BCD325P2/BCD996P2: Comparing scanners

[NS9710]

When dealing with reception, if I programmed the 325 and the 160DN I currently own, aside from the trunking, P25, etc.

Would both scanners receive the same distance?

Or is it like with the SDS100 where I’d sacrifice conventional range with the extra distance in trunking?

Or what other differences can I expect to lose on the 325 when dealing with what I have in the 160?

 

[hiegtx]

While I do have the 325P2, I do not have the 160DN, so I can't do a valid comparison for you.

Or is it like with the SDS100 where I’d sacrifice conventional range with the extra distance in trunking?

You're not 'sacrificing conventional range' by entering trunking channels on the SDS100. Those comments about 'poor conventional frequency sensitivity' on the SDS100 are almost always in reference to frequencies in the Vhf-high frequency range (roughly 150 to 174Mhz) programmed as conventional channels, not a true difference between conventional frequencies vs trunking in the same frequency band.

 

[NS9710]

Allow me to clarify then.

I had an SDS100 - sold it off.

The SDS100 was pretty poor performance, atleast to me, on any conventional, but it sucked in trunking signals like a champ, thus my “sacrificing” remark.

I wasn’t sure if the 325P2 is similar as it is also a trunking scanner or not.

While I do have the 325P2, I do not have the 160DN, so I can't do a valid comparison for you.


You're not 'sacrificing conventional range' by entering trunking channels on the SDS100. Those comments about 'poor conventional frequency sensitivity' on the SDS100 are almost always in reference to frequencies in the Vhf-high frequency range (roughly 150 to 174Mhz) programmed as conventional channels, not a true difference between conventional frequencies vs trunking in the same frequency band.

 

[jtwalker]

Just to throw ⛽️ on the 🔥 …

I have no sensitivity issues with my SDS scanners on conventional VHF.

As examples I have great reception of PA Turnpike district 2 and 3, towers at the four airports that are 25-45 miles from me, and good reception for ATC and TRACON for BWI, Reagan National, and Dulles. And I can pick up ARTCC for ZOB, ZNY and ZDC. All a matter of elevation, antenna and RF interference.

The thing about these are I don’t really enjoy monitoring these except PTC and I hear they are moving to PaStarNet and abandoning their VHF conventional channels.

 

[kc2asb]

Generally speaking, some scanners perform better on certain bands than others. That has been my experience after being in this hobby for 35+ years. It's not a conventional vs trunking issue.

As mentioned already, there was at least one thread dealing with SDS100's performance on VHF-high. Some claim it is poor, and others have no issues at all. That thread may have some references to how the 325P2's VHF performance compares to the SDS100

 

[hiegtx]

The SDS100 was pretty poor performance, atleast to me, on any conventional, but it sucked in trunking signals like a champ, thus my “sacrificing” remark.

But were your "conventionals" mostly Vhf, or perhaps lower 450Mhz, or a number of 700 & 800Mhz as well.

My 325P2 works pretty well on the handful of conventional channels in use in my area; I don't have a problem 'hearing' channels that are in what, in my opinion, in range.

While the SDS100 is not an "all-star" on Vhf, it does reasonably well for me when I visit a friend in a rural area about 100 miles west. Down there, most counties are still, predominately, conventional, mostly Vhf-high, with one county (Parker) that has a P25 trunking system with a mix of both Vhf & 700Mhz sites. Looking at the logs from my visit this past weekend, I was getting hits from the Vhf sites, one of which was around 60 miles away. Plus Vhf hits from other counties in that area that are not trunked. Of course, reception is dependent on which scanner you're using, which antenna, as well as the transmitting antenna, which varies, depending on the user, from one on a stand-alone tower maybe 100 to 200 feet tall, down to those that stick an antenna on the roof of their dispatch office, at best 30 to 40 feet up.

 

[NS9710]

Thank you, Steve.
You have given me plenty to consider.
Appreciate it!

But were your "conventionals" mostly Vhf, or perhaps lower 450Mhz, or a number of 700 & 800Mhz as well.

My 325P2 works pretty well on the handful of conventional channels in use in my area; I don't have a problem 'hearing' channels that are in what, in my opinion, in range.

While the SDS100 is not an "all-star" on Vhf, it does reasonably well for me when I visit a friend in a rural area about 100 miles west. Down there, most counties are still, predominately, conventional, mostly Vhf-high, with one county (Parker) that has a P25 trunking system with a mix of both Vhf & 700Mhz sites. Looking at the logs from my visit this past weekend, I was getting hits from the Vhf sites, one of which was around 60 miles away. Plus Vhf hits from other counties in that area that are not trunked. Of course, reception is dependent on which scanner you're using, which antenna, as well as the transmitting antenna, which varies, depending on the user, from one on a stand-alone tower maybe 100 to 200 feet tall, down to those that stick an antenna on the roof of their dispatch office, at best 30 to 40 feet up.

