BCD536HP vs BCD996P2 vs SDS200 which for my specific application?

[videobruce]

Background, use & concerns after reading thru (some scanning) all 3 user manuals of the above (manuals dated 2014, 2015 & 2018);

1. In a medium sized city (actually living in the city, not the suburbs); interference rejection priority #1,
2. For use as a base unit with roof top antennas (more than 1, able to switch).
3. Interets; Railroad, Marine, City government services, some Federal agencies (mostly border related), a few other minor interests; FRS/GMRS, Amateur radio,
4. P25 for 90+% of the 'digital' services, then EDACS & LTR and only one 850 County trunking service (P25),
5. Not interested in Fire, EMS, town or village governments,
6. Some state agencies (State Police),
7. Ease to program, especially doing basic programming, namely entering in typical analog services, not trunking,


For NXDX & DMRE, there are only 3 or so services and really one that I 'm most interested in, but that automatically eliminates two choices if I've done my research right.

Question about the features of these three;
1. Is the 996 the only one with the 'BandScope' and a record out jack?
2.The SDS200 is the only one with the NXDN & DMR?
3. This IFE function, all 3 have this, correct?
4. AS to the above just how effective is it for intermod problems?? And has this changed/improved between the models? This would be most important.
5. I understand programming is somewhat different between the 996 & the 200, how so (in so many words)?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Whiskey3JMC]

1. Is the 996 the only one with the 'BandScope' and a record out jack?
Band scope, yes. "record out jack", no

2. The SDS200 is the only one with the NXDN & DMR?
No. See full list of DMR and NXDN capable scanners (click respective hyperlinks)

3. This IFE function, all 3 have this, correct?.
Are you referring the IFX (Intermediate Frequency Exchange)? Yes, all 3 have

4. AS to the above just how effective is it for intermod problems?? And has this changed/improved between the models? This would be most important.
This varies. Not everyone's RF environment is the same

5. I understand programming is somewhat different between the 996 & the 200, how so (in so many words)?
Have a look at the programming sections on each respective model's easier to read manual (996P2 & SDS200). The memory architecture is different between both scanners, it's much more content than can easily be covered in one thread alone (though if you search through the forums I'm sure you'll find it all covered somewhere)

 

[MStep]

Hi videobruce. I know I've answered a few of your other posts. I believe that you are "overthinking" this. No one is going to be able to explain the nuances of each receiver for your particular environment and operating conditions. Rather than try to over-analyze, I would suggest you get the SDS200, since that is the newest and "most advanced". Amazon or Walmart for easiest returns if your are not happy.

If it turns out that the SDS200 does not meet your requirements, at least you can return it and then be down to just two choices. Because of the amount of subjectivity and people's personal preferences and experiences, there really is no right answer as to what is right for you.

Important: Do not purchase any of the keys to expand digital operations until you are certain you are going to keep the radio.

Remember, these are "hobbyist" devices and not in the same class as professional commercial radios. Do NOT expect any particular model to fulfill all your demands and expectations.

 

[Whiskey3JMC]

Important: Do not purchase any of the keys to expand digital operations until you are certain you are going to keep the radio.

Adding to this, upgrade keys are non-transferrable. They are unique to a single radio only. So there's no sense buying an SDS200, purchasing every upgrade for it then if you decide the SDS200 doesn't meet your expectations and you wish to downgrade to the 996P2, you can't transfer the keys from one scanner to the next. On the upside to that, you can certainly try selling an SDS200 with all the upgrades you purchased for a higher price than what you paid for it without the upgrades assuming it's in the same condition as when you unboxed it. But that's a topic for a whole different thread...

 

[videobruce]

Whiskey3JMC;
"3. This IFE function, all 3 have this, correct?.
Are you referring the IFX (Intermediate Frequency Exchange)? Yes, all 3 have "
Yes, typo on my part.

"4. AS to the above just how effective is it for intermod problems?? And has this changed/improved between the models? This would be most important.
This varies. Not everyone's RF environment is the same "
Understood, but has anyone reported that it made a difference for them in their situation?

