not impressed by new 536

[SOFA_KING]

Dump it!

Just kidding, but Uniden doesn't care to get audio right. Analog is too weak and thin, and digital too boomy and muffled. WTF? You don't need to hire a "sound engineer" or anything to get this right! You just need to LISTEN and make changes to the prototype design before you go to full-scale production. Really... Not that difficult... If you even care, which may be the problem. I don't think they do care. That's why "it is what it is". More and more this is becoming the complacency position that people have come to accept. But there is hope when people take notice and speak out. So, maybe next time they'll do better.

My bigger issue with my x36 scanners are missed transmissions. Either they scan too slow, or they are not catching the RF when it's there. I think the problem is not enough speed. And no, it's not some setting(s) I overlooked. I'm well familiar with every detail of all the settings. The x36 scanners are slower than just about every other top or mid level scanner. Even my HP is much faster! So what is up with this x36 that makes it so slow? That's what I'd like fixed, if it can be fixed...even before the " woofy" muffled digital audio.

Phil

 

[jonwienke]

Dump it!

Just kidding, but Uniden doesn't care to get audio right. Analog is too weak and thin, and digital too boomy and muffled. WTF? You don't need to hire a "sound engineer" or anything to get this right! You just need to LISTEN and make changes to the prototype design before you go to full-scale production.

Sorry, but if you were an actual sound engineer you might have an idea how stupid this statement is. Sound EQ varies by mic brand and design, all analog components in the radio, the analog-to digital converter, digital-to-analog converter, as well as the the rolloff curve of the low-cut filter in analog FM, (to allow CTCSS/DCS to work correctly), and for digital, the digital codec used and pre-emphasis curve used by the codec. When you're scanning, you're listening to dozens, perhaps hundreds of permutations of these parameters.

It's a lot of work to get EQ right when you're using professional-grade microphones and speakers that cost individually as much as or more than an entire radio. Expecting EQ to be perfect in all cases when you're listening to random combinations of lower-quality components, each with their own non-linear EQ curve, is impossible and ridiculous. It's not that Uniden doesn't care, it's that they have to make a best-guess average of the EQs of thousands of possible permutations of microphones, repeaters, user radios, and digital and analog modulation schemes, and match that to a best-guess average of the EQ preferences of their customers. The best you can hope for is to get a reasonably close match for the majority of radio permutations and users. But by definition, it's impossible to make everyone happy unless you add a multiband EQ with parameters you can set on a per-channel basis. And even that won't work 100% on channels where different brands of radios with differing EQ characteristics are used.

 

[dcisive]

Now you're talkin my language. I had a couple of recording studios and as a musician over the last 54 years recorded 2 Indi albums as well as recordings done to copywrite 18 songs written in the 60's and 70's. I had some superb top line gear so know all about getting the sound "right". I was also very into communications receivers back in the 80's into the early 90's having a separate room setup with all my radio gear and such.

Filters are perhaps the fastest and easiest way to achieve what you're desiring to get out of the different types of transmissions. However you are NOT going to see that on a consumer handheld radio like the Uniden's. Kenwood and Icom offer it on their DMR and D Star radios but as I say it's just NOT likely something of interest to Uniden and scanner listening types of experience. You can however pick up some external speakers that have filters built in as they are designed largely for the Ham and serious Communications receivers. Plan on dropping some money on them however, they aren't cheap. It's a start. But for the most part I think Uniden's speakers are ok. The 536 is muffled a tad ONLY due to the fact it points down and will reflect off of whatever surface it is on. It's obvious the speaker itself isn't at fault as if you raise the unit so the bottom faces you, it sounds GREAT and very accurate, but alas this isn't how it's going to be situation on a desk for example. So in my case I am using a Realistic communications speaker from back in my 80's days of doing this. It actually sounds outstanding. Clear, never boomy and highly intelligible. The right external speaker frankly can take care of about all one's needs regarding getting the right sound. This little Realistic one from Radio Shack sure does the job. I suspect the Uniden offerings will as well. Unless you have a bug about an external speaker they should do the trick. I found the internal speaker in my tiny Icom IC-R2 is astoundingly superb. It's perhaps about the size of if not smaller than a 436's but superbly clear and rich for such a tiny thing. So perhaps Uniden could have done a bit finer job on that speaker if they so desired. I haven't heard one in person so i can't say it's not that good. I'm thinking of adding a 436 to my shack for portable desires. So far my 536 is sure doing the job, and knowing the 436 will be it's portable brother is encouraging. I'm not getting too bent out of shape over the mysterious so called loss of sensitivity reported by "some" regarding the battery compartment requiring the gerry rigged fix of copper tape and all. I've got some great SMA and BNC portable antennas so at the very least improvements over the stock duck can be made immediately. We shall see........sorry for the rambling......

