, I use different antennas: a R/S 800Mhz on the 396, as it has multiple trs systems; the 330 has a Diamond antenna, covering fewer trs, with more Vhf-high & Uhf.

One thing I always make sure to do with either scanner. When setting up a new system, conventional or trunked, I change the mode from manual to whatever it should be. As the majority of the systems in my area are FM, this seems to improve reception. Uniden's "Auto" seems to really be more of a "FMN", so you lose a little. Aircraft frequencies don't need the tweak.

 

[scannersnstuff]

same here.i love my br330t and bcd396t.the features are fantastic !.however when it comes to just plain receiving the pro-97 beats the crappola out of them both.not a simple solution but try 2 scanners.i just hate the pain of having to recharge and change batteries.