" Have a look at the programming sections on each respective model's easier to read manual (996P2 & SDS200). "
Yes I have, but not in depth due to the complexity of all the manuals. Too much to swallow in one shot, especially the 996 with the largest manual .

MStep;
" Important: Do not purchase any of the keys to expand digital operations "
Understood about the keys, I wasn't planing to purchase together, I've read enough about making that mistake.
" I believe that you are "overthinking" this. "
Not really, I'm not one to buy and return if I can help it. I'm just tiring to remove as much 'doubt' (surprise) as possible before the purpose.

 

[Hit_Factor]

I think the filters in the SDS line have the best chance of dealing with intermod problems.

There is freeware that displays the bandscope from the SDS scanners. It's better than nothing.

I think you need two scanners SDS 100/200 and a BCD436HP/BCD536HP. I could be wrong but I don't think the 996 will give you the granularity you seek in programming. I think the 996 is programed through the front panel, whereas the other two are programmed (mostly) via Sentinel. I could be way off on the 996, I just now scanned through the manual.

Icom R8600 doesn't trunk track or decode DMR, but it gives you everything else you asked for. You would still need two receivers to get everything.

 

[doctordialtone]

I could be wrong but I don't think the 996 will give you the granularity you seek in programming. I think the 996 is programed through the front panel, whereas the other two are programmed (mostly) via Sentinel. I could be way off on the 996, I just now scanned through the manual.

This is inaccurate.

The 996XT AND 996P2 are programmable via software, such as Proscan.

I own the 996XT and the 996P2.

They are great radios!

The programming is as "granular" as any other scanner.

I also own the handheld versions. The 396XT and 325P2. They all use the same programming files.

 

[W1KNE]

The 996XT AND 996P2 are programmable via software, such as Proscan.
I own the 996XT and the 996P2.
They are great radios!
The programming is as "granular" as any other scanner.
I also own the handheld versions. The 396XT and 325P2. They all use the same programming files.

I am going to piggy back onto Dr Dialtone's post. In Buffalo, a BCD996P2 will suit you fine. Unless you want audio replay, in which the 536 would be your shot, if you only want to sit, scan and listen, go with that. It's a relatively inexpensive digital scanner that works well, even in high noise environments. I use one at work and have had excellent luck with it. There are no simulcast setups but there are a lot of UHF, so the SDS will cause you nothing but headaches with the images and overload issues there. They really are designed best for that scenario.

 

[gil_ford]

I own a 996p2 and I’m very happy with it.

 

[Ubbe]

I think the filters in the SDS line have the best chance of dealing with intermod problems.

That's because other scanners do not have as severe intermod problems as the SDS scanners do, so they do not need any filter adjustments. Only if you have problems to receive simulcast systems should you consider a SDS scanner. The 436/536 has the exact same features and functions but without the intermod and overload issues. I've made actual measurements of a SDS100 and its receiver quality are terrible.

/Ubbe

 

[gary123]

The 536 can easily have a discriminator tap added. All my 536 (4) have been tapped. All you need is 6 in of shielded wire, a .01 cap and a 100 ohm resistor. The 536 are used in a major city and so far inter mod has not been an issue.

 

[buddrousa]

I run all 3 and the 996p2 DOES HAVE RECORD OUT JACK
Per the Manual Easier to Read BCD996P2/XT Digital Scanner Manual
Record-Out Jack - lets you can connect an output jack to a VOX controlled recorder or PC sound input to record the received audio on selected channels, systems, Close Call, Fire Tone-Out, and searches.

 

[MStep]

" I believe that you are "overthinking" this. overthinking" this. "
Not really, I'm not one to buy and return if I can help it. I'm just tiring to remove as much 'doubt' (surprise) as possible before the purpose.

As grandma used to say, "When you're not sure what to do, do nothing." I say this as a fellow scanner enthusiast. Maybe you should ease off for a while, take a few deep breaths, and come back to this in a week or two. These are ALL excellent radios, and each of the models you listed are all "winners". From all the reading I have done, each one of the models that you have listed may excel in areas where the other 2 do not.

