BCD536HP: Conventional frequency sensitivity revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.

LIScanner101

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,427
Location
Hicksville, Long Island, NY
I recall seeing numerous concerns about conventional analog reception going down after the latest FW revision. Was this just cockpit error, or is it real? There are still so many agencies still using good old analog...
 

JamesO

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
1,813
Location
McLean, VA
Cannot comment on the sensitivity differences. Likely people just started to notice AFTER the firmware update as the firmware was released pretty quickly and it is not realistic that many had a real chance to baseline the radio specifically with analog only systems.

Also there is really no pilot error with the firmware updating. It either works or you somehow brick the radio.

I was up in the NY area this week and was SURPRISED how much analog traffic that was still active.

Where I am located in the Washington DC area, almost everything has switched to digital, even my local county, which is not small, has been digital for almost 15 years.

Where you are located, I would suggest 2 scanners anyway. If you try to monitor much of the surrounding area, with so many agencies and trying to scan all of them, likely you miss out of a lot of traffic and follow up conversations.
 

JamesO

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
1,813
Location
McLean, VA
LIScanner101 does not own a digital scanner.

He is waiting for Whistler to release a digital scanner as he feels the X36HP are sub par!

Overall I think a lot of the info out on the Interwebs is a bit incorrect, but some believe everything that is posted on forums and message boards!
 

davenlr

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 31, 2014
Messages
637
Location
North Little Rock, Ar
My 536 sensitivity on Air and VHF (the most widely used here) is excellent compared with my older BCT15. Lots less noise on the distant systems using the 536, and aircraft are much more intelligible monitoring the very weak ground control channel at the local airport. I see no issues with sensitivity.
 

JamesO

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
1,813
Location
McLean, VA
My 536 sensitivity on Air and VHF (the most widely used here) is excellent compared with my older BCT15. Lots less noise on the distant systems using the 536, and aircraft are much more intelligible monitoring the very weak ground control channel at the local airport. I see no issues with sensitivity.
Like I said, can't believe everything you read on the Interwebs! Some people only seem to READ and SEE the negatives.
 

LIScanner101

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,427
Location
Hicksville, Long Island, NY
LIScanner101 was this on your 536 or 436? Not sure this is the correct place to put "Bug Reports"?
It's not a "bug report". It's a question. Isn't this where PROSPECTIVE Uniden owners are supposed to ask questions if they are CONSIDERING purchasing a Uniden scanner?

You people are EXTREMELY defensive about this.

Anyway, I now have a RS Pro-18 I just started using for local digital comms, and I'm using my UNIDEN BCT15X for everything else.
 

JamesO

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
1,813
Location
McLean, VA
It's not a "bug report". It's a question. Isn't this where PROSPECTIVE Uniden owners are supposed to ask questions if they are CONSIDERING purchasing a Uniden scanner?

You people are EXTREMELY defensive about this.

Anyway, I now have a RS Pro-18 I just started using for local digital comms, and I'm using my UNIDEN BCT15X for everything else.
Forgot about the PRO-18 that you just bought for about $80 from Overstock!

At least you are getting with the program and moving in the correct direction.

Here is how most people do things, read a lot, think about what you have read and form your own opinion.

If I actually paid attention to all the reviews from here, Amazon and all the magazines, I would never actually buy anything!

I have a 536HP and I will have a 436HP next week, along with 3 Radio Shack digital scanners and a BCD15X, 396XT, 996XT so I have a whole bunch of different radios.

They all have quirks, but they all pretty much do what they are advertied to do as well, so overall no complaints on my end.

I have more issues with the software and database than the radios themselves.
 

LIScanner101

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,427
Location
Hicksville, Long Island, NY
JamesO,

Who said I bought it on overstock? And please, enough with the condescending tone, I don't need your affirmation as to whether or not I'm "moving in the correct direction".

Anyway, I bought it exactly BECAUSE of everything I read about it. I read VERY little negative press about it and overall very POSITIVE things about it. Also, I didn't want to wait any longer for what GRE is planning to release, and the new Unidens have a TON of negative press. And guess what? It's a great little scanner! I LOVE it.

Who deliberately dismisses negative reports about consumable goods?
 

LIScanner101

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,427
Location
Hicksville, Long Island, NY
My 536 sensitivity on Air and VHF (the most widely used here) is excellent compared with my older BCT15. Lots less noise on the distant systems using the 536, and aircraft are much more intelligible monitoring the very weak ground control channel at the local airport. I see no issues with sensitivity.
How about UHF?
 

SCPD

QRT
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Messages
65,126
Location
Virginia
my 536

My 536 sensitivity on Air and VHF (the most widely used here) is excellent compared with my older BCT15. Lots less noise on the distant systems using the 536, and aircraft are much more intelligible monitoring the very weak ground control channel at the local airport. I see no issues with sensitivity.
I thought the 536HP had terrible aircraft receive mumbly,fuzzy reception,at least the one I had did,the VHF was great 150MHZ-onthe UHF was acceptable.I have a PSr-800 and I feel it works better in every way,scans faster,clearer and easier to program for me at least.
 

LIScanner101

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,427
Location
Hicksville, Long Island, NY
I thought the 536HP had terrible aircraft receive mumbly,fuzzy reception,at least the one I had did,the VHF wasd great 150MHZ-onthe UHF was acceptable.I have a PSr-800 and I feel it works better in every way,scans faster,clearer and easier to program for me at least.
Thanks. Seems there are still some people on here that don't scream heresy and get their panties in a bunch when questions are asked about these scanners.

I asked because Long Island still has tons of conventional frequency activity.

Thanks again.
 

JamesO

Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
1,813
Location
McLean, VA
JamesO,

Who said I bought it on overstock? And please, enough with the condescending tone, I don't need your affirmation as to whether or not I'm "moving in the correct direction".

Anyway, I bought it exactly BECAUSE of everything I read about it. I read VERY little negative press about it and overall very POSITIVE things about it. Also, I didn't want to wait any longer for what GRE is planning to release, and the new Unidens have a TON of negative press. And guess what? It's a great little scanner! I LOVE it.

Who deliberately dismisses negative reports about consumable goods?
Just tired of all the Uniden bashing you were doing about the x36HP and you did not even have one.

Lets see, as I recall you were even temporarily banned due to some of your comments.

I am just calling it how it is.

Moving in the correct direction is getting a scanner that does work on P25 digital systems.

I have had them for almost 15 years.

I was somewhat surprise while in the NY/PA/NJ area last week how much analog traffic was still being used.

Where I am very little analog left at this point.

I have yet to really find a problem with the 536HP on analog, I use NOAA as an initial benchmark, but I think some may have issue may be monitoring AM and not just analog FM.

I have not had much issue, but I do not do a lot of AM monitoring where I am located. When I get a chance I may configure my BC15XT and my 536HP for some similar freqs and connect them to the same antenna and see if there is a difference. But for now, not enough spare time.

My guess is possibly the AM monitoring could be impacted by the IF filtering that is set by default?? I have not looked closely at it, it may be using the narrow IF filter??

If so, someone will need to look closer and see if there is a IF filter setting for AM, if not make sure the slightly wider IF filter is selected by the firmware.

So I think before everyone goes knee jerk, they need to make sure they are CLEAR about what band and what modulation scheme as well as IF filter bandwidth is being used.

Lots and lots of variables here.

Anyway, LI, glad you are moving into digital trunking and at least possibly considering what Uniden has to offer.

I will also be watching to see what Whistler releases and may even purchase one of their newer models if it offers something for my use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top