 

[dmfalk]

Poor performance on the SDS100 is mostly due to one factor: the antenna. The one it comes with is a piece of..... Well, we won't go there.....

 

[EAFrizzle]

I've got both SDS scanners and the 325P2. My local system is simulcast, so the SDS is necessary; the 325P2 won't listen to it. The 325 is excellent on regular P25 trunking and DMR trunking.

In the VHF-HI band, I don't have any VHF trunking, but quite a bit of conventional P25 VHF that I monitor regularly and the 325P2 works better for me than either SDS. On UHF, they both do very well.

 

[trentbob]

Just to throw ⛽️ on the 🔥 …

I have no sensitivity issues with my SDS scanners on conventional VHF.

Me neither, works great, I listen to PTC District 4. I live on the river and listen to quite a bit of marine radio including CG p25 conventional frequencies.

 

[trentbob]

I've got both SDS scanners and the 325P2. My local system is simulcast, so the SDS is necessary; the 325P2 won't listen to it. The 325 is excellent on regular P25 trunking and DMR trunking.

In the VHF-HI band, I don't have any VHF trunking, but quite a bit of conventional P25 VHF that I monitor regularly and the 325P2 works better for me than either SDS. On UHF, they both do very well.

You might want to try wide normal applied to the department options of the group of VHF High frequencies that are not as sensitive as you would like.

 

[trentbob]

Generally speaking, some scanners perform better on certain bands than others. That has been my experience after being in this hobby for 35+ years. It's not a conventional vs trunking issue.

As mentioned already, there was at least one thread dealing with SDS100's performance on VHF-high. Some claim it is poor, and others have no issues at all. That thread may have some references to how the 325P2's VHF performance compares to the SDS100

As correctly stated here your antenna does make a difference, unfortunately the original antenna that comes with the SDS 100 is not a good performer and there are plenty of choices you can search for in the aftermarket.

You may have to use the BNC adapter for some of them as not all SMA antennas will fit properly on the recessed proprietary antenna connection which accommodates the O-ring that provides water resistance.

I'm lucky enough that I still have a Watson w801 antenna that is very old and I no longer see them on the market, I think the company was from England but the performance on all coverage is excellent including VHF High but there are some good aftermarket choices out there if you just search for them.

 

[EAFrizzle]

You might want to try wide normal applied to the department options of the group of VHF High frequencies that are not as sensitive as you would like.

Thanks, but I've tried everything along those lines to try and improve their performance on VHF. The filters have been helpful with 700/800 but no help at all on VHF. Rather than try to get the SDS scanners to perform the way I want, it's simpler to just get what will actually work without experimentation.

If I didn't need them for my local simulcast system, I'd get rid of both SDS scanners.

 

[trentbob]

Thanks, but I've tried everything along those lines to try and improve their performance on VHF. The filters have been helpful with 700/800 but no help at all on VHF. Rather than try to get the SDS scanners to perform the way I want, it's simpler to just get what will actually work without experimentation.

If I didn't need them for my local simulcast system, I'd get rid of both SDS scanners.

Understood, many people have the same sentiment. One thing to clarify here. You can apply filters globally which affects every object on the radio. If you are adjusting Global filters and adding let's say wide invert to Global filters and it improves your 7-800 MHz system you are actually applying wide invert to every object on the radio possibly compromising conventional items that would do very well on just normal but they now are set at wide invert.

It's important when applying filters to a system that you don't use Global filters but you add the better filter to site options of the 7 - 800 system right to the hopefully one or two sites that you use.

Global should always remain at default normal and every object will be on normal in the radio except for the sites that you applied another filter to or the conventional items that you added a filter to Department options of a group of conventional frequencies.

Apologies if you've already done just that, if you still have compromised VHF reception then finding a much better aftermarket antenna could make a big difference in the performance of VHF High that was previously mentioned by another poster.

It's helpful to modify your display and use the filter indicator which will show the filter that's applied to each individual object

 

[Whiskey3JMC]

Poor performance on the SDS100 is mostly due to one factor: the antenna.

Yes and I & others have tried telling the OP that on more than one occasion...