You have to "start" the process at some point. No matter how many manuals you read, it's just not the same as having an actual radio in front of you. I understand that buying and returning are not your forte, and there is almost always a sense of "buyer's remorse". You've got a lot of folks in the Buffalo area who are fellow scanner enthusiasts. Those are the folks who can probably give you the specifics on what they feel is the best for your geographic location.

I know that $600 or $700 can be a year's worth of savings for some folks, but it should never weight so heavily as say, buying a house or buying a car. In any event, good luck in your endeavors, and in my experience, things always seem to work out in the end. -Mike

 

[videobruce]

MStep;
I've been living in the analog past for too long (mostly procrastinating). Many of the services I use to listen 20, 30 years to are either defunct or those damn cell phones killed them. It's really not the money (no cracks please.....), but it's probably more the learning curve no matter which one I get.
Frankly, I'd pay 2x that to get rid of the damn intermod from these digital services that have destroyed the UHF business band, just as pagers did to the VHF band 30 years ago, but far worse.

 

[iMONITOR]

MStep;
I've been living in the analog past for too long (mostly procrastinating). Many of the services I use to listen 20, 30 years to are either defunct or those damn cell phones killed them. It's really not the money (no cracks please.....), but it's probably more the learning curve no matter which one I get.
Frankly, I'd pay 2x that to get rid of the damn intermod from these digital services that have destroyed the UHF business band, just as pagers did to the VHF band 30 years ago, but far worse.

I don't hear too many people today complaining about intermod. What scanner(s) are you using currently? Have you ever considered using filters to block some of that intermod? Any idea what the source of the intermod is?

 

[videobruce]

I'm glad I asked about intermod performance. I see here is a good example, disagreement as which one is best just confused the issue more.

As to audio recording; I'm intrigued by that, don't all of these have that ability past the default last 4 minutes?
The 'Band Scope' isn't a deal breaker if the scanner doesn't have it, I have a SA that fulfills that need.

 

[videobruce]

iMONITOR;
I have had a Pro 2004 for probably 25 years and just acquired a Pro 2006. My longer term scanner that doesn't suffer from intermod is a Regency HX1000 which is my gold standrad for reception. I've never had or used a radio better than that, probably due it's limited bandwidth for VHF & UHF, unlike all these newer receivers. I remember tring another scanner 25-30 yers ago (don't remember what) and after programming the 30 or so channels into it as I had in these radios, that proformance was 10x worse as to intermod rejection. It was basically unusable.

 

[iMONITOR]

iMONITOR;
I have had a Pro 2004 for probably 25 years and just acquired a Pro 2006. My longer term scanner that doesn't suffer from intermod is a Regency HX1000 which is my gold standrad for reception. I've never had or used a radio better than that, probably due it's limited bandwidth for VHF & UHF, unlike all these newer receivers. I remember tring another scanner 25-30 yers ago (don't remember what) and after programming the 30 or so channels into it as I had in these radios, that proformance was 10x worse as to intermod rejection. It was basically unusable.

Those are some oldies but goodies in their day, but not up to snuff with most of today's modern advanced scanners.

Regarding your original question:
"BCD536HP vs BCD996P2 vs SDS200 which for my specific application?"

They're all a giant step up from what you've been using. It's not easy to go into all the pro's and con's among the three choices. But for a quick basic simple answer, I would say this:

For the best receiver, I vote for the BCD996P2, for a big step up in features over the BCD996P2, I would vote for the BCD536HP. If the 700-800MHz band in a simulcast environment my vote would go for the SDS200 for that reason only, but other than that, I'd refer you back to the previous two choices. Do your homework. Be prepared for a giant learning curve from what you've been use to!

 

[videobruce]

" Do your homework. Be prepared for a giant learning curve from what you've been use to! "
Yes, I know.

I looked between the versions of the 996 and the P2 seems make the more sense of those three. The 'T' was 2006 and the 'XT' was 2009.

 

[doctordialtone]

the P2 seems make the more sense of those three.

I agree. It's a great radio!

Good luck!