do you like your bcd436 hp ?

[scannersnstuff]

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.

 

[mrkelso]

1. Yes i like it very much
2. Yes

 

[Mustafa]

1. Love it.
2. None what so ever.

 

[LIScanner101]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[scannersnstuff]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[K2KOH]

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

 

[KC2JS]

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]

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.