SDS100/SDS200: New SDS200 Receiving Bites.

[Ace9133uwu]

This is a post I definitely thought I’d never make. Brand new SDS200. Received two days ago. All programmed up to match my SDS100. Two main sites I always monitor with my SDS100 & BCD396XT’s no problem at all, the 200 seems to struggle. Bad. Using the stock telescope, and the Remtronix back-of-set 843B, my RSSI stays around -90/-105. Digital errors left and right. I don’t think I’ve received a clean transmission using this unit. These two systems are not simulcast. P25 P1. Firmware is current. Correct CC’s are set, I have the NAC’s set, squelch at 3 (preferred), no filters on, and boy am I very confused because I have not missed anything. If anyone has any ideas at all as to why my legacy 396’s, and SDS100 are outperforming the SDS200, let me know.
Edit: added info.

 

[werinshades]

This is a post I definitely thought I’d never make. Brand new SDS200. Received two days ago. All programmed up to match my SDS100. Two main sites I always monitor with my SDS100 & BCD396XT’s no problem at all, the 200 seems to struggle. Bad. Using the stock telescope, and the Remtronix back-of-set 843B, my RSSI stays around -90/-105. Digital errors left and right. I don’t think I’ve received a clean transmission using this unit. These two systems are not simulcast. P25 P1. Firmware is current. Correct CC’s are set, I have the NAC’s set, squelch at 3 (preferred), no filters on, and boy am I very confused because I have not missed anything. If anyone has any ideas at all as to why my legacy 396’s, and SDS100 are outperforming the SDS200, let me know.
Edit: added info.

So.....turn the filters on, turn the squelch down, try attenuator. SDS200 is not the same as the other 2. Try it by Site...maybe one needs one filter/attenuator and the other doesn't.

 

[KC1UA]

When you say "no filters on" are you including the Global Auto Filter setting?

 

[Ace9133uwu]

When you say "no filters on" are you including the Global Auto Filter setting?

Correct. I don’t use filters on the 100, and it RX’s fine. I’ll go ahead and toy with them on the 200 like you and @werinshades suggested. Hopefully there’s a difference.
Wanted to mention, one site is less than five miles away from me, and the other is around fifteen miles out.

 

[KC1UA]

I tend to keep them off as well but I also bet you'll find the proper setting by tweaking them. Good luck!

 

[werinshades]

Correct. I don’t use filters on the 100, and it RX’s fine. I’ll go ahead and toy with them on the 200 like you and @werinshades suggested. Hopefully there’s a difference.
Wanted to mention, one site is less than five miles away from me, and the other is around fifteen miles out.

I tend to keep them off as well but I also bet you'll find the proper setting by tweaking them. Good luck!

I own both, identical programming on some of the SDS200's depending on what my listening focus is on. On Starcom 700Mhz sites from home, attenuator and Wide Invert filter used. On the SDS100, no filter used. I self-program, have Sentinel Favorite Lists duplicated (one with the setting I mentioned for home monitoring, the other set up for SDS100 monitoring without attenuator or filter settings), so you just have to get creative, know how to adjust profiles scan selection tab.

 

[Ace9133uwu]

I own both, identical programming on some of the SDS200's depending on what my listening focus is on. On Starcom 700Mhz sites from home, attenuator and Wide Invert filter used. On the SDS100, no filter used. I self-program, have Sentinel Favorite Lists duplicated (one with the setting I mentioned for home monitoring, the other set up for SDS100 monitoring without attenuator or filter settings), so you just have to get creative, know how to adjust profiles scan selection tab.

I do monitor a 700MHz site; Ohio MARCS-IP. Will adjust that site to what you just said to see if I notice a difference.

 

[werinshades]

I do monitor a 700MHz site; Ohio MARCS-IP. Will adjust that site to what you just said to see if I notice a difference.

A few of us here have noticed 700Mhz. sites like Wide Invert. My sites (at home) also like the attenuator.

