do you like your bcd436 hp ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

pdfdems286

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
1,702
Location
Florida.Where it's alway's friggin' hot.
not totally sure if this is where i post this, in the uniden threads debacle. 2 questions before i take the plunge <someday,maybe>.

1. how do you like your bcd436hp ?.
2. is there any truth to the rumor that after you update your firmware, the reception dies off ?.

please, be helpfull. thank you.
 

LIScanner101

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,427
Location
Hicksville, Long Island, NY
I think the conventional reception dies off when you update the FW, that's what I've seen reported numerous times. Mustafa, do you do any conventional monitoring or just digital trunking?
 

KevinC

Moderator
Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2001
Messages
4,913
Location
Somewhere other than home :(
When I first received my 436 I did a quick test with the NWS channels. I went through all of them ( I can hear 5-6 depending on the band conditions) before I updated the FW and went through them again after. I noticed no change in the reception on any of them, the ones that were weak were still weak and the ones that were strong were still strong.

This isn't a "technical" test, but my ears noticed no difference between the 2 FW versions.

Maybe I just got lucky???
 

Ghstwolf62

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
1,314
Location
Clifton Forge Virginia
I love it and think its a great scanner. Scan speed needs to be increased though. Never used with any FW other than current so can't answer that part but with the latest I get really good reception. Most of what I listen to is conventional with only one P25 system receivable from home 20.
 

LIScanner101

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,427
Location
Hicksville, Long Island, NY
When I first received my 436 I did a quick test with the NWS channels. I went through all of them ( I can hear 5-6 depending on the band conditions) before I updated the FW and went through them again after. I noticed no change in the reception on any of them, the ones that were weak were still weak and the ones that were strong were still strong.

This isn't a "technical" test, but my ears noticed no difference between the 2 FW versions.

Maybe I just got lucky???
Thanks, technical or not if you didn't see any differences then that's all that matters.

Is the "loss of sensitivity" only on the 536's then? Perhaps this has just been lumped all together incorrectly to both scanners?
 

pdfdems286

Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
1,702
Location
Florida.Where it's alway's friggin' hot.
thanks everyone, so far. yes i should have made my question a little more clear. i listen to mostly conventional analog, a few digital channels, and a few trunking systems. no digital trunks so far. keep the discussion going !.
 

KevinC

Moderator
Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2001
Messages
4,913
Location
Somewhere other than home :(
Thanks, technical or not if you didn't see any differences then that's all that matters.

Is the "loss of sensitivity" only on the 536's then? Perhaps this has just been lumped all together incorrectly to both scanners?
I'm really starting to wonder about the 536. I know several people with them and they don't seem to act like my 436 at all.

I only have a 436 so I can only speak for it, but I'm really impressed with it.
 

bama9999

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
738
Location
Gulf Coast
Thanks, technical or not if you didn't see any differences then that's all that matters.

Is the "loss of sensitivity" only on the 536's then? Perhaps this has just been lumped all together incorrectly to both scanners?
Sorry for the topic drift, but it's not on all the 536's. I used my 536 for a few days before upgrading the firmware, and there's no difference in reception between the two.
 

Mustafa

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
22
Location
Abbotsford,BC
I do both but probably more conventional (ems, civil air,ham) I've noticed no discernable difference in reception quality or signal strength between the original fw and the latest. I don't know if I am just lucky but I am very happy with the receiver on this radio, where my Yupiteru and AOR receivers suffer from intermod on the civil airband and I have to use an airband filter my 436 frontend is like a brick wall.
 

LIScanner101

Completely Banned for the Greater Good
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
1,427
Location
Hicksville, Long Island, NY
I have always liked the heft and feel of a base/mobile-type unit but after having just picked up a Radio Shack PRO-18 and seeing how light and compact it is I have to say that I'm really rethinking my position on this. Yes, the 436 is a lot bigger than most handhelds but it does seem to get much more favorable press than the 536, including the conventional sensitivity.
 

Ishmole

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Walden, NY
I love it. It is the best one so far, and I have had scanners from the beginning.
I have not had any loss of sensitivity with the upgrade.
I like the ability to import the frequencies by place. The database contains all frequencies in one spot for a given location.
My only complaint is that it is a little unwieldy to quickly lowering the volume on the unit while driving.
 

N2MWE

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
2,462
Location
New York State, Land of King Putz
Other than the sd card problems popping up here and there I have to say I am happy with my 436. Can't hear any difference between the firmware.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

K2JJS

Member
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
189
Location
NJ
I like the scanner but mine has the worst reception of any Uniden scanner I have owned. Especially on VHF. I did the same test with the weather channels except I compared with my 396xt. The 396 would pick up at least 4 channels clearly, the 436 only 1. This test was done with stock antennas. I am starting to think maybe there were different batches of radios made where some have great reception and others poor as both have been claimed. I use mine just for local systems and repeaters and it works fine. There are others complaining about dust on the inside of the display. I don't have that issue, but would gladly take that over poor reception.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

sibbley

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 18, 2013
Messages
1,473
Location
Nazareth, Pennsylvania
My 346XT and 396XT recieve conventional analog much better than my 436HP. I would say it's just my area though. I was in and around York and Gettysburg last weekend and in WV a few weeks ago and the 436HP had much better conventional analog reception. The radio actually performed very well.

I do like the radio very much, especially the way I can set up the favorites lists. I don't feel limited anymore. I love the digital P25 reception. Phase I or Phase II just plain sound great. I like the discovery mode too.

I do think there is room for improvement, but it's a damn good radio.

I did think the latest firmware update caused conventional reception to degrade. But, that turned out to be an antenna issue. It was just coincidence the antenna issue showed up at the time of the update.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top