BCD436HP/BCD536HP: BCD436HP - The Sensitivity "test" (it had to come out eventually..)

[retropcdos]

The Uniden BCD436HP. handle P25 systems better in my area, no drop outs pick up most traffic and no distortion and just handles p25 systems in general pretty well. I really haven't had a problem with sensitivity like some do on VHF-hi, or UHF bands. Could be just in high RF area. I am picking up stuff quite a but out, with no issues using a radio shack center loaded antenna, or the R/S 800MHz antenna, or Diamond RH77CA indoors. The Uniden BCD436HP is only 2-3 months old, so could be they fix the issues. Preform just about as good as my older scanners.

 

[johnls7424]

The Uniden BCD436HP. handle P25 systems better in my area, no drop outs pick up most traffic and no distortion and just handles p25 systems in general pretty well. I really haven't had a problem with sensitivity like some do on VHF-hi, or UHF bands. Could be just in high RF area. I am picking up stuff quite a but out, with no issues using a radio shack center loaded antenna, or the R/S 800MHz antenna indoors.

Thank you for your input!! I'm becoming less torn as to what to get!! This forum is and has been very informative! Thank you all

 

[Voyager]

Please do take my advice on a direct side-by-side comparison. It should answer many questions. The same advice applies to anyone. There will always be people who will say Model X doesn't do this or that well, but only you can put it into context for your area and for what you want to monitor.

 

[Subliminal87]

Mine is coming tomorrow and reading through this with the charts compared to the 396xt it makes me alittle nervous.

Currently there is a switch over to our new system.
Phase 1 @ 476Mhz-478mhz.

another County is phase 2 @ 769-771mhz.

other is 400-500mhz Phase 1.

It shouldn't really suck, should it? I had a 396xt and it was great on the Phase 1 systems. I hope it's the same or better.

 

[johnls7424]

Mine is coming tomorrow and reading through this with the charts compared to the 396xt it makes me alittle nervous.

Currently there is a switch over to our new system.
Phase 1 @ 476Mhz-478mhz.

another County is phase 2 @ 769-771mhz.

other is 400-500mhz Phase 1.

It shouldn't really suck, should it? I had a 396xt and it was great on the Phase 1 systems. I hope it's the same or better.

Time will tell. I believe most places you order it from have a 30 day return policy. The second you get it start using it. If it is not up to par for the standards you need then send it back and get your money back. I personally think no scanner now adays does everything everyone wants. One will specialize better then the other. Blend all the pro's and con's together and you have a " OK" scanner to contend with. So matter what route you choose it should be fine

 

[Subliminal87]

Time will tell. I believe most places you order it from have a 30 day return policy. The second you get it start using it. If it is not up to par for the standards you need then send it back and get your money back. I personally think no scanner now adays does everything everyone wants. One will specialize better then the other. Blend all the pro's and con's together and you have a " OK" scanner to contend with. So matter what route you choose it should be fine

Yeah that's what I figure, however Ham Radio Outlet is a 15% restocking fee. So about $70 loss that I'd rather not take.

 

[johnls7424]

Try it out. I don't think you'll be that disappointed. Just remember this. NEVER get rid of older scanners. Many are buying these scanners so they decode Project 25 Phase 1 and 2 voice. The bcd436hp does that the best. Even in VHF p25 from what I've read is that its amazing. What is in question is conventonal VHF and possibly some UHF conventional. You can use the Uniden to simply for talkgroup decoding and older scanner that you yourself knows and works just fine for older style conventional stuff.. If need be that is

 

[Subliminal87]

Try it out. I don't think you'll be that disappointed. Just remember this. NEVER get rid of older scanners. Many are buying these scanners so they decode Project 25 Phase 1 and 2 voice. The bcd436hp does that the best. Even in VHF p25 from what I've read is that its amazing. What is in question is conventonal VHF and possibly some UHF conventional. You can use the Uniden to simply for talkgroup decoding and older scanner that you yourself knows and works just fine for older style conventional stuff.. If need be that is

That's fair. I have a 996xt currently as well. It'll scan the old leftover system and the newer system until everyone fully moves over.

once they finish, nothing that i'll listen to will be on conventional. Literally all digital trunked. Besides an EDACS system.

