not impressed by new 536

Status
Not open for further replies.

grizzlyadams73

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
51
Location
michigamme
ordered a new 536 after reading all the hype plug it in and start scanning. punched in my zip and nothing. download sentinel and updated everything. still not picking up everything my old 2096 is and the sound is horrible compared to the old one. thinking of boxing it up and sending it back
 

lacadien72

Member
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
82
Location
Bathurst, NB, Canada
ordered a new 536 after reading all the hype plug it in and start scanning. punched in my zip and nothing. download sentinel and updated everything. still not picking up everything my old 2096 is and the sound is horrible compared to the old one. thinking of boxing it up and sending it back
Make sure all Services are turned on. Check your Range setting too. Location Control is always enabled when scanning from the Full Database.

I agree the sound is horrible compared to other Uniden and non-Uniden models of scanners I owned.
 

dcisive

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
176
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
I ran into the exact same thing after taking delivery of my 536 last Thursday. I carefully made sure to take the Sentinel lists, then edited them to make absolutely certain I had only the Sites that had the frequencies that were receivable in my area. I obviously made sure the Services were indeed listed as active which they pretty much ARE automatically according to the database you've loaded. Last but not least I also assigned a QuickKey to each listing making sure I went through each and every tab to make sure the QuickKey's were assigned to them correctly. Low and behold it came alive big time. I suggest you do the same. I don't know what area you're in but it should be the same procedure.
 

grizzlyadams73

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
51
Location
michigamme
yes i did make a favorite list. the old one picked up alot more
also sound wise the dispatch was load but the answer was quiet. were as on the old it was the same volume
 

K1IWN

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
103
Location
Kennebunk, ME
My humble suggestion is to be patient. I love my 536, but took a bit of work to set up which is frustrating at times. Make sure the range is where it should be, and make sure the right departments are turned on (and the favorites reflect them in the channel profile).

As far as sound goes, I added a BC15 speaker to the rear external port. It improved the sound quality a significant amount.
 

AA6IO

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2007
Messages
1,489
Location
Cerritos, CA (LA County)
An external speaker does help a lot. 536HP is a great scanner, but I agree that sound quality on other scanners is better. If I'm just listening and not searching or logging, I do prefer the 996P2 or TRX-2 for sound quality.
 

kc2kth

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
407
Location
Toms River NJ
I don't think anyone has mentioned squelch yet. Make sure that isn't set too high. I don't have the 536 but I have a 436 and an HP2. Squelch setting for both of these seems to work well at '2', no higher.
 

kg4pbd

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
791
And, if you are listening to P25 systems, go to site settings and try changing the threshold from auto to manual, start with a value of 8. Made a huge difference for me.
 

muskrat39

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
1,194
Location
north central Indiana
The muffled, bassy sound is the reason I sold my 536. I even used it upside down so the speaker was on top. Still was muffled and way too much bass. Bought a 1095, and now I'm happy. Btw, the HP2 does not have this problem, and it receives as well as my 536. A real sleeper in the Uniden stable
 

captainmax1

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
484
Location
Florida Keys
I've read several posts about sound quality with the 536 but have not experienced it myself. I own 3 536's and do not have a speaker/sound problem. Strange to read about it. I know some radio systems sound better than others and even the same radio types sound different when traveling in other areas. Anyway, no speaker problems on my 536's. FWIW
 

mciupa

DB Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Messages
6,886
You know you can modify the system hold time, right?

In Sentinel, it is defaulted at zero, so it will blow by everything in the scanlist.

For DMR, I've increased the Hold Time up to 5 seconds from zero in DMR trunk systems, I don't miss anything now.
You can do this for any trunk system flavor. :)
 

K1IWN

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
103
Location
Kennebunk, ME
I operate the 536 and the HP2 with SpectrumForce mag mount mobile antennas and see no difference in reception using those. Both are excellent for the price.

The 536 with the telescope antenna it came with is disappointing. I can say the same for my old 890 and models I had before that. I haven't even tried the rubber duck on the HP2, for the sole reason I am using that in my office and I have the mobile antenna affixed on the side of the steel building I work in.

Taste in sound is personal nature. I do like the crisp sound of the HP2, but I didn't think the 536 sounded muffled. Bassed? I can hear that. Since I put the BC15 on the unit (rear port, not front) I find that it's a bit sharper.

I am sure there is a logical explanation for design of the speaker on the bottom of the 536 (less dust to impact sound quality?) but I haven't been a fan of that design.

Anytime I buy a scanner, I look for an upgraded antenna and external speaker, because the OE tends to be a let down in those two all important areas.
 

kc2kth

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
407
Location
Toms River NJ
With the 536, or any non-portable scanner (or so intended by the manufacturer), why not add a nice external speaker with tone controls? Not only is it a nice upgrade and can sometimes be shared between devices (though not at the same time) it can be another cool gadget to play with in the shack. I still have my Grove SP-200 Sound Enhancer for just such use, although I don't use it as much as I probably could. Back in the CB days even the Radio Shack $20 external speakers were a huge improvement over the built in. I figure there is only so much room inside today's electronics and the speakers are likely always going to be a compromise.
 

dcisive

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2011
Messages
176
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
I'm using a old Radio Shack 21-643 speaker I used with my shack back in the 80's. It's sounds GREAT with the more than ample output power of the 536. At lower volumes the built in speaker sound fine actually, it's when it gets a bit louder things get a tad muffled. But of course that is because it's facing the bottom not the top. One oversight I'm really surprised Uniden opted for. I just loaded a ton of DMR stuff in my area and am slowly getting familiar with it. Love listening to the Digital Ham's.
 

muskrat39

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jan 29, 2015
Messages
1,194
Location
north central Indiana
With the 536, or any non-portable scanner (or so intended by the manufacturer), why not add a nice external speaker with tone controls? Not only is it a nice upgrade and can sometimes be shared between devices (though not at the same time) it can be another cool gadget to play with in the shack. I still have my Grove SP-200 Sound Enhancer for just such use, although I don't use it as much as I probably could. Back in the CB days even the Radio Shack $20 external speakers were a huge improvement over the built in. I figure there is only so much room inside today's electronics and the speakers are likely always going to be a compromise.
Yes, I could add an external speaker, but after paying almost $500 for the scanner, I didn't think I should have to. The audio circuit has too much bass and not enough treble. I even ran the scanner inverted so the speaker was on top, but it didn't help much. Bought a new 1095 for less than $350, and the audio is perfect, without a external speaker, as is my HP2. Yes, I know you can use external speakers, but that should be an option, not a necessity.
 

jonwienke

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
9,267
Location
PA
Speaker tone is pretty subjective. It's impossible to make everyone happy.
 

cellphone

Member
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 28, 2002
Messages
1,528
Location
Ahwatukee, AZ (Phoenix)
Speaker tone is pretty subjective. It's impossible to make everyone happy.


Agreed. I am opposite of the OP. I don't feel my BCD536HP needs an external speaker, but I have a GRE PSR-600 that I think sounds tinny. I use an external speaker for that radio to get a deeper tone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top