Disappointed in 2096

[tvnews]

I just posted this message but I may have placed it in the wrong Forum, sorry. I'm reposting it here.

I am sorry to say but out of the box the very first transmission I heard has problems and I am very disappointed.

I have been waiting for the mobile ver of the 96 and was happy to receive the 2096. However the unit I received has a major audio problem. At least that is how it presents itself.

The first freq the radio stopped on was 155.400 with a tone of 127.3

The audio has a rumble on it. The rumble sounds slightly like a heterodyne under the carrier but with the slightest microphonic feedback.

The next freq it stopped on was 154.86 tone 179.9

This freq started out clean then about 10 sec into the transmission the rumble came back. I adjusted the audio level but no change. then the rumble stopped on it's own and came back.

I tested a 2067 and a BC-785 in place of the 2096 (same antenna and power supply) and they did not have the rumble.

Same rumble now on 155.355. And it comes and goes during the transmission.

Now on 501.2625 dpl 411 the audio is clean BUT drops out and comes right back in. Sound a little like on voice peeks the audio is popping the bandpass. However this station does not have an extra high deviation. I have the 2096 set for DPL in the programming.

FTY my setup is scanner on a Dimond 2 m (VHF 10 db gain) fiberglass base antenna with a run of 1/2 iinch hardline going about 60 feet to the antenna mounted 35 feet off the ground. Also using a 5 amp dc power supply.


Dean

 

[stlscanner]

Try turning the attenuator on.



Good luck!

Tony Haukap
more SCANNING stuff - http://www.cyberspace.org/~awh/main.html
--

 

[tvnews]

att helped on 155.400 but not on 154.86

However that defeats have a receiver with good sensitivity

 

[INDY72]

OK Scanning Basics 101:

In an area with a LOT of RF activity, creative usage of an attenuator can help to not only eliminate local interference, but also to kill birdies on the same freq your trying to monitor.

Have you tried to recieve using the supplied ant, not hooking it to the arial?

Have you run it with NO ant at all to determine possible interference freqs?


I always do my first run with NO ant.. then the supplied whip, then an external ant.

 

[stlscanner]

att helped... However that defeats have a receiver with good sensitivity

Yea, it sure does!

My concern is that the PRO2096 use the exact same receiver as what is found in the PRO96. From my experiences with the PRO96, connecting an antenna with any amount of gain produces unacceptable results (because RF energy overloads and desensitizes the receiver's front end).

Maybe someone else using the PRO2096 in a base application with an outdoor gain-type antenna can confirm what’s happening here?


Good luck!

Tony Haukap
more SCANNING stuff - http://www.cyberspace.org/~awh/main.html
--

 

[tvnews]

OK Scanning Basics 101:

In an area with a LOT of RF activity, creative usage of an attenuator can help to not only eliminate local interference, but also to kill birdies on the same freq your trying to monitor.


I am NOT in a high RF area. My house is in a residential neighborehood. I have one cell tower 1.1 miles northeast of me, one .75 miles northwest, and one amost 2 miles southwest. Hardly high RF.

Have you tried to recieve using the supplied ant, not hooking it to the arial?

No I have not. I am disapointed that the performance is not what my 2067 or 780 or 785 is. Those scanner perform well on the same antenna. At this point it sound like the filtering in the 2096 is not quite as good.


Have you run it with NO ant at all to determine possible interference freqs?

No again. But it seems to be all of the VHF band. I have not had the time today to do a full test. I have yet to put the radio onto a UHF base antenna and see how the UHF freqs hold up.

I always do my first run with NO ant.. then the supplied whip, then an external ant.

Don't get me wrong. I am not attacking the radio. I am just compairing it to the 2067, 780, and 785. Right now it just looks to me like a design issue. I don't think they just took a Pro96 and put it into a mobile. I'm sure on the the RF side they designed a mobile and used a version of the firmware with the same features as the 96. They just seem to not done quite the same amount of filtering as the other two mobiles.

I will try someones elses 2096 here to see if it has the same problem.

Thanks

 

[LarrySC]

Try the oldest trick in the book. Program 154.860 as [-] .005 as 154.855 or [+] .005 as 154.865.