Just got my Pro-2006...

[smokeyjones666]

...and now I'm beginning to realize that what I know about radios really isn't much.

All I have to say is, wow! Why can't I get a modern digital trunking radio that performs as well as this one does? I mean, it's 2008 right?

Sure, my PSR-500 works great at picking up local public safety, what with their many towers and such. But I hook that $500 handheld up to my roof-mounted Antennacraft ST-2 and try to monitor the tower at KMSP and I can't hear a peep except for pilots flying directly overhead. My Pro-97 fares slightly better, I can hear pilots pretty well and if I listen carefully I can hear what the tower is saying through the static.

But this Pro-2006 is amazing. I can hear both the pilots and the tower, clear as a bell. I can even hear the tower so well that I can hear the other air traffic controllers talking in the background. Even with what seems by today's standards to be severely limited features and an extremely clunky interface, when it comes down to receiving difficult signals - this 15-year-old relic beats it's high-tech cousins hands down.

So why can't I have it all? Why can't I buy a modern digital trunking receiver that's sensitive enough to receive these weak signals and yet robust enough not to get freaked out by all the urban radio signals that surround it?

 

[SCPD]

The Pro 2006 is a 90's model radio, before trunking was even thought of ...Do you mean Pro 2096 or 96 , which are Digital scanners??

 

[BoxAlarm187]

Alabama, he makes it pretty clear he's talking about a 15-year-old radio, so I do think he's speaking of a 2006. I have to agree that it's one of the best receivers ever made, I still use mine daily!

 

[smokeyjones666]

You read it right, Pro-2006. Not boatanchor old school, but old school nonetheless. Pre-trunking, pre-digital, no frills and made in japan.

I'm mostly whining here. My complaint is that I've got this fancy $500 digital trunking scanner, infinitely programmable by comparison, with all kinds of whiz-bang features that allow computer control, analog and digital trunking, CTCSS and DCS tone decoding and incredible ease of use - yet this Pro-2006, ancient by comparison and given to me in a paltry exchange for a homemade cantenna, wipes the floor with it in the very simple act of just choosing a frequency and receiving it clearly.

I turn this beast on and the dirty volume pot makes the speaker pop and scratch as it comes to life, startling my cat from her slumber and causing her to leap from her perch on the back of the couch. I struggle with the clumsy user interface, something from a distant memory I find vaguely reminiscent of an age where VCRs used to constantly flash 12:00. After a few minutes I figure out how to program a channel, I fumble with controls worn from age and use to key in 123.675 and press enter. Immediately the beast comes to life with sounds, clear as daylight, that until now I had only known as static and muffled voices.

Different tools for different tasks I suppose, if there is an ultimate lesson for me to learn from this little exercise. Still, it pains me to think that quality is a concept that seems to have been made almost entirely extinct and $500 today can't get me the same basic quality as a free relic from our technological past.

 

[WA1CRZ]

Now you have to get a second one!

 

[fineshot1]

...and now I'm beginning to realize that what I know about radios really isn't much.

All I have to say is, wow! Why can't I get a modern digital trunking radio that performs as well as this one does? I mean, it's 2008 right?

Sure, my PSR-500 works great at picking up local public safety, what with their many towers and such. But I hook that $500 handheld up to my roof-mounted Antennacraft ST-2 and try to monitor the tower at KMSP and I can't hear a peep except for pilots flying directly overhead. My Pro-97 fares slightly better, I can hear pilots pretty well and if I listen carefully I can hear what the tower is saying through the static.

But this Pro-2006 is amazing. I can hear both the pilots and the tower, clear as a bell. I can even hear the tower so well that I can hear the other air traffic controllers talking in the background. Even with what seems by today's standards to be severely limited features and an extremely clunky interface, when it comes down to receiving difficult signals - this 15-year-old relic beats it's high-tech cousins hands down.

So why can't I have it all? Why can't I buy a modern digital trunking receiver that's sensitive enough to receive these weak signals and yet robust enough not to get freaked out by all the urban radio signals that surround it?

The probable reason your older scanner is receiving better is that it is less prone to overload unlike
the newer models when hooked up to an outside antenna. Did you try using the attenuater function
with the newer models? This often makes the difference.

 

[smokeyjones666]

Oh yes, I've been all over the attenuator on both newer scanners. I even have one of those PAR electronics filters for the FM radio band, without which I can't pick up even a hint of a weak signal on the other newer scanners.