Uniden BCD436HP vs Alinco DJ-X100T

Has anyone compared these two scanners/receivers as far as their quality and distance they can reach out on NXDN, DMR, and Analog? I'm thinking of the Alinco DJ-X100T but also had good results with the 436 before I sold it. I'm just trying to figure out which gets the best quality and...

forums.radioreference.com

Alinco DJ-X100T

Has anyone tried this receiver with the railroad band? I’m just not wanting to invest into one with poor railroad range, I’ve been struggling to find anyone who has or used one, and reported how the range is, or does anyone have any better suggestions for railroad monitoring? NXDN and EOT/DPU...

forums.radioreference.com

Whistler TRX-1 vs BCD436HP

Can anyone really give me a comparison between the two scanners as far as general range comparison? Also, I had a Whistler WS1080, how does the TRX compare to the 1080 as far as range? I know it has NXDN, DMR and so forth. But otherwise.

forums.radioreference.com

 

[kc2asb]

Yes and I & others have tried telling the OP that on more than one occasion...

Uniden BCD436HP vs Alinco DJ-X100T

Has anyone compared these two scanners/receivers as far as their quality and distance they can reach out on NXDN, DMR, and Analog? I'm thinking of the Alinco DJ-X100T but also had good results with the 436 before I sold it. I'm just trying to figure out which gets the best quality and...

forums.radioreference.com

Alinco DJ-X100T

Has anyone tried this receiver with the railroad band? I’m just not wanting to invest into one with poor railroad range, I’ve been struggling to find anyone who has or used one, and reported how the range is, or does anyone have any better suggestions for railroad monitoring? NXDN and EOT/DPU...

forums.radioreference.com

Whistler TRX-1 vs BCD436HP

Can anyone really give me a comparison between the two scanners as far as general range comparison? Also, I had a Whistler WS1080, how does the TRX compare to the 1080 as far as range? I know it has NXDN, DMR and so forth. But otherwise.

forums.radioreference.com

The antenna makes a difference, as does location (nearby transmitters, rural vs urban, terrain) and bands/services monitored. What works well for one user may not for another. Too many variables.

It used to be that you maybe read a review in a hobby magazine, looked at the manufacturer's specs, and made an informed decision. I bought my share of scanners "blind" also, just walking into Radio Shack and buying a radio, usually when there was a close-out sale. It's strengths and weaknesses were revealed through use.

 

[EAFrizzle]

Understood, many people have the same sentiment. One thing to clarify here. You can apply filters globally which affects every object on the radio. If you are adjusting Global filters and adding let's say wide invert to Global filters and it improves your 7-800 MHz system you are actually applying wide invert to every object on the radio possibly compromising conventional items that would do very well on just normal but they now are set at wide invert.

It's important when applying filters to a system that you don't use Global filters but you add the better filter to site options of the 7 - 800 system right to the hopefully one or two sites that you use.

Global should always remain at default normal and every object will be on normal in the radio except for the sites that you applied another filter to or the conventional items that you added a filter to Department options of a group of conventional frequencies.

Apologies if you've already done just that, if you still have compromised VHF reception then finding a much better aftermarket antenna could make a big difference in the performance of VHF High that was previously mentioned by another poster.

It's helpful to modify your display and use the filter indicator which will show the filter that's applied to each individual object

After sixty years in the Piney Woods northeast of Houston, my QTH southeast of Dallas is VHF heaven! I don't have any problems with receiving VHF here, but my SDSs still do.

I'm always looking for better antennas, any band, any kind, they're one of my favorite things about the hobby. My antenna farm isn't pretty, but it does what I need it to (for now).

I'm also a bit of a different scanner buff when it comes to VHF because I love tropospheric enhancement. I try for the best range I can get during normal conditions, then enjoy the very frequent enhancements up here. During worst VHF conditions, I get 4 of the 7 NOAA channels full quieting. Most days I get a fifth channel about 75 miles away, leaving me two open channels to check propagation, and those stations tend to vary from Llano, TX to Broken Bow, OK.

If the only scanner I had was one of the SDS models, I might be more willing to experiment frequency by frequency with filters and settings. I've done that with the NOAA channels, with little change in reception quality. But why spend time working on a "maybe" when I can turn on a different scanner and make it a "definitely"?

I'm fortunate that I've been able to get additional equipment to satisfy my VHF addiction; i know that's not an option for everyone. Even though I complain about them, I'm not looking to get rid of either SDS. I'd like to add a 536 to the 200 to round out the performance, but that's in the future. For travel, I think the SDS100 is as close to a one-box-scanning-solution as it gets; I don't even need my laptop. That and a small shortwave receiver are all I need to combat boredom on the road.

 

[Bob1955]

I have had both 325P2/996P2 and the 996P2 works much better. Excellent scanner all the way around with great audio/sensitivity/well built and can be adjusted via the menu for simulcasting issues.