Best scanner to look into, not SDS Series?

[chad_96]

Hello all,

I'm considering selling my Uniden SDS200 and trying another model, as I don't deal with simulcast, and don't care for the SDS series horrible performance with interference.

I'm looking for any and all recommendations for what scanner (Uniden or other) would be best, and Base Model.

I monitor the Colorado DTRS statewide system, P25 Phase I, and monitor 800mhz.

By what I've seen so far, it appears the Uniden BCD536HP is most preferred and has great reviews.

Thanks for your time and recommendations.

 

[Whiskey3JMC]

By what I've seen so far, it appears the Uniden BCD536HP is most preferred and has great reviews.

I've owned two 536HPs, still own one. Agreed it's a top notch receiver for non-simulcast. Runner up if Phase-II not needed: BCD996XT

 

[gary123]

I agree with Whiskey. I run both SDS200s and 536s. If simulcast is not important then you really cannot beat the 536. Especially with the DMR and NXDN options enabled.

 

[rf_patriot200]

Hello all,

I'm considering selling my Uniden SDS200 and trying another model, as I don't deal with simulcast, and don't care for the SDS series horrible performance with interference.

I'm looking for any and all recommendations for what scanner (Uniden or other) would be best, and Base Model.

I monitor the Colorado DTRS statewide system, P25 Phase I, and monitor 800mhz.

By what I've seen so far, it appears the Uniden BCD536HP is most preferred and has great reviews.

Thanks for your time and recommendations.

Horrible performance and interference ?? Do tell ...

 

[nessnet]

Horrible performance and interference ?? Do tell ...

There is considerable, detailed info that has been posted here on this.

 

[chad_96]

Horrible performance and interference ?? Do tell ...

Bought the SDS 100 and 200.

All I did was fight the scanner, the SDS200. I Was changing the filters non-stop. Just when I thought I found a filter that worked best, nope... back to switching filters.

Was advised to get an outdoor antenna. Bought a 800 mhz Vertical antenna from DPD Productions and LMR400 coax, as advised, and mast. Antenna was picking up very very well and from a far distance. Was impressed. But... still switching filters non stop.

What I did find was the site I'm having trouble with receiving, I would have to have the mast and antenna at 53 feet. That's not happening as I don't have a way to do that. This height was determined from another RR user using his rf mapping. I should mention, I have a mesa in the way, and it was determined I'm getting signal through refraction.

Anyways, after all the testing things, trying things, etc.. I had numerous RR users tell me it sounds like I'm dealing with interference from something or somethings.. and at this point I was tired of switching filters.

Now, here's the catch...

My SDS100 is hanging on a wall in a bedroom to a radio clip, with a Remtronix 820S antenna. RSSI reads around -105 and I have the filters for my 2 sites set. I never have any reception issues, even hanging in the absolute worst area you could ever think of having a scanner located.

I purchased a Remtronix 830b for the SDS200. Put it back on and abandoned the outdoor antenna. I also found what I considered to be the absolute worst place to put the scanner. To my surprise, I haven't switched the filters, RSSI -100 to -104 and runs without an issue now.

At this point I have 350 dollars worth of antenna outdoors doing nothing. I am now at the point that I want to just sell the SDS200 as I think Uniden has screwed everyone on these models.

I've had at least 15 people tell me to sell the sds series scanners and get the 536hp as it handles interference MUCH better.


So, here I am... considering it.

I've also had a boat load of people private message and think it's absolutely INSANE a remtronix antenna would work better indoors than an outdoor antenna setup. I AGREE. It makes zero sense, but the Remtronix antennas beat the outdoor antenna setup, hands down, with no issues. I think if I had the 536hp and it was hooked up to the outdoor antenna I wouldn't have the issues. I belive the issues all fall with the horrible front end issues with the SDS series.

Anyhow, that's where I'm at with it all. I'm just debating if the filters of the SDS series would be better keeping in my horrible signal area and situation, versus the 536hp as I'm not familiar with it.

 

[hazrat8990]

Horrible performance and interference ?? Do tell ...

I have an SDS200, and the 436 & 536 both run circles around it. I still like it, but I'm not overly impressed.

