Best handheld for use in an automobile

[Mikejo]

I have an old RadioScrap Pro 34 handheld.

No matter what antena I use(BNC Connector), I get spotty performance (like hearing the call fade in and out as I pass by obstcals between the transmitter and my car). The transmitter is on a high hill and only 5 - 10 Miles away at any given time.

I would like to buy another Handheld to clip to my Visor, but I want one with great sensitivity. (not expensive). 470.000 to 422.000 Mhz range.

Any suggestions?

Mike C.

 

[captclint]

I have an old RadioScrap Pro 34 handheld.

No matter what antena I use(BNC Connector), I get spotty performance.
I would like to buy another Handheld to clip to my Visor, but I want one with great sensitivity. (not expensive). 470.000 to 422.000 Mhz range.

1st we don't know where you live, so we can not recommend a scanner unless we know what systems are there(digital, analog trunking, etc. Go to the User CP. and edit your profile to show a location so future posts can be more quickly answered. EDIT: found out you live in Waltham MA from other posts. Massachusetts State Police Trunking System, Statewide, Massachusetts is the only digital system, and most of it is analog for now, so you really don't need a digital at a ~$250 premium over analog trunking. However, I would discuss this on the MA forum to see what other agencies are planning digital, or when the MSP are going to more digital. The following are good sample of analog scanners, but not all of them.
http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/PSR-300
http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Pro-164
http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/BC346XT


Second, receive sensitivity has not improved a whole lot, primarily due to the trade-off of overloading vs sensitivity. For example GRE radios are reported to be more sensitive, but will overload when going near cell or paging towers . You really need an external antenna to minimize fading, no matter what radio you get. Otherwise, you can make some improvement is you live in the country away from high RF environments with the GRE. and DON"T clip to visor. Radio signals tend to travel vertically, so your antenna needs to be vertical with a view out through one or more windows. This is not a major issue, but you said you wanted to avoid fading as much as possible.

 

[scansalot52]

Not to turn this into the antenna forum, but a couple of more comments...Also keep in mind that any time you mount an antenna opposite the orientation of the transmitting antenna, you will most always see a decrease in signal. Most if all systems that you probably monitor use vertical antennas. When you clip your scanner horizontal on the visor, you are not helping your effort to reduce fading signals. Also cramming it right next to the roof no doubt does not help reception either.

As stated above, an external antenna would be ideal if your circumstances will allow. There are lots of mounting options including some that include the antenna you already have.

 

[DELCOLHFC]

Just played with this last night!

I just played around with comparing reception between a roof mounted maggy and a scanner mounted antenna yesterday. When I left work last night I had to head in the opposite direction from home so I used the trip to play around with 2 PR0-96's programmed the same. One was mounted to a metal bracket I fabricated modeled after a Pro-Clip design, (the finished product is pretty nice and even gets the bride's approval!) with the 96 securely clipped onto/into the bracket it places the display screen just above the top of the dash and the antenna (RS 800MHz) has a good 360 view. The other 96 was sitting in a cup holder in the center console attached to a cheap Wilson (model # 301103 ) 'Hershey Kiss' mag mount on the roof, the cable is ultra thin so running it into the interior via a door gasket is easy.
For the entire trip, 1hr 10mins about 35 miles through Philadelphia, Montgomery and Chester counties (whoever named the highway the "Schuykill EXPRESSWAY" had a great sense of humor.....) the dash mounted 96 only picked up the local traffic clearly as we passed from one system to the next, with a lot of scratchy comms and snippets from the neighboring ones. The 96 attached to the roof antenna was blabbing away almost non-stop with traffic from all the area systems the entire trip with most traffic loud and clear. The 96 on the outside antenna easily had twice as much traffic recieved than the other one and fainter signal were much clearer. This experiment is certainly not scientific by any measure but it does give a good example of what kind of improvement can be expected from moving the antenna outside of a vehicle's steel cage and using the roof as a ground plane.
So I would say Mikejo that if your RadioScrap PRO-34 is capable of monitoring everything you want to hear, go for the cheap fix and give a little mag mount a try. You may not need a new scanner at all! It really should solve your problem as described. My Wilson was about $30.
I hope this helps some.
Tom

 

[DaveIN]

keep in mind that any time you mount an antenna opposite the orientation of the transmitting antenna, you will most always see a decrease in signal. Most if all systems that you probably monitor use vertical antennas. When you clip your scanner horizontal on the visor, you are not helping your effort to reduce fading signals. Also cramming it right next to the roof no doubt does not help reception either.

While this is true. I have yet to see a large drop in signal strength on a handheld for this reason. It may actually improve the signal vs. having it in a cup holder down near the console and dash antenna farm and noise bridge to poor signal. Your best bet in a mobile is an external antenna as far away from the engine as possible.

 

[Mikejo]

Thanks CaptClint for the reply

Sorry I didn't include more data, yes Waltham is an analog site, and I'm not interested in the MSP for now.

I guess I failed to mention that when I clip this handheld to the visor, I will be using an external Ant, so the Horizontal / Vertical Polarization thing is moot.

I've tried a Mag mount with a cut 8th wave, 1/4 wave and full wave for Waltham's Freq and I still get the woosshing/ fading in and out of the signal due to houses trees or water tanks that may come between my Ant and the Transmitter on-top of a good sized hill (Prospect Hill).

I was hoping that with all the Technology advances since the 80's handhelds would work a whole lot better, and they probably do, but I just want to drop my money on the best of the latest crop of low cost handhelds.

Thanx everybody, I'm probably stuck with what I got for now, from what I've gathered from the other replies, not much has changed.

Later

Mike C.

 

[nanZor]

Quite a bit has changed since the pro-34 days. I used to have one and it was a dog.

The worst part was the poor sensitivity. We're talking 1.0 uV sensitivity all around, and on VHF and 800 mhz it was rated at 2.0 uV. Not up to par to today's standards. Take the lowest end Pro-135 out now, and you'll see sensitivity measured around 0.5 uV everywhere.

That '34 was also a dual-conversion model, whereas all scanners today are triple-conversion. (not to be confused with triple-trunking). Dual-conversion was very prone to image frequency problems, whereas this has lessened quite a bit with triple conversion.

Scan / Search rates of 4-8 channels per second on the '34! Barely moving. The $79 Pro-135 beats that nearly tenfold in speed. Not to mention that the '34 takes 6 AA's, whereas most radios today take no more than 4. Keeps the weight down.

The search steps on the '34 are definitely too wide for today's environment. You are missing a lot of regular and splinter frequencies.

Unfortunately, the audio of the '34 and '135 are about the same, although the 135's audio can be tailored a little bit.

If you can get a test-run of even the lowest-end '135, I think you might be surprised, although it may not get rid of your "picket fencing" issue - although it may make it a lot less annoying.