SDS100/SDS200: Extensive testing: SDS100 vs BCD436HP

[Solidjake]

Hey guys,

A forum member was generous enough to let me borrow his SDS100 for a few weeks to put it against my 436 to see if it is worth the upgrade. Testing was done against NJ state police Motorola Type II Smartzone 800mhz and NJICS P25 Phase 2

New Jersey State Police Trunking System, Statewide, Multi-State

New Jersey State Police Trunking System Profile

www.radioreference.com

New Jersey Interoperability Communications System (NJICS) Trunking System, Statewide, Multi-State

New Jersey Interoperability Communications System (NJICS) Trunking System Profile

www.radioreference.com

Antennas used to keep things "fair" was a Larsen NMO3E825B and a Laird BB7603R

Driving done around southern NJ and for the 800mhz frequencies for the Turnpike it was done on that from the Lincoln Tunnel down to exit 3/4

Both on USB power, antennas were swapped between both scanners, both on 400ms and 2 second hold. For the SDS I changed to every filter



Regardless of which system is scanned the 436 was definitely faster. In terms on missing transmissions it was 65-35 SDS-436

I tried everything to get the SDS to but miss transmissions but it was impossible.

I DO LIKE the SDS in terms of the display/what it shows/colors/info, the speaker is incredible and the form factor. I'm really sad it didn't perform equal, if not better than the 436 at least for the systems I scan.

Physically I'm not a fan of the recessed sma connector for the antenna. It was a pain ty swap antenna cables around.


I am considering just keeping the 436 and possibly getting the Unication G4 IF an external antenna can be used for higher gain. The G4 the primary with the 436 scanning the next troop ahead.

 

[Omega-TI]

That makes sense from your standpoint, after all the purpose of a scanner is to lock on to transmissions, so if you are missing that high of a percentage, it kind of defeats the purpose of upgrading for less performance. Anyway, since you'll be saving $650.00+ you'll be able to afford any antenna you want.

 

[fxdscon]

I tried everything to get the SDS to but miss transmissions but it was impossible.

-
What filter settings on the SDS did you experiment with? Those settings can and do make a world of difference in reception.

 

[Solidjake]

-
What filter settings on the SDS did you experiment with? Those settings can and do make a world of difference in reception.

Tried auto, global?, Wide normal, wide inverted off the top of my head.

I know another user here did the same test multiple times with three SDS's and had high misses too

 

[Solidjake]

Also the SDS had 5/5 bars reception whereas the 436 was 2/5-3/5 most of the time.

I had them scanning ALL sites, only sites that the troopers are in range and only the simulcast sites

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Tried auto, global?, Wide normal, wide inverted off the top of my head.

I know another user here did the same test multiple times with three SDS's and had high misses too

Were any of those systems Simulcast?

 

[jgorman21]

Not surprising at all to me! I’ve had an SDS 100 for a few months now. Short and sweet…as a receiver, overall it’s really just meh. And as far as simulcast it’s ok. But the Unication G5 is far superior. Imho.

 

[Solidjake]

Were any of those systems Simulcast?

Yes sir

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

So a 436 is better than an SDS100! Glad I have my BCD536HP!

 

[Solidjake]

So a 436 is better than an SDS100! Glad I have my BCD536HP!

All depends what you're scanning but in my case definitely. What really sealed the deal for me was three-four solid transmissions on one troop regarding a full traffic stop.

 

[werinshades]

A few weeks is "extensive testing" . Many variables to consider including programming, filters (site level and not global), location etc. Because the 436 might be missing simulcast sites reception and the SDS100 stops on the site might also be a difference in speeds and missing transmissions. Firmware versions...just too much to consider for only a short comparison time.

 

[Solidjake]

A few weeks is "extensive testing" . Many variables to consider including programming, filters (site level and not global), location etc. Because the 436 might be missing simulcast sites reception and the SDS100 stops on the site might also be a difference in speeds and missing transmissions. Firmware versions...just too much to consider for only a short comparison time.

