No firmware updates?

[jonwienke]

Certainly didn't work out for them if that was the plan...

 

[iMONITOR]

Digital performance cannot be better than analog performance, because all digital signals are encoded in analog waveforms. If analog performance sucked, it would take digital performance down with it.

While that's true, they can be optimized for the 700/800MHz bands that are most likely be digital for scanner hobbyist.

 

[ProScan]

I alway wondered if whistler had a strategy of rumoring new models to get uniden to rush at least the sds200 to market and get sloppy, the whistler then backed out of the new models lol

Whistler announced the new I/Q technology in future scanner models exactly 7 days after Uniden announced the SDS100. You can come to your own conclusions.

 

[jonwienke]

While that's true, they can be optimized for the 700/800MHz bands that are most likely be digital for scanner hobbyist.

No. There's plenty of digital in the UHF and VHF bands, like STARS and SIRN. The SDS scanners have no trouble keeping up with the x36 units on those systems. I run them side by side off a common antenna through a multicoupler.

 

[iMONITOR]

I think when Whistler was blindsided with what Paul & Uniden brought to the table, Whistler took their ball and went home.

 

[Ubbe]

the filters SHOULD have a better explanation of EXACTLY what they do!

I have explained several times exactly what they do, it's the same two filters used as in other scanners but it is the IF frequency that shifts with the different settings, but that doesn't help anyone as you need to analyse the frequency spectrum in real time and you have to know how a receiver works using IF frequencies and the receiver have issues that it receives frequencies from transmitters that are way off from your own monitored frequency.

Even the best radio engineer in the world cannot predict what filter that should be used in all the locations where the scanner are used. It's a tedious exercise of trying the different settings and it doesn't help that it is a common setting for all frequencies in a site or in a conventional department. It really needs to be set for each indivdual frequency in the same way that IFX are used to a single frequency. It was a simple quick fix at the beginning that where added to later on but at that point in time should had been changed to mimic the IFX function and a scroll function added to it to quickly and easy test each filter setting, together with a button to quickly shift between digital and analog mode. But I don't know how much resourses that Uniden management allowed to be put into the SDS project. It probably already where way over its planned budget.

/Ubbe

 

[Citywide173]

I alway wondered if whistler had a strategy of rumoring new models to get uniden to rush at least the sds200 to market and get sloppy, the whistler then backed out of the new models lol

Very possible, but not needed. One of their own dealers did it to them with the SDS100.

 

[phask]

That might be the case at your location or with your particular scanner, but as a blanket statement.... no, definitely not the case.

.

I'd have to agree. My conventional is just fine, the 200 , 996P2, , 870, sds100 - ALL get almost identical reception using same antenna/multicoupler.

No filters used, no IFX. Now I am in a rather quiet RF environment except for multiple cell towers, paging and a lot of VHF data transmissions.

 

[RRR]

-Jon-

Do you think you could be able to somehow, someday, make improvements to the SDS scanners? Be it firmware, hardware, etc.

 

[jonwienke]

Do you think you could be able to somehow, someday, make improvements to the SDS scanners? Be it firmware, hardware, etc.

Not unless I got hired by Uniden and had access to their internal technical data and staff.