 

[chad_96]

I have an SDS200, and the 436 & 536 both run circles around it. I still like it, but I'm not overly impressed.

This is exactly what I keep hearing about the 536hp compared to the sds200. Which is exactly why I'm considering the 536hp and washing my hands of the sds200, with the 100 to follow for the 436

 

[rf_patriot200]

This is exactly what I keep hearing about the 536hp compared to the sds200. Which is exactly why I'm considering the 536hp and washing my hands of the sds200, with the 100 to follow for the 436

To get your SDS to run like your 536 there ARE some tweaks you need to do, and some TLC is needed first.

 

[rf_patriot200]

There is considerable, detailed info that has been posted here on this.

View attachment 172054

Nothing came up, whatever you posted ?

 

[hiegtx]

This is exactly what I keep hearing about the 536hp compared to the sds200. Which is exactly why I'm considering the 536hp and washing my hands of the sds200, with the 100 to follow for the 436

If, as noted, simulcast is not an issue in your area, I also would lean toward the 536HP. It's a good performer, and your current Favorites lists (for the SDS200) will work in the 536. Just change the target model in Sentinel before downloading, and that changes the model-specific areas of the profile.

The 996P2 would also serve you well, but you don't have as much flexibility in programming & operation as compared to the 536HP.

While, if no Phase II, you could go back even farther to the XT series scanners, but I'd recommend against that. First, that model came out in 2009, so the design is based on what was used 15 years ago. Also, buying an older scanner, you're rolling the dice as to whether the internal components are still functioning as designed. As components age, you run the risk of it drifting off frequency, or other problems, including quit functioning at all. Also, while this may not be the case in your area, we're seeing some of the existing P25 Phase I systems convert to Phase II, as user counts grow & additional capacity is desired.

 

[buddrousa]

My SDS200 runs side by side with my 536's sharing the same antenna I do not see the problems as I am running 15's 15x's 996p2's 536's SDS200 and TRX-2 all sharing the same antenna. I would take another SDS200 and add it to my rack if I find one in the Classifieds for a good deal.

 

[just1bob]

You might try looking into Home Patrol 2. I was very pleasantly pleased with mine

 

[ChrisABQ]

My 996 has been flawless. Closest tower on one site (simulcast) is 1 mile away, next tower on same site is 4 miles away. Second site is 6 miles away non simulcast. I receive everything perfectly. If you're using at home, no need for the expensive SDS. I imagine the 536 would be just as good.

 

[phask]

Same as Bud - side by side, same antena via muticoupler. If anything the SDS is a little hotter on 700-800.

 

[kb9klc]

I actually traveled to Colorado this week and too my Unications (G4,G5) and my 536. The 536 was flawless listening to the buckhorn mountain site up north of Denver on DTRS. I used it for that system and the G4 for the Weld County Simulcast and was pretty happy. I programmed the G5 for the same DTRS site and honestly I was hard pressed to tell the difference in reception. (Ok the Unication was maybe a tiny bit better BUT I didn't notice it missing any calls. I'd say you would be well served if the DTRS stuff is what you're interested in by using the 536.

Edit: I just looked and some of the DTRS stuff is simulcast in some areas. I'd make sure you won't ever want to scan in those areas. That being said... at home I had a brief opportunity to compare a SDS100 against my BC536 and to be honest where I lived, the simulcast system I monitor, I could not tell the difference between the 100 and 536. That's the reason I opted to get the Unication pagers for 700/800. Once I had tried a G5 I found used I was immediately on the search for another one. I keep the 536 for other duties and while occasionally traveling.

 

[chad_96]

To get your SDS to run like your 536 there ARE some tweaks you need to do, and some TLC is needed first.

I don't have a 536. I'm looking at getting rid of the sds200 and getting a 536.

Uniden in my opinion screwed everyone with the sds series.

If you have simulcast, you are getting a great scanner, for that reason only. And only that, from what I've read and heard.

You can't tweak or give any TLC to a SDS series scanner in an environment with interferences. The sds series is a total flop. Nothing but to get it "The best you can hear", as I've been told.

Sure some areas are better than others. So the crap of "filters work best on one setting for me, but your area is different and will require whatever works best" IS THE absolute worst thing I've seen spewed all over about the SDS series. The scanner, 100/200, are garbage and work different in one area vs. Another users area.