I drive 180 miles a day to work southern NJ to NYC so I put around 2300 miles in three weeks with the scanners on all the time. Driving at 2-330am, 130-330 pm and mixed times on my off days

 

[werinshades]

I drive 180 miles a day to work southern NJ to NYC so I put around 2300 miles in three weeks with the scanners on all the time. Driving at 2-330am, 130-330 pm and mixed times on my off days

Which could explain the issues you had...programming. Filters are very helpful in most situations, but don't apply to all the systems and might be a reason for the discrepancies. Some analog systems might require switching modulation from NFM to FM, increasing the Volume offset to +2 or +3 to compensate for the audio. If you're using GPS or depending on Zip code programming, these additional features aren't included and have to be "user adjusted". Certain systems require much more tweaking, and if you're driving, can't stop and perform some checks.

It really isn't enough time, each location you traveled might have to be adjusted, and since the 436 might be skipping over simulcast sites that the SDS100 is locking on to, might be a reason for the "slower scan performance". Some other things to be considered in your "evaluation period". Due to you being not an owner, might be unfamiliar with some of these operations. Your friend who loaned you the scanner might also be unfamiliar with certain functions as many long time owners are here too.

 

[trentbob]

Hey guys,

A forum member was generous enough to let me borrow his SDS100 for a few weeks to put it against my 436 to see if it is worth the upgrade. Testing was done against NJ state police Motorola Type II Smartzone 800mhz and NJICS P25 Phase 2

New Jersey State Police Trunking System, Statewide, Multi-State

New Jersey State Police Trunking System Profile

www.radioreference.com

New Jersey Interoperability Communications System (NJICS) Trunking System, Statewide, Multi-State

New Jersey Interoperability Communications System (NJICS) Trunking System Profile

www.radioreference.com

Antennas used to keep things "fair" was a Larsen NMO3E825B and a Laird BB7603R

Driving done around southern NJ and for the 800mhz frequencies for the Turnpike it was done on that from the Lincoln Tunnel down to exit 3/4

Both on USB power, antennas were swapped between both scanners, both on 400ms and 2 second hold. For the SDS I changed to every filter



Regardless of which system is scanned the 436 was definitely faster. In terms on missing transmissions it was 65-35 SDS-436

I tried everything to get the SDS to but miss transmissions but it was impossible.

I DO LIKE the SDS in terms of the display/what it shows/colors/info, the speaker is incredible and the form factor. I'm really sad it didn't perform equal, if not better than the 436 at least for the systems I scan.

Physically I'm not a fan of the recessed sma connector for the antenna. It was a pain ty swap antenna cables around.


I am considering just keeping the 436 and possibly getting the Unication G4 IF an external antenna can be used for higher gain. The G4 the primary with the 436 scanning the next troop ahead.

A couple of important questions here to qualify your conclusions. I live in PA right across the Delaware River from Trenton and I listen to both of these systems everyday.

So you were listening to the systems together on the same scanner? Were you rolling through all of those sites at one time? For optimal results on either radio you would want to be sitting on one site at a time. You would want to apply filters directly to the sites using system options. Global filters affect every object on the radio. Global Auto filter slows scanning way down because you are sampling different filters for both systems. Also the 436 can have quite a lot of problems with the phase 2 simulcast system. Just curious.

 

[KevinC]

My observation comparing a SDS100 to an APX NEXT scanning the same one simulcast site and more or less the same TG's. I pretty much see them match transmission for transmission. One may pick up a different TG than the other if they both keyup around the same time, but that's due to where each one is in its CC decode cycle.

I'll try to find a busy enough TG and just park them both on that with no scanning involved and see what happens.

As a side note, I'm spent lots of time figuring out which filter works best for me on this site. So the filter should be "optimized' in this case. And I'm testing from a fixed location, not mobile.

