BCD436HP/BCD536HP: Negative Comments On Amazon and Elsewhere - Contemplating Purchase

[kc5igh]

Response to Paul Opitz' post

[*]Poor or diminished sensitivity (compared to predecessor and competition models).
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
[/LIST]
(Not yelling in the above, just differentiating my A from the original Q.)[/QUOTE]

Hello, Paul.

With all due respect, I beg to differ with you regarding the 436's sensitivity issues. I may possess the only 436 in the world with this problem, but it's been my sad experience that my radio is far less sensitive than its predecessors (BCD250T, BCD396T, BCD396XT) and competition models (PSR-500, PSR-800, PRO-106).

I've conducted exhaustive, simultaneous comparison tests in a variety of environments (urban, rural, indoors, outdoors, daytime, nighttime, etc.) with identical antennas (SMA to SMA with Comet HT-55s, Diamond SRH-519s, Uniden factory antennas) and power sources (fully charged batteries and external AC to DC power sources).

The results have been consistent: The 436 simply skips or receives very poorly analog signals in the VHF-hi and UHF (406 to 450 MHz) ranges that the other radios receive much more clearly. (FYI, this isn't a Uniden vs. GRE/Whistler "rant." My favorite overall receiver continues to be my BCD396XT.)

I understand that there can be a variety of reasons for my 436's "apparent" lack of sensitivity in those frequency ranges that aren't necessarily due to the radio's test-bench sensitivity specifications. One theory I intend to chase down is whether or not internally generated noise (from the LCD display?) is interfering with VHF-hi reception. I'll take a crack at that one by separating the antennas mentioned above from the radio and testing reception by means of an approximately three- or four-foot length of coax cable, and I will share what I discover.

For what it's worth, I purchased my 436 in February 2014. It's serial number is 376Z38001112. If you or anyone reading this is aware of a production issue impacting 436s in this time/serial number range, I'd appreciate any useful advice or guidance.

I updated the firmware last week to 1.05.01 and have noticed a slight improvement in P25 reception, faster scanning, and shorter boot-up times, but nothing in the update has improved the sensitivity issue described above.

Thanks for listening, Paul. I really do appreciate Uniden's innovations and ongoing commitment to continuous improvement of its radio products, but my 436's rf performance in my environment is just plain terrible.

-Johnnie

 

[larry308]

My 436HP did the same thing. Makes you wonder.

 

[Voyager]

Yet others don't have that issue which implies it is environment based.

That said, have you both updated to the latest firmware?

 

[kc5igh]

Yes, as noted above, I've updated the firmware, but that didn't address the sensitivity issue.

I suspect the 436 is optimized for a strong-signal environment with selectivity considerations far outweighing sensitivity considerations.

I'd hoped for a better balance between the two factors, something more akin to the 396.

If this is true, I can't recommend the 436 for use in weak-signal environments. It is next to useless in mine.

-Johnnie

 

[Voyager]

Strange. I hear just as much on my 436 as I did on either 396.

 

[kc5igh]

Hello, Voyager.

It's only strange because I don't understand why, exactly, my 436 doesn't perform as well as does yours--or my other radios. There are several possibilities:

-My 436 is mechanically defective (possible, but unlikely).

-Your 436 (and those owned by many others in this forum) are far more sensitive (possible, but unlikely).

-My 396s are far more sensitive than yours (possible, but highly unlikely).

-Our 436s are programmed differently (A certainty regarding the channels/systems/settings you've entered in your radio, but I'm really talking about some setting/adjustment I may have overlooked [e.g. NFM vs. standard FM] that may have an impact on my 436's "apparent" sensitivity. FYI, my 436 generally acts as though some kind of moderate-level global attenuation setting was left on).

-Our listening environments are very different, and therefore our performance requirements/expectations are very different (In my opinion, this is the most likely reason for the differences between my 436's performance and that of others in this forum. Again, I suspect that the 436 is simply optimized for performance in strong-signal environments.).

Given all this, there's no better test (in my opinion) than a side-by-side comparison of these radios with identical antennas, power sources, and programmed channels/systems/settings.

If you can, try running your 436 side-by-side with your 396s, and let me know how they compare when it comes to weaker signals.