 

[johnls7424]

That's fair. I have a 996xt currently as well. It'll scan the old leftover system and the newer system until everyone fully moves over.

once they finish, nothing that i'll listen to will be on conventional. Literally all digital trunked. Besides an EDACS system.

Unless you live in a major city or nearby a major city many municipalities will stay and operate on conventional frequencies. Since there is no mandate to migrate to a digital format by the FCC many people figure if it's not broke don't fix it. Still even here in NJ where I live many munipalities have either migrated years back to Harris Corp EDACS and ProVoice ( which is now migrating to P-25 Phase 2) or to a Motorola type ( SmartZone or Smartnet) system. With encryption too being a big move when going digital it's makes interoperability challenging. Sometimes conventional band stuff kept everyone on the same page... Anywho... I among other wish you the best of luck scanning. Please tell us your thoughts once you get your new scanner. Let us know if it performs up to your standards ( so we can debunk some rumors) or what have you.

Don't worry about negative comments either. People who have one bad experience love to tell the whole world about it. People who have positive experiences usually are compelled to tell people about it.

 

[Subliminal87]

Unless you live in a major city or nearby a major city many municipalities will stay and operate on conventional frequencies. Since there is no mandate to migrate to a digital format by the FCC many people figure if it's not broke don't fix it. Still even here in NJ where I live many munipalities have either migrated years back to Harris Corp EDACS and ProVoice ( which is now migrating to P-25 Phase 2) or to a Motorola type ( SmartZone or Smartnet) system. With encryption too being a big move when going digital it's makes interoperability challenging. Sometimes conventional band stuff kept everyone on the same page... Anywho... I among other wish you the best of luck scanning. Please tell us your thoughts once you get your new scanner. Let us know if it performs up to your standards ( so we can debunk some rumors) or what have you.

Don't worry about negative comments either. People who have one bad experience love to tell the whole world about it. People who have positive experiences usually are compelled to tell people about it.

Thanks! I will post when I get it. I have the software all ready to go.

Here in my county, they moved all public works completely over to the new P25 Phase 1 system. I guess it's easier for them. But I know they wanted it so police/fire/ems/public works (like plows) can talk to each other.

I am kind of excited to get it, but nervous for spending $454 on it haha. I got laid off from my full time job and got a severance pay, and went from part time to full time at my other job, so no lapse in money. Soooo I figured buy it now while I could. I wanted to buy it back when they first came out, saved up money but stuff kept coming up.

For a good chunk of time during the week, I'll have an actual system radio to listen to. I already have the system scan set up haha.

 

[adcockfred]

o,boy you aught to see those Motorola fellows when I tell them my 436 is almost as good as Motorola. what is the ole saying , all heaven shudders when dreams come true. vhf you say . is that p-25 I better try that too.

 

[mikewazowski]

Gentlemen, I've cleaned this thread up of all the off topic posts.

This thread is for discussing the sensitivity of the new x36HP scanners.

It is not for asking what's the best Phase 2 scanner, what batteries are the best or how to fix a loose volume knob.

Please try and stay on topic.

Thanks.

 

[trazam1986]

Boatanchor, what type of tester/program did you use to create the dba/ frequency reports?

 

[Boatanchor]

Boatanchor, what type of tester/program did you use to create the dba/ frequency reports?

Nothing too exotic.

Just a HP 8920 service monitor and excel to log and display the data in graphical form.

 

[Anderegg]

Yeah that's what I figure, however Ham Radio Outlet is a 15% restocking fee. So about $70 loss that I'd rather not take.

I found out about the HRO restocking fee the hard way. When I bought a new 436HP from them last year, I walked out the door and found that it had extrordinarily less sensitivity than my 396XT (in the parking lot in front of the store), so I walked back through the door and was told that I would have to pay a 15% restocking fee.........because it left the store. They lost me forever as a customer with that one. The 436HP has sat unused since.

Paul

 

[Voyager]

Should have then said you wanted a warranty replacement.

 

[KB6KGX]

Are you sure this is right? Seems terrible!

I find it hard to believe that Uniden would knowingly put out a product that performs below its stated parameters. That makes NO sense at all.

 

[SOFA_KING]

I find it hard to believe that Uniden would knowingly put out a product that performs below its stated parameters. That makes NO sense at all.