 

[nessnet]

Lower squelch to 2

 

[donc13]

This is a post I definitely thought I’d never make. Brand new SDS200. Received two days ago. All programmed up to match my SDS100. Two main sites I always monitor with my SDS100 & BCD396XT’s no problem at all, the 200 seems to struggle. Bad. Using the stock telescope, and the Remtronix back-of-set 843B, my RSSI stays around -90/-105. Digital errors left and right. I don’t think I’ve received a clean transmission using this unit. These two systems are not simulcast. P25 P1. Firmware is current. Correct CC’s are set, I have the NAC’s set, squelch at 3 (preferred), no filters on, and boy am I very confused because I have not missed anything. If anyone has any ideas at all as to why my legacy 396’s, and SDS100 are outperforming the SDS200, let me know.
Edit: added info.

You really have 2 choices. Send it back to whoever sold it to you and have them replace it.

Or, play with it for a few days, RTFM because the sds100 and the sds200 aren't identical. Check things like squelch, location and range settings, filter and attenuation settings, etc. What programming software, correct profile, etc.



If it still "stinks" send it to Uniden for warranty repair.

 

[Ace9133uwu]

Update; global filter set to Normal. 700MHz site filter set to wide-invert, 800MHz I’m still toying with. Squelch at 2, no attenuator. 700MHz site is clearer. RSSI around -80/-90. Few digital errors received.

I appreciate all the information that you guys gave me. Looks like things are turning around for the better. I think I’ll keep the 200 around a while longer. 😆

 

[werinshades]

Update; global filter set to Normal. 700MHz site filter set to wide-invert, 800MHz I’m still toying with. Squelch at 2, no attenuator. 700MHz site is clearer. RSSI around -80/-90. Few digital errors received.

I appreciate all the information that you guys gave me. Looks like things are turning around for the better. I think I’ll keep the 200 around a while longer. 😆

If you don't have a separate profile set up for each scanner, I'd suggest you do. Perform a Read from Scanner with the SD200 profile, then Save. This is suggested if you're making changes directly on the scanner, so you don't lose your settings.

 

[Ace9133uwu]

If you don't have a separate profile set up for each scanner, I'd suggest you do. Perform a Read from Scanner with the SD200 profile, then Save. This is suggested if you're making changes directly on the scanner, so you don't lose your settings.

Ahhh, I am not using software. Everything I program is FPP. Since the systems I monitor are fairly small, I typically don’t take issue with old-school hand programming.

 

[jtwalker]

When that SD card goes bad you may wish you had reconsidered that decision.

 

[Ace9133uwu]

When that SD card goes bad you may wish you had reconsidered that decision.

I’ll cross that bridge if I get to it. Like I previously said, my monitored systems are fairly small. I’ve manually programmed so many scanners, it really doesn’t faze me either way.

 

[tvengr]

Ahhh, I am not using software.

You will need Uniden Sentinel to update firmware and the database. The software is free. Once you read the scanner, your favorites lists are safe. Here is the link: http://info.uniden.com/UnidenMan4/BCDx36HPSentinel

 

[Ace9133uwu]

You will need Uniden Sentinel to update firmware and the database. The software is free. Once you read the scanner, your favorites lists are safe. Here is the link: http://info.uniden.com/UnidenMan4/BCDx36HPSentinel

Thanks! Downloaded. I always enjoy a new program to play with. Last programming software I used was for a DOA TRX-1. Software was pretty user-friendly… the TRX-1 however was not.

 

[tvengr]

I find Sentinel to be very user friendly. I do all custom programming from scratch using Sentinel.

 

[Harold]

"Using the stock telescope, and the Remtronix back-of-set 843B" nothing else to say.

 

[Ace9133uwu]

"Using the stock telescope, and the Remtronix back-of-set 843B" nothing else to say.

I mean. Clearly there is more to say. Quoting something I said followed by a very arbitrary statement with no further context to work with is not helpful or constructive. It’s just useless and frankly comes off as ignorant.