This response may be a replication of a "quick response" I posted to you earlier this morning. I'm posting this again as a standard response in case anyone else has some ideas I've overlooked.

Thanks for your patience and input, Voyager!

-Johnnie

 

[hotdjdave]

Perception

Hello, Voyager.

It's only strange because I don't understand why, exactly, my 436 doesn't perform as well as does yours--or my other radios.

They probably perform exactly the same, but because you are in different areas, you hear different things. It's like if I have a 50 watt light bulb and shine it in the dark, and say that it is pretty bright; and then you shine it outside in the day time and say you can barely see it; it is still a 50 watt light bulb giving out the same amount of light - it's all a matter of perception.

 

[Triangulum]

Given all this, there's no better test (in my opinion) than a side-by-side comparison of these radios with identical antennas, power sources, and programmed channels/systems/settings.

Can you make a comparison video as well so that we can observe the performance? I personally like to be prepared for any kind of listening environment, whether in a dense RF area or a more isolated location. I don't own a 436. My most recent scanners are the 536hp and Pro-668.

I have seen other responses in different threads that are all over the place. Some claiming the 436 is doing a better job picking up activity than the 396 (or Pro-668, especially when it comes to weak signals). Others saying the exact opposite. Clearly there is no perfect scanner, or we would all own one. And location and listening environment plays a factor as well. Personally, it would be very disappointing to be in an unfamiliar location and not be able to utilize the scanner.

 

[hotdjdave]

I have seen other responses in different threads that are all over the place. Some claiming the 436 is doing a better job picking up activity than the 396 (or Pro-668, especially when it comes to weak signals). Others saying the exact opposite.

Claiming that it is better or worse is not really saying anything. As kc5igh indicated, a comprehensive side-by-side comparison is needed to really know if there is a difference.

I assume, however, that P25 decoding sounds better on the newer models, but not necessarily sensitivity.

 

[bryan_herbert]

PS. I live in Los Angeles and as far as I can tell there is no phase 2 planned for my area (I could be mistaken).

P25 Phase 1 is obsolete and replacement parts are hard to come by, system owners are starting to upgrade to Phase 2. LA RICS which is currently in testing mode is Phase 1 and Phase 2, most of the good stuff will be Phase 2. LA County finally started upgrading their three decades old 800 MHz CWIRS TRS. They skipped P25 Phase 1, its now part EDACS and part P25 Phase 2.

 

[kc5igh]

They probably perform exactly the same, but because you are in different areas, you hear different things. It's like if I have a 50 watt light bulb and shine it in the dark, and say that it is pretty bright; and then you shine it outside in the day time and say you can barely see it; it is still a 50 watt light bulb giving out the same amount of light - it's all a matter of perception.

That's a nice metaphor, hotdjdave. If you read my response to Voyager carefully, you'll see I'm coming to exactly this conclusion.

I do indeed suspect that my 436 behaves no differently than the other 436s, and that most of the perceived differences discussed on this forum are due to different listening environments that generate different requirements, expectations, and levels of satisfactions among the many owners.

Bottom line? If all this is essentially true, the 436 doesn't process weak signals as well as its predecessors or its competitors. That's only a problem for someone like me in a weak-signal environment (northern New Mexico). If I were spending more time in downtown Atlanta or Las Vegas, I'd probably far more satisfied with the radio.

I believe you or someone else later on in this string suggested making a video showing the 436 running beside another scanner. That's a good idea, and I'll give that a try when I can. The only video camera I have is the one built into my recently purchased iPhone 6, which I hope may produce acceptable results. If I can figure out how to do this reasonably well, I'll record a side-by-side comparison of my 436 and my 396XT with AC to DC converters and Comet HT-55 antennas.

I've never posted a video on YouTube, and I think the ideal set-up would be a stereo recording with one radio's audio coming through on one side and the other coming in from the other side, but it may be doable.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

-Johnnie

 

[Paco-Jerte]

I currently have the 396T (love it, but realize P25 performance could be better). I am contemplating on getting the BCD436HP. I was reading some reviews on Amazon and elsewhere, and am concerned. Below are a few. Are they true and why (particularly numbers 1, 2, 3, and 4 for the "why")?