So, no tweaking or TLC will make a SDS series perform the way a 536hp would, as the 536hp wasn't thrown together with the worst front end ever produced that is majorly susceptible to every little bit of interference.

Just my two cents... along with many others who have recommended ditching the sds series for the 436/536 models.

 

[chad_96]

To get your SDS to run like your 536 there ARE some tweaks you need to do, and some TLC is needed first.

I don't have a 536. I'm looking at getting rid of the sds200 and getting a 536.

Uniden in my opinion screwed everyone with the sds series.

If you have simulcast, you are getting a great scanner, for that reason only. And only that, from what I've read and heard.

You can't tweak or give any TLC to a SDS series scanner in an environment with interferences. The sds series is a total flop. Nothing but to get it "The best you can hear", as I've been told.

Sure some areas are better than others. So the crap of "filters work best on one setting for me, but your area is different and will require whatever works best" IS THE absolute worst thing I've seen spewed all over about the SDS series. The scanner, 100/200, are garbage and work different in one area vs. Another users area.

So, no tweaking or TLC will make a SDS series perform the way a 536hp would, as the 536hp wasn't thrown together with the worst front end ever produced that is majorly susceptible to even bit of interference.

Just my two cents... along with many others who have recommended ditching the sds series for the 436/536 modelsI

If, as noted, simulcast is not an issue in your area, I also would lean toward the 536HP. It's a good performer, and your current Favorites lists (for the SDS200) will work in the 536. Just change the target model in Sentinel before downloading, and that changes the model-specific areas of the profile.

The 996P2 would also serve you well, but you don't have as much flexibility in programming & operation as compared to the 536HP.

While, if no Phase II, you could go back even farther to the XT series scanners, but I'd recommend against that. First, that model came out in 2009, so the design is based on what was used 15 years ago. Also, buying an older scanner, you're rolling the dice as to whether the internal components are still functioning as designed. As components age, you run the risk of it drifting off frequency, or other problems, including quit functioning at all. Also, while this may not be the case in your area, we're seeing some of the existing P25 Phase I systems convert to Phase II, as user counts grow & additional capacity is desired.

Thanks for the advice and information.

No simulcast, and have

My 996 has been flawless. Closest tower on one site (simulcast) is 1 mile away, next tower on same site is 4 miles away. Second site is 6 miles away non simulcast. I receive everything perfectly. If you're using at home, no need for the expensive SDS. I imagine the 536 would be just as good.

I monitor 2 sites, one 10 miles east and thr other 18 miles south/southwest with a mesa in the way. I blamed the mesa and filters of the sds for the issues I always had. Turns out, It's more than likely the sds series in general.

Thinking the 536 would allow much less interference and better results on the outdoor antenna. As of now a remtronix outperforms a high dollar outdoor setup. This of course because the sds flaws, it appears.

Anyways, thanks for the response and advice. Going to try the 536 once I can get the sds sold.

 

[chad_96]

My SDS200 runs side by side with my 536's sharing the same antenna I do not see the problems as I am running 15's 15x's 996p2's 536's SDS200 and TRX-2 all sharing the same antenna. I would take another SDS200 and add it to my rack if I find one in the Classifieds for a good deal.

Ahh..what do you know. I know of a mint sds200 for Sale, with some added accessories.

I can make my nightmare your fairytale!

 

[hiegtx]

Ahh..what do you know. I know of a mint sds200 for Sale, with some added accessories.

I can make my nightmare your fairytale!

Looks like I missed a “typo’ in my comments.

What I meant to say was that your existing Favorites lists for the SDS200 will work in the 536HP without re-editing. In Sentinel, just change your “target” model, in the profile, from the SDS200 to a 536HP. The basic programming is exactly the same in regards to the structure for systems, departments, and sites. Changing the profile will make sure that profile and system settings match the 536. For example, changing to a “536HP” profile (or using the initial default of “present” which is targeted to the x36HP series) will add the ability to modify P25 settings that are inaccessible in the SDS series. If you don’t modify an existing list before editing, the 536HP will simply ignore items such as Site NAC and filter settings that are not used in the x36HP series scanners.