Need advice for next scanner

Status
Not open for further replies.

BillH1

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2016
Messages
112
Location
Golden Valley AZ
Hello everybody, I am currently in the market for a new scanner, as my beloved BR330t has unfortunately kicked the bucket. I have narrowed my search down to either the BCD436 or the BCD325p2. Most of my listening is on VHF high, and UHF, but I do travel to Las Vegas often so I would like the P25 capability, and should be able to pick up some stuff from LV and Laughlin from my location. I have seen people report that the 436 is less sensitive on VHF high, is this true? I enjoy listening to neighboring towns VHF systems about 25 miles away with my 330t, so which would be best for this? In all honesty the 325p2 is more attractive to me because of how similar the UI looks to the 330t/x96t scanners, and it being a non SD card scanner.. Thanks for any advice

-Bill
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
12,999
Location
VA
Get the 436, no question.

The 436 has a better receiver. Some older units were missing a capacitor that caused rf noise from the battery compartment to interfere with reception if you were using the stock antenna. But that problem was fixed over a year ago, and does not apply if you are using an outdoor antenna at home.

The database on the SD card, plus a GPS, is a must-have when traveling.

Having all programming and config settings on a sd card means you can change cards to change scanner config, and it is easily changed if there is a problem.
 

marksmith

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
4,257
Location
Anne Arundel County, MD
If you look through this beginners section you will find a thread like this one created about once a week. Lots of recommendations are out there.

Nobody can tell you what the right one is for you unless you give a very specific list of attributes. Short of that, read through them, see what fits

The 436 does have issues on vhf high, the 325 p2 is about half the size of the 436.


536/436/ws1095/996p2/996xt/325p2/396xt/psr800/396t/HP-1/HP-2 & others
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
12,999
Location
VA
The 436 does have issues on vhf high
Not new ones. Any 436 made in 2017, and most made in 2016, already have C1 installed, and don't have the self-interference issue with VHF-high/UHF noise from the battery compartment. If you buy a scanner from any place that sells them regularly (Amazon, Scanner Master, etc.) you'll get one without any reception issues.
 

marksmith

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
4,257
Location
Anne Arundel County, MD
Not referring to battery interference, or issues with c1. The radio is just not as sensitive on vhf high as it is in other bands.

Was specifically replying to listening habits of OP.

536/436/ws1095/996p2/996xt/325p2/396xt/psr800/396t/HP-1/HP-2 & others
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
12,999
Location
VA
With the stock antenna, maybe. With an antenna tuned for the band, definitely not. With an ST-2 mounted outside I get close call hits from Virginia STARS sites, and I live in Pennsylvania, and have done so with multiple 436s I've tested after modding them. Definitely not a sensitivity issue there.
 

iMONITOR

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
8,810
Get the 436, no question.

The 436 has a better receiver. Some older units were missing a capacitor that caused rf noise from the battery compartment to interfere with reception if you were using the stock antenna.
How would batteries cause RF noise? Was it caused by recharging?
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
12,999
Location
VA
Many people do not have an ST2 mounted outside.
You've missed my point, which is that VHF reception deficiencies are due to the stock antenna, not the scanner itself. When you connect an antenna that is well-tuned to VHF, like the Diamond RH77CA or the ST-2, the 436 has no problems receiving VHF.
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
12,999
Location
VA
How would batteries cause RF noise?
The batteries don't cause the RFI, it's coming from an IC on the front circuit board near the batteries when C1 is not installed.
 

goodmore

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 2016
Messages
153
Location
Lancaster County PA
Scanners today just do a real crappy job on the P25 systems. I would love to say that scanning these systems was a breeze, but most of us have problems with distortion. You can read post after post on the subject with all kinds of suggestions on how to improve monitoring, but in the end anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of what I listen to is distorted noise.And that is just the scanner companies inability to design a better scanner.
 