 

[trentbob]

My observation comparing a SDS100 to an APX NEXT scanning the same one simulcast site and more or less the same TG's. I pretty much see them match transmission for transmission. One may pick up a different TG than the other if they both keyup around the same time, but that's due to where each one is in its CC decode cycle.

I'll try to find a busy enough TG and just park them both on that with no scanning involved and see what happens.

As a side note, I'm spent lots of time figuring out which filter works best for me on this site. So the filter should be "optimized' in this case. And I'm testing from a fixed location, not mobile.

I compared the sds100 with my apx 7000 and the performance was very similar, in reality though I found one to be far better than the other because of the volume punch, I'm sure we can guess which one LOL.

 

[NoahWL]

Which could explain the issues you had...programming. Filters are very helpful in most situations, but don't apply to all the systems and might be a reason for the discrepancies. Some analog systems might require switching modulation from NFM to FM, increasing the Volume offset to +2 or +3 to compensate for the audio. If you're using GPS or depending on Zip code programming, these additional features aren't included and have to be "user adjusted". Certain systems require much more tweaking, and if you're driving, can't stop and perform some checks.

It really isn't enough time, each location you traveled might have to be adjusted, and since the 436 might be skipping over simulcast sites that the SDS100 is locking on to, might be a reason for the "slower scan performance". Some other things to be considered in your "evaluation period". Due to you being not an owner, might be unfamiliar with some of these operations. Your friend who loaned you the scanner might also be unfamiliar with certain functions as many long time owners are here too.

Is there a way to log statistics like error rate, signal strength, etc. per site? I have run into the same problems as OP. I have FLs created for common routes, tuned per road and direction of travel to minimize scanning time. But it is impossible to babysit the scanner while driving to know if my current filter settings are correct, as there is typically not enough activity to judge only by listening.

 

[Solidjake]

A couple of important questions here to qualify your conclusions. I live in PA right across the Delaware River from Trenton and I listen to both of these systems everyday.

So you were listening to the systems together on the same scanner? Were you rolling through all of those sites at one time? For optimal results on either radio you would want to be sitting on one site at a time. You would want to apply filters directly to the sites using system options. Global filters affect every object on the radio. Global Auto filter slows scanning way down because you are sampling different filters for both systems. Also the 436 can have quite a lot of problems with the phase 2 simulcast system. Just curious.

Hey, I did a mix of the following;. 295 troop a on both, troop c on both, both troops scanning on both (all of the three with all sites and then again with only the troop a/c simulcast sites) then the turnpike same with only troop a, b, c, all mixed (all sites, then only troop simulcasts). I also did holds on each site ie; 295 troop c where the SDS missed 3-4 transmissions

 

[trentbob]

Yep with both radios when you roll through so many sites it takes the radio a while to catch up so you will have a lot of missed transmissions. Sometimes if you know the path you're going to be taking and you know your geography you're able to enable and disable sites right on the keyboard As you move about. Site hold is good to use but you can't be listening to both the 800 MHz smartzone system and the phase 2 system on same radio at the same time.

For the smartzone system I use Central simulcast and for the Phase 2 I used the Bordentown simulcast site. I use a Larson tri-band antenna. I'm lucky to never get any missed transmissions at all.

As far as the filters go, I always leave Global on normal which is default so as not to compromise anyting else I might have on the radio and then I apply wide normal to the simulcast sites that I would run into and only scan one site at a time. Occasionally I move over to wide invert, It's a quick maneuver to avoid and resume sites on the keyboard. It's also a quick maneuver on the keyboard to change a filter right on the site. If you haven't done so already it's good to put the filter indicator on the display.

My x 36 radios are retired now. Never had a problem with the type ll smartzone system but I would definitely experience problems on Phase 2 simulcast.

Sorry your results were not good, not my experience. As I said the 100 and 200 work as good as my apx but they just don't have the volume the mot gear does.

 

[buddrousa]

To be fair both scanners should be using the same antenna at the same time on a good device like a stridesburg multiplexer.