• Effective immediately we will be deleting, without notice, any negative threads or posts that deal with the use of encryption and streaming of scanner audio.

    We've noticed a huge increase in rants and negative posts that revolve around agencies going to encryption due to the broadcasting of scanner audio on the internet. It's now worn out and continues to be the same recycled rants. These rants hijack the threads and derail the conversation. They no longer have a place anywhere on this forum other than in the designated threads in the Rants forum in the Tavern.

    If you violate these guidelines your post will be deleted without notice and an infraction will be issued. We are not against discussion of this issue. You just need to do it in the right place. For example:

BCT-15 Airband / VHF performance notes...

Not open for further replies.
Jun 5, 2004
Took a little time this morning to compare the new arrival BCT-15 to the Pro-2054. What follows is purely un-scientific and based on my rough observations. I put both included whips at 18" length and turned the squelch just beyond the threshold, with both scanners sitting side by side in an area of good reception.

VHF Airband:
Pro-2054 = Very Good.
BCT-15 = Better. Picked up more distant ground / plane comms.

WX Band:
Pro-2054 = Picked up one NOAA WX channel, somewhat scratchy.
BCT-15 = Picked up three NOAA WX channels, two in full-quieting, one half-scratchy.

VHF 150 MHz DX Area:
Pro-2054 = Okay.
BCT-15 = Better. Picked up more distant public safety repeaters.

VHF 150 MHz Local Area:
Pro-2054 = Great.
BCT-15 = Great.

Interference Rejection:
Pro-2054 = Paging bleedover randomly at times.
BCT-15 = Less paging bleedover.

Audio Output:
Pro-2054 = 1.5W. I'd say more bass.
BCT-15 = 2.6W. I'd say more treble.
Possible slight edge to Pro-2054 in audio quality; both units plenty loud enough.

Unfortunately there wasn't a lot of VHF lowband, 450 MHz, or 800 MHz traffic, so I can't compare those two areas yet.
Not open for further replies.