Only in the SDS100 and SDS200.
BCD536HP vs BCD996P2 vs SDS200 which for my specific application?
- Thread starter videobruce
- Start date
- Status
Are they suppose to make up for the deficiencies (so to speak) in the DSD series?
What's the DSD series? DSDPlus?
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 5,836
Yes Bruce, when the sds100 first came out in 2018 there were many issues with reception, both analog and digital. IFX was somewhat helpful but there was poor reception on VHF and UHF and many digital systems had missed transmissions and clipping. Paul, the Uniden product manager at the time who has since passed away was putting out firmware updates every week to correct problems, the first set of filters came out and really did help with reception, then the second set of filters came out and it really did make a big difference for a lot of people. Other changes were made to help with reception.
If all the available options are used properly the SDS series works very well now for me for reception on VHF High and UHF in addition to digital systems.
A typo........ (and a late correction).
How about the SDS?
How about the SDS?
sfb88
Member
SDS? You mean Students for a Democratic Society? 😊
Yep, that's it.
FWIW, there are 4 groups (or bunches) of these 'digital' carriers that I narrowed my
intermod' problem down to.
The 1st two are 420 & 424, the newest allocations that are full of these carriers.
Past that, there are 2 more in the 450-470 BB; ones in the 452-455 and the rest between 460 & 465 mixed in with police , fire & general business.
intermod' problem down to.
The 1st two are 420 & 424, the newest allocations that are full of these carriers.
Past that, there are 2 more in the 450-470 BB; ones in the 452-455 and the rest between 460 & 465 mixed in with police , fire & general business.
Ubbe
Member
It was a thread about why the SDS100 where not as good as the 436 in non-simulcast reception and why Uniden did not publish any sensitivity figures for the SDS100 so that it could be compared to the 436.
Uniden where at that point experimenting with different gain settings in the pre-amplifier using their current base of SDS100 users as guinnepigs to try and find a middle of the road value that suited most users. But the receiver are automaticly adapting to the enviroment, lowering the gain in the receiver chip when there are too many signals within a 7MHz-10MHz wide window. A window that can be moved up or down in frequency by the filter selections, and makes it difficult to state a consistant sensitivity level. Using a single source signal at a test bench gives the SDS100 a better sensitivity than most of Unidens scanners, due to its pre-amplifier. But in a real life monitoring situation with a SDS scanner it all depends of the local RF enviroment.
/Ubbe
I noticed that the 200 was lacking in the specs department. Meaning they knew they had a problem.
I forgot to add in my last post, that last group around 463MHz is where my intermod is coming from. I re-tuned the trap and ran the scanner hours and it all went away which I was kinda surprised. I originally figured the 1st two in the 240's where it appeared to be a heavier concentration of crap.
I forgot to add in my last post, that last group around 463MHz is where my intermod is coming from. I re-tuned the trap and ran the scanner hours and it all went away which I was kinda surprised. I originally figured the 1st two in the 240's where it appeared to be a heavier concentration of crap.
I hate to tell you but in a real world MY 3 SDS Scanners receive better than my x36 Scanners ANALOG VHF and UHF all sharing the same antenna at the same time. And I am not the only one ask UBBE how well the SDS200 works that he bought.
Well, I will know shortly, 1st hand.
(I think this has become a Ford vs Chevy thread............)
(I think this has become a Ford vs Chevy thread............)
IDK, if your area doesn't have a lot of 700/800 P25 TRS, then the SDS200 is probably a waste of money. People also seem to complain about the relatively poor performance of the SDS radios on the UHF bands. Looking at Erie / Buffalo entries in RRDB, the area seems to have *a lot* of UHF and not many 700/800 P25 TRS systems, so I would not recommend an SDS *unless* Buffalo has plans to build a P25 TRS simulcast system in the future.
If you want simplicity in programming, go with the 536 and use ProScan or Sentinel to program the radio. Forget doing it by hand - it's tedious, and there is a lot of room for error.
Where I live, the megapolis is almost exclusively 700/800 TRS in terms of public safety. 450/460/490 systems are all gone, and we've never had 425, thus I have no experience in evaluating UHF performance.
If you want simplicity in programming, go with the 536 and use ProScan or Sentinel to program the radio. Forget doing it by hand - it's tedious, and there is a lot of room for error.
Where I live, the megapolis is almost exclusively 700/800 TRS in terms of public safety. 450/460/490 systems are all gone, and we've never had 425, thus I have no experience in evaluating UHF performance.
