BCD436HP vs BC125AT?- Portable Milair

[dispatchgeek]

I've had wonderful success with my BC125AT as my primary milair scanner while travelling. I've been mulling over picking up a scanner with internal record capability to replace the 125. If I were to move to a BCD436HP or HomePatrol 1/2 for this task, is there anything I would find disappointing in terms of rf performance or scan speed? I'd love to have a device I can set/forget to do logging and review those recordings later.

I have an SDS100 I use for public safety monitoring- the BC125AT blows it out of the water on military air. I don't want to take a huge hit in performance to gain the recording capability.

 

[lamarrsy]

Sorry to disappoint you but, the BCD436HP is deaf as a brick on VHF analog FM and AM VHF air, and not much better on military air.
My BC125AT and BCD325P2 beat the 436 any day on analog (*if* we’re talking using them with their rubber duck antenna as portable, of course).

I would highly recommend a Whistler WS1080 or GRE PSR-800 converted to a WS1080 thru official upgrade, if you can find one used (or a TRX-1… but it would be overkill $$ for the intended use).

I have a WS1080 and it can record (selectable per channel, contrary to the 436 which is all or nothing), and it’s behavior on analog AM and FM is on par with the Uniden 125 and 325P2, and blows away the 436 too.

 

[Ubbe]

The antenna on 436 are extremely bad for the whole 200-400MHz range. I have mine connected to a splitter and don't see much difference to other scanners when used with a roof antenna and has no problem in the 250-300MHz range and then I have lots of local DAB radio in the 225MHz band. It is the scanner I prefer to use for mil air, and of course a UBC780. But it is a bit more prone to overload with big signals, in other frequency bands, that equals a HP1. I think that the HP1/2 and 436 share the same receiver design as my HP1 and 436 behaves in an similar way to different signal levels. But the BC125 are regarded as having a very solid receiver so it will be hard to beat with any scanner.

Just about any scanner will work fine when there's no interferences, as sensitivity are about the same for all scanners. But when big signals are in the air, especially if you have a gain antenna, it becomes more obvious who has a high performance receiver that can handle a high noise level without loosing sensitivity.

/Ubbe

 

[spacellamaman]

The antenna on 436 are extremely bad for the whole 200-400MHz range. I have mine connected to a splitter and don't see much difference to other scanners when used with a roof antenna and has no problem in the 250-300MHz range and then I have lots of local DAB radio in the 225MHz band. It is the scanner I prefer to use for mil air, and of course a UBC780. But it is a bit more prone to overload with big signals, in other frequency bands, that equals a HP1. I think that the HP1/2 and 436 share the same receiver design as my HP1 and 436 behaves in an similar way to different signal levels. But the BC125 are regarded as having a very solid receiver so it will be hard to beat with any scanner.

Just about any scanner will work fine when there's no interferences, as sensitivity are about the same for all scanners. But when big signals are in the air, especially if you have a gain antenna, it becomes more obvious who has a high performance receiver that can handle a high noise level without loosing sensitivity.

/Ubbe

I'm with ubbe, I have had results showing the 436 is comparable to the 125 reception-wise. granted I never use the stock ducky, but usually am using homemade duckies using piano wire or telescoping bunny ear sections.

the two things that i consider to be most useful on the 436 is the audio recording and the coverage of 54-87fm.

milair is so fleeting if you can't record it you have little chance of hearing it unless you do nothing other than sit and stare. where i live about half of all helo comms are heard on 30-50mhz freqs and half on 60-75mhz freqs.

125 is a great little scanner but there is a whole world of advantages to the 436 as a dedicated mil-scanner.