muskrat39

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
1,197
Location
north central Indiana
Scanners today just do a real crappy job on the P25 systems. I would love to say that scanning these systems was a breeze, but most of us have problems with distortion. You can read post after post on the subject with all kinds of suggestions on how to improve monitoring, but in the end anywhere from 5 to 10 percent of what I listen to is distorted noise.And that is just the scanner companies inability to design a getter scanner.
Actually, most of the scanners work fine on P25. It is LSM simulcast that gives problems. If you are not in a simulcast area, and 75% of scanner users aren't, the scanners work fine. I use two Whistlers, and one Uniden. All work just fine on P25.
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
12,999
Location
VA
Scanners today just do a real crappy job on the P25 systems. I would love to say that scanning these systems was a breeze, but most of us have problems with distortion.
Not true. Scanners only have issues with simulcast systems were signals from multiple towers on the same frequency at roughly the same strength interfere with each other. On non-simulcast digital systems (P25, DMR, and others), most scanners will work just as well as on FM analog.
 

Valeriy

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2016
Messages
99
Location
European Union
Not referring to battery interference, or issues with c1. The radio is just not as sensitive on vhf high as it is in other bands.

Was specifically replying to listening habits of OP.

536/436/ws1095/996p2/996xt/325p2/396xt/psr800/396t/HP-1/HP-2 & others
I experience exactly the opposite:
my 436 is very sensitive in VHF Hi band, less in UHF (not to mention the bug in Discovery mode), and not very sensitive in VHF Low band.
 

Chris516

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2017
Messages
138
Location
Gaithersburg, MD
I just wanted to throw in my two cents. No direct or overt criticism of those who suggested the 436HP over the 325P2. Unless ScannerMaster has it completely wrong. Comparing the two scanners, the site data says that the 325p2 can do trunking, but the 436HP can't.

In the same comparison, while I didn't do an actual Yes/No count on the in individual capabilities. The 325p2 had far more 'Yes's, than 'No's. Compared to the 436HP.

One thing that struck me. It said the 436HP only had 6 channels, compared to the 325p2 having 25,000.
 

jonwienke

More Info Coming Soon!
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
12,999
Location
VA
NONE of that is accurate. The 436 handles more channels than the 325P2, and does every flavor of trunking that the 325P2 does. The 436 wins every head-to-head feature comparison to the 325P2 except in regard to size and possibly battery life. I have been a 436 owner for years.
 

marksmith

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
4,257
Location
Anne Arundel County, MD
I just wanted to throw in my two cents. No direct or overt criticism of those who suggested the 436HP over the 325P2. Unless ScannerMaster has it completely wrong. Comparing the two scanners, the site data says that the 325p2 can do trunking, but the 436HP can't.

In the same comparison, while I didn't do an actual Yes/No count on the in individual capabilities. The 325p2 had far more 'Yes's, than 'No's. Compared to the 436HP.

One thing that struck me. It said the 436HP only had 6 channels, compared to the 325p2 having 25,000.
You are giving people advice on what to buy when you obviously don't own either radio or know anything about them.

I am sure the original poster knows that the 436 is a digital trunking scanner with an onboard database.

The 325 p2 is a digital trunking scanner without database, but about half the size.
Both radios receive basically everything.

The keys are really size, database, and SD card.

536/436/ws1095/996p2/996xt/325p2/396xt/psr800/396t/HP-1/HP-2 & others
 

phask

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
3,348
Location
KZZV - SE Ohio
I have no idea what you are reading - but your comprehension is sorely off.

I just wanted to throw in my two cents. No direct or overt criticism of those who suggested the 436HP over the 325P2. Unless ScannerMaster has it completely wrong. Comparing the two scanners, the site data says that the 325p2 can do trunking, but the 436HP can't.

In the same comparison, while I didn't do an actual Yes/No count on the in individual capabilities. The 325p2 had far more 'Yes's, than 'No's. Compared to the 436HP.

One thing that struck me. It said the 436HP only had 6 channels, compared to the 325p2 having 25,000.
 

N2MWE

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
2,555
Location
New York State, Land of King Putz
I own two 436's, very happy with them. I cannot speak for the 325P2, but one of the nice things about the 436 is throw in the zip code, pick out your services and away you go. One thing I do NOT like about radios like the 325p2 is you cannot set delay for individual channels.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top