I'm sure if I invested in a spectrum analyzer I could figure out how many hundreds of dollars I'd need to spend on filters to overcome all of my local interference.

 

[iMONITOR]

This might explain the difference.

Dynamic Range
http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/receivers/dynamic_range/dynamic_range.php

 

[W6KRU]

I used to have a visual of the antennas on a nearby mountain top from my back window. This was a tall peak and it was covered in antennas. Some of the paging systems were so strong they would blast through the front end of my old pro20004. I bought a cheap TV antenna, flipped it 90 degrees, and pointed it away from the peak. That helped quite a bit.

IMO the smaller components in the newer radios are more prone to this. The wider front ends don't help either. This is a common complaint from HAMs who have the new small HTs with wideband receive.

 

[airgreek]

I have to agree the Pro 2006 is incredible

 

[FrankJ]

Yes, I have to agree. I have a PRO-2006 and PRO-43. My PSR-500 doesn't even come close to the reception of the PRO-43 on both airbands. The PSR-500 overloads way too easy, has bad interference rejection, and the squelch is real choppy. It's completely useless on the airbands! I use a Diamond RH77CA for the antenna. I can't believe for $500 that the PSR-500 performs like a "cheap scanner" on the airbands.

I do have to say that the PSR-500 does an EXCELLENT job on 800 Mhz digital trunking. I just think for that kind of money it should do well on ALL bands!

 

[scannersnstuff]

i was lucky enough to buy a good condition pro-2006 about a year ago.it's in my shack rack with my bct-15 and psr-600.because i have limited antenna option's i use the bct-15 on my attic mounted radio shack antenna <the big discone>.this monitor's all my public safety and distant station's.i use the psr-600 with a room height r.s. <little discone> because of the overload issue.this does mainly spectrumsweeper and my local pd or select channel's in manual mode.i use my pro-2006 on the oem antenna.this does a combo.of just quick throw in frequencies and civilian and military air.the pro-2006 is still a good all around scanner.it was pretty pricey in it's day.i'm sure many people know that this scanner was the bill cheek all time favorite for mod's.

 

[ridgescan]

I got a Pro 2066 (not 2006) digital trunking unit for NOTHING installed in my truck-it performs as well on trunking as my '05 BC785D...but outperforms the 785 in conventional! I paid $499 for the 785. I think it's because the 785 is just too damm sensitive and suffers front end.

 

[SCPD]

I got a Pro 2066 (not 2006) digital trunking unit for NOTHING installed in my truck-it performs as well on trunking as my '05 BC785D...but outperforms the 785 in conventional! I paid $499 for the 785. I think it's because the 785 is just too damm sensitive and suffers front end.

2066 is DigitaL?? , must be a type here

 

[trace1]

I turn this beast on and the dirty volume pot makes the speaker pop and scratch as it comes to life...

Yep, sometimes them "old" radios work better. I've got a Bearcat Electra III and IV that work like a charm in their own way. Also have a BC350A and BC2500XLT that work just as well, considering their normal operating functions too. My old WWII era US Army Signal Corps Radio Receiver (BC-312-N) works too (Love seeing those old tubes glowing in it.)!

Of course my BCD386T does some things that those others won't or can't. But sometimes, just sometimes, newer doesn't always mean better.

 

[bee]

I have the Pro 2006, I purchased about 1994. I believe, I gave about $450.00 for it.

Not a cheap scanner(throw in inflation, ect. and it would be much more than the $500.00 PSR). It does a really good job, for what it was created for! Still have it.

 

[WA1CRZ]

Heres your chance to buy another one!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=260321070624&ssPageName=STRK:MEBI:IT&ih=016

Hurry while it lasts!

 

[WA1CRZ]

Final bid: $388.90
WOW!

 

[trixwagen]

$388.90? I wouldn't pay that much for a mint BC780XLT, which, IMHO, is a better scanner, especially for receiving the air bands.

If the 2006 had an OptoScan 456 included for that price, it would still be a little spendy. I dunno. Maybe people still get excited over those cellular unblock mods. Oh, it had the on-off back light. That must have been it.

There's about a half dozen 2006s on eBay right now for semi-reasonable prices. If my Pro-106 starts having trouble hearing the tower, I might bid on one.

 

[smokeyjones666]

It floors me that they still want $200 for an Optoscan Lite module.

http://cgi.ebay.com/OPTOELECTRONICS...ptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116

I wish someone would design an arduino-based computer control module for this thing, I could probably make that happen if someone smarter than me designed it - but I don't see that happening for a 15-year-old scanner.