Don't believe it. I have compared them all, and the x36 scanners are very sensitive. And I primarily listen to VHF high band. I almost passed up these scanners after reading these test results. Darn glad I didn't! These scanners are the best at weak signal P25 decode. I'm blown away at how far away I can routinely hear. Running both flavors of GRE side by side, the x36 decodes much more reliably than the GRE. I like my GRE scanners (I use them for full time searching), but the x36 scanners are better. Analog? I might give the GRE that, but not that much better.

I used to have an HP 8920. I also had an 8935. And I used to test my scanners and publish the results. The thing is...when doing SINAD measurements, audio filtering circuits in the audio stages can skew the results. And improper peak to peak voltage levels can also degrade the readings. You really have to use unfiltered audio off the discriminator and get the levels right to get proper SINAD results. I'm not saying it wasn't done right, as I do not know the details of the test bed used, but in the real world testing I have done at home and in the.car, the x36 scanners repeatedly shine over the GRE scanners, at least on P25. And I don't have any range problems on the many 800 analog systems I drive around listening to. Most go well beyond county limits. Would a little extra analog sensitivity help? Not in any of the many areas I have driven. And I either use a 17.5 in whip on the corner of my front hood, or a 6 meter quarter wave whip on the roof. Even those have no problem picking up anything. The other day I picked up a UHF analog DEA repeater located in Homestead, Florida from Marathon in the Keys all the way up into central Broward County! Hardly any flutter on it either. It actually surprised me how long I was hearing it and how there was no "picket-fencing". Not too shabby.

Phil

 

[Boatanchor]

If you actually take the time to look at my test results, you will see that:

1/ The graphs only depict the measured sensitivity figures obtained from my BCD396XT and my BCD436HP. I also pointed out that there would be minor production variations between units.

2/ No GRE derived scanners were tested at the time.

3/ My BCD436HP met or exceeded the manufacturers specified sensitivity of 0.3uV or -117dBm (@ FM 12dB sinad) on every band but the 510Mhz band, where the sensitivity did seem low and did not meet the specified level. The 160Mhz band was the other band where sensitivity did seem a little 'down' compared to my BCD396XT, however despite this, the scanner still met the specified 0.3uV sensitivity level (just).

4/ Unless you are interested in receiving extremely weak/distant signals, as I am, it is unlikely that you will notice a difference of 1 or 2dBm in sensitivity. But with P25 in particular, a 2 or 3dBm difference in sensitivity can make a huge difference in decode BER performance of weak signals. Sometimes to the point where signals are either decoded or not.

5/ I have asked that others, owning appropriate test gear, contribute to this thread with their own test results to compare with my results, but sadly to date, nobody has. It is a little strange that considering the number of scanners that are out there, so little independent testing is actually done.

And

6/ Sensitivity is only one factor at play here. There are many other aspects such as IP3, receiver blocking, selectivity, digital decoder performance, audio filtering, squelch operation etc etc etc and they all impact on how well a scanner works

 

[KevinC]

If you actually take the time to look at my test results, you will see that:

1/ The graphs only depict the measured sensitivity figures obtained from my BCD396XT and my BCD436HP. I also pointed out that there would be minor production variations between units.

2/ No GRE derived scanners were tested at the time.

3/ My BCD436HP met or exceeded the manufacturers specified sensitivity of 0.3uV or -117dBm (@ FM 12dB sinad) on every band but the 510Mhz band, where the sensitivity did seem low and did not meet the specified level. The 160Mhz band was the other band where sensitivity did seem a little 'down' compared to my BCD396XT, however despite this, the scanner still met the specified 0.3uV sensitivity level (just).

4/ Unless you are interested in receiving extremely weak/distant signals, as I am, it is unlikely that you will notice a difference of 1 or 2dBm in sensitivity. But with P25 in particular, a 2 or 3dBm difference in sensitivity can make a huge difference in decode BER performance of weak signals. Sometimes to the point where signals are either decoded or not.

5/ I have asked that others, owning appropriate test gear, contribute to this thread with their own test results to compare with my results, but sadly to date, nobody has. It is a little strange that considering the number of scanners that are out there, so little independent testing is actually done.

And

6/ Sensitivity is only one factor at play here. There are many other aspects such as IP3, receiver blocking, selectivity, digital decoder performance, audio filtering, squelch operation etc etc etc and they all impact on how well a scanner works

You mean something like this...

http://forums.radioreference.com/un...st-had-come-out-eventually-2.html#post2261958