UHF is still kicking around here. Analog and digital. Conventional and Trunked. All seem better on the SDS100 vs my 436HP or anything else tbh. I do have a Remtronix 800 SDS100 antenna.
Not sure what TRS is, but there isn't a whole lot of trunk systems around here, at least other then business use (non government). BUT, 'across the pond' in Ontario, there are a whole bunch of P25 & DMR 'digital' services in most Provincial & Federal levels of their government which really surprised me. Toronto is really kinda far for decent reception, thou Hamilton isn't as much. RCMP & the OPP (Ontario Providential Police).
Here in this county and the one north of us, P25 dominates probably 90% with a handful of DMR & NXDN picking up the rest.
Here in this county and the one north of us, P25 dominates probably 90% with a handful of DMR & NXDN picking up the rest.
freqseeker
Member
You guessed right TRS=Trunked Radio System.
TRS = Trunked Radio System. I don't bother trying to monitor systems outside of their intended service areas; I prefer streaming services for that. I do use a SDS200 with GPS when mobile which works well, although I'm accepting delivery on a Tesla tomorrow, and there is no room for the SDS200. I'll have to use the G5 (and the old PSR800 for SmartZone) in the interim / until I figure out another solution.
Hamilton and the RCMP are both 100% encrypted.
You'll do fine with OPP for now although they're switching to an encrypted system at some point.
IMHO
BCD536HP vs BCD996P2 vs SDS200 - One at a time
1) BCD536HP - hated it kept a month. Sucked on Simulcast and sucked on Analog VHF/UHF. Screen visibility/brightness sucked as well.
2) BCD996P2 - Love it, great with Analog BETTER than the SDS200, and great with my 800mhz P2 systems that are NOT Simulcast. I use ProScan for programming and virtual control. I have 3 of these, 2 Home 1 Mobile
3) SDS200 - Love it, great with 700mhz Simulcast, I'm about 3 miles from the closest Antenna. Love the screen personalization feature. Sucks on Analog. I only use it for 2 Simulcast systems. Sentinel for programming and ProScan for PC Screen virtual control.
BCD536HP vs BCD996P2 vs SDS200 - One at a time
1) BCD536HP - hated it kept a month. Sucked on Simulcast and sucked on Analog VHF/UHF. Screen visibility/brightness sucked as well.
2) BCD996P2 - Love it, great with Analog BETTER than the SDS200, and great with my 800mhz P2 systems that are NOT Simulcast. I use ProScan for programming and virtual control. I have 3 of these, 2 Home 1 Mobile
3) SDS200 - Love it, great with 700mhz Simulcast, I'm about 3 miles from the closest Antenna. Love the screen personalization feature. Sucks on Analog. I only use it for 2 Simulcast systems. Sentinel for programming and ProScan for PC Screen virtual control.
Well, I agree 1000% regarding analog. IOW's if this is your only scanner and analog is important, better find a 2nd scanner.
This SDS200 gets a 'D' for analog reception for the following reasons based on well enough experience with a Pro 2004 (and to a lessor extent w/ a 2006) and a especially Regency HX1000 (better receive overall than the 2004);
1. Scan speed is terribly slow, about as fast as watching paint dry,
2. Poorer sensitivity via direct comparisons with the SAME frequencies on the other receivers with the same antennas,
3. Far more interference from other analog xmissions (not data related),
4. The poor 'stepped' squelch control that needs additional 1.2 & 1.5 equivalent settings to allow all the weak xmissions that are blocked at level 2 (which should be L10 base on the number of 'clicks' from it's counter clockwise setting).
I'll report back on the data intermod problem during 'turkey time' (9-5 M-F).
This SDS200 gets a 'D' for analog reception for the following reasons based on well enough experience with a Pro 2004 (and to a lessor extent w/ a 2006) and a especially Regency HX1000 (better receive overall than the 2004);
1. Scan speed is terribly slow, about as fast as watching paint dry,
2. Poorer sensitivity via direct comparisons with the SAME frequencies on the other receivers with the same antennas,
3. Far more interference from other analog xmissions (not data related),
4. The poor 'stepped' squelch control that needs additional 1.2 & 1.5 equivalent settings to allow all the weak xmissions that are blocked at level 2 (which should be L10 base on the number of 'clicks' from it's counter clockwise setting).
I'll report back on the data intermod problem during 'turkey time' (9-5 M-F).
Last edited:
- Status