1. Comes with programing cable with serial port and not USB (almost no computers nowadays have a serial port, but all have a USB port).
2. Updates require a fee.
3. Additional fee to program.
4. Cannot charge batteries in the radio.
5. Memory card corruption issue (SD card failure).
6. Comes with no manual and DVD version is not helpful.
7. Android app is not yet developed or working.
8. Difficult to program (for personalized lineup, not zip code).
9. Audio speaker is not loud enough.
10. Poor or diminished sensitivity (compared to predecessor and competition models).

Should I just wait to see if Uniden comes out with a 396P2 (crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath) or get a 396XT? Note, this is not a rant, but valid concerns of mine.

PS. I live in Los Angeles and as far as I can tell there is no phase 2 planned for my area (I could be mistaken).

I am in Chatsworth I had a 436 and sold it, didn't like the screen display and overall performance, also skipped a lot of frequencies as I scanned unlike other models I have including the Pro-18 and BCD396xt. Even my Pro-668 did much better then the bcd436hp.

YMMV of course

 

[jim202]

To try to make comparisons between radios is like trying to compare gas mileage between different autos. The only true way to measure receiver sensitivity is with a service monitor.

You boys can go back and forth all day long. Your just blowing hot air until you tell us just what the service monitor shows for receiver sensitivity. That's where the radios hit the road as to what is bs and what is true sensitivity.

Once you know what your receiver really does, now sit down and tell us what you hear. There could be a local noise floor problem that your not aware of. There could be a strong signal in the area that is blocking the receiver from hearing signals due to overload.

If you tell me you have hooked up your antenna to a spectrum analyzer and don't see any strong signals, now I would start to question what the problem really is. At this point, the sky is the limit and your going to need to provide some details before this discussion can take on any real meaning.

 

[hotdjdave]

To try to make comparisons between radios is like trying to compare gas mileage between different autos. The only true way to measure receiver sensitivity is with a service monitor.

You boys can go back and forth all day long. Your just blowing hot air until you tell us just what the service monitor shows for receiver sensitivity. That's where the radios hit the road as to what is bs and what is true sensitivity.

Once you know what your receiver really does, now sit down and tell us what you hear. There could be a local noise floor problem that your not aware of. There could be a strong signal in the area that is blocking the receiver from hearing signals due to overload.

If you tell me you have hooked up your antenna to a spectrum analyzer and don't see any strong signals, now I would start to question what the problem really is. At this point, the sky is the limit and your going to need to provide some details before this discussion can take on any real meaning.

True, true, true. But in the end, is it not really what you hear that makes the difference? If everything being equal (same antenna, same location, side-by-side, settings, etc), scanner A only receives 75% of what scanner B does, then scanner B is performing better, regardless of any technical report or specs.

 

[kc5igh]

Beautifully stated, hotdjdave.

My sentiments exactly.

Thanks.

 

[hotdjdave]

Specs vs Reality

Beautifully stated, hotdjdave.

My sentiments exactly.

Thanks.

Thanks.

It's like young audio equipment salesmen (I used to be a pro-audio installer and operator). They try to tell you all the specs about a particular speaker or other product (which is usually expensive) and you tell them, "Yeah, but this one sounds much better and it's half the price." They try to convince you that the one they are "peddling" has more wattage, less distortion, blah, blah and why I should buy the one they are pushing. In the end, specs mean nothing if A has better specs, but doesn't work in the real world as good as B.

I'll typically take a pair of Community speakers for a professional installation over Bose any day of the week.

Don't get me wrong, specs are important, but it is only part of the equation.

 

[scottyhetzel]

Thanks.

It's like young audio equipment salesmen (I used to be a pro-audio installer and operator). They try to tell you all the specs about a particular speaker or other product (which is usually expensive) and you tell them, "Yeah, but this one sounds much better and it's half the price." They try to convince you that the one they are "peddling" has more wattage, less distortion, blah, blah and why I should buy the one they are pushing. In the end, specs mean nothing if A has better specs, but doesn't work in the real world as good as B.

I'll typically take a pair of Community speakers for a professional installation over Bose any day of the week.

Don't get me wrong, specs are important, but it is only part of the equation.

Im in the residential market a/v world, and this quote is awesome.....love love it. Well said!!