 

[dispatchgeek]

I appreciate all these answers. I think I am going to gravitate towards the 436 for this use. I'll use my RH77CA knockoff antenna, so no concerns with the cruddy stock duck. Plus the 436 can live on my Proscan server when I am home for some additional scanning capacity.

lamarrsy- I had considered the WS1080 previously, but it appears it shares the 3uV sensitivity on AM UHF Milair reception that previous GRE/RS Scanners dealt with. Contrast this with the 0.4 uV performance of the BC125AT. I didn't know what I was missing when I used a RS Pro-197 to handle Milair; Switching to the BC125AT and later a BCT15X opened a whole new world to me. I believe a big part of this reason is due to the GRE/Whistler/RS Scanners using 380Mhz as the 1st IF.

Thanks for the input everyone!

 

[Ubbe]

I don't see anything in the BC125AT manual but the UBC125XLT has 380MHz in first IF and if the receive frequency are between 360MHz and 400MHz it can't be used so it switches to a first IF of 265MHz. If GRE/Whistler/RS scanner can receive in the 360-400MHz range they also need to shift their first IF as it needs to be at least a 21.4MHz difference between first IF and the signal received.

/Ubbe

 

[pinballwiz86]

Sorry to disappoint you but, the BCD436HP is deaf as a brick on VHF analog FM and AM VHF air, and not much better on military air.
My BC125AT and BCD325P2 beat the 436 any day on analog (*if* we’re talking using them with their rubber duck antenna as portable, of course).

I would highly recommend a Whistler WS1080 or GRE PSR-800 converted to a WS1080 thru official upgrade, if you can find one used (or a TRX-1… but it would be overkill $$ for the intended use).

I have a WS1080 and it can record (selectable per channel, contrary to the 436 which is all or nothing), and it’s behavior on analog AM and FM is on par with the Uniden 125 and 325P2, and blows away the 436 too.

I respectfully disagree on the 436HP being deaf on analog. What it is, is SLOW to scan analog frequencies as the channels are loaded off an microSD card. The SDS100, now THAT is a deaf scanner on analog. lol.

 

[dispatchgeek]

I respectfully disagree on the 436HP being deaf on analog. What it is, is SLOW to scan analog frequencies as the channels are loaded off an microSD card. The SDS100, now THAT is a deaf scanner on analog. lol.

For sure. I've had an SDS100 and a BC125AT scanning the same frequencies for a nearby airshow. The 125 blew it out of the water as the SDS100 sailed right on past the channel in question. To quote Brian Fantana from the movie Anchorman- "Sixty percent of the time, it works every time."

 

[lamarrsy]

I respectfully disagree on the 436HP being deaf on analog. What it is, is SLOW to scan analog frequencies as the channels are loaded off an microSD card. The SDS100, now THAT is a deaf scanner on analog. lol.

I keep my original position about the 436 because it is what I experience daily, so, I, too, respectfully disagree with you here 😉 !
I have to highlight again that my remark is about these respective scanners using *their respective original portable antennas* used as their intended uses, eg *portable* and not connected to external antennas (being base or mobile) of any sort.
Is it in this context that you experience the 436 being “on par” with the 125, or while being connected to another antenna ? (just to be sure of the context you experience the good analog VHF 436 performance)

 

[sallen07]

What it is, is SLOW to scan analog frequencies as the channels are loaded off an microSD card.

Not sure what you mean. The card-based scanners load the frequencies into memory off the card when you turn them on; after that it scans from memory. They don't read the card constantly.

 

[pinballwiz86]

Not sure what you mean. The card-based scanners load the frequencies into memory off the card when you turn them on; after that it scans from memory. They don't read the card constantly.

Even though it loads it into memory, it still scans much slower than a traditional analog scanner.

 

[dmchalmers]

Even though it loads it into memory, it still scans much slower than a traditional analog scanner.

I have to agree with mine is slow if at all picks up analog next to my analog handheld. Hense why i'm using both still

 

[Ubbe]

I have to agree with mine is slow if at all picks up analog next to my analog handheld. Hense why i'm using both still

Have you tried the latest firmware upgrade? They might have doubled the scan speed now, to what it originally was and where later reduced to half speed from a bug introduced 3 years ago.

/Ubbe