 

[QRFactual]

I've been using Uniden scanners going back to the 780XLT. I like them. Now granted I haven't ventured out and tried any other brand like Whistler or GRE...so I can't speak to their quality. Right now I'm driving a 2015 F-150 and needed to put a scanner in it somewhere. At first I went with the HP2 because of its size, but once I purchased a 536, I knew that had to be in my truck. I found a way to mount it and I'm using a Larsen NMO 150/450/800 antenna mounted to a homemade bracket on my back rack. I had this antenna connected to the HP2 prior to the 536. The 536 is picking up WAY MORE that my HP2 was receiving. So far I am loving the 536!!!!

 

[SOFA_KING]

Sorry, but if you were an actual sound engineer you might have an idea how stupid this statement is. Sound EQ varies by mic brand and design, all analog components in the radio, the analog-to digital converter, digital-to-analog converter, as well as the the rolloff curve of the low-cut filter in analog FM, (to allow CTCSS/DCS to work correctly), and for digital, the digital codec used and pre-emphasis curve used by the codec. When you're scanning, you're listening to dozens, perhaps hundreds of permutations of these parameters.

It's a lot of work to get EQ right when you're using professional-grade microphones and speakers that cost individually as much as or more than an entire radio. Expecting EQ to be perfect in all cases when you're listening to random combinations of lower-quality components, each with their own non-linear EQ curve, is impossible and ridiculous. It's not that Uniden doesn't care, it's that they have to make a best-guess average of the EQs of thousands of possible permutations of microphones, repeaters, user radios, and digital and analog modulation schemes, and match that to a best-guess average of the EQ preferences of their customers. The best you can hope for is to get a reasonably close match for the majority of radio permutations and users. But by definition, it's impossible to make everyone happy unless you add a multiband EQ with parameters you can set on a per-channel basis. And even that won't work 100% on channels where different brands of radios with differing EQ characteristics are use.

What a total load of crap. Just utterly nonsense.

Actually, I am an audio engineer, and have worked professionally in both the studio recording environment and live sound design. I have also designed and built theater line array systems complete with large subs, automated mixing consoles and custom built 40 mic wireless with diversity RF antenna distribution systems. Acoustic tile placement to reduce standing waves, and pink noised rooms to eq them flat. And I have also redesigned two-way radio audio stages to custom tailor receiver audio post discriminator (post PL and DPL...where that all takes place on FLAT audio), and know just how easy it is to change a few capacitors here and there to get a suitable audio passband. Not at all hard if you REALLY know what you are talking about...which you demonstrate you don't. All the audio amplifier tone shaping is post signalling and digital decoding. No "eq" and no microphones. Besides, you can't eq frequencies back in that were already filtered out. These two things (studio/live sound and radio audio amplifier tone shaping) are not even related! Just amazing how much you demonstrate how little you know about simple basic receiver design, and how it actually works..

Instead of trying to discredit other people on this forum, spend some time truly learning radio and audio circuit theory. Then apply it on real radios. You might actually understand why your post was nonsense.

 

[jonwienke]

I have similar audio experience with both live and recorded audio.

I never said anything about EQing frequencies in after they have been filtered out. How about arguing what I actually said, not crap you made up.

And audio EQ is audio EQ. Every analog audio device, be it a microphone, speaker, amplifier, filter, modulator, or demodulator, has its own frequency response curve. In high-end pro audio gear, those frequency response curves tend to be pretty flat. In lower cost gear, not so much, especially mics and speakers. The net EQ for a radio system is the product of the freq response curves of the mic, audio preamp, and modulator of the transmitting radio, and the response curves of the demodulator, audio amp, and speaker of the receiving radio. Every one of those response curves has an equal effect on the net output curve, except for the portions that are filtered out completely somewhere in the process. Both analog and digital modulations filter audio >5KHz. Analog filters out everything <300Hz or so to facilitate CTCSS/DCS, while with digital modulation, low-freq cut off is usually below 100Hz because audible tones are not used for squelch. But every transmitted audio frequency between these limits is affected by at least 6 frequency response curves--more if the signal goes through an analog repeater.

 

[Ubbe]

The HP1 (and HP2), when the service mode access finally where revealed, have an audio equalizer setting that can be tweaked to own prefered settings. I don't know how the HP2s setting are done, if they are independently set for analog and digital, but there must be a service mode in the x36HP series and that might have settings that could cure some of the muffled digital audio problem.

These service mode settings can probably not be set remotly by an upgrade.

/Ubbe

 

[jonwienke]

but there must be a service mode in the x36HP series and that might have settings that could cure some of the muffled digital audio problem.

That doesn't solve the issue of multiple brands and models of radio gear, each with its own audio frequency response curve. Also the root of digital sounding "muffled" is based on the fact that the lower cutoff frequency for digital modulation is below 100Hz. For analog, the cutoff is about 300Hz to accommodate CTCSS tones. Human voice has frequency components down to about 100Hz, which is why many mixer boards have a push-button 100Hz low-cut filter on each channel to block mic wind noise and breath pops from Ps and Ts.

Analog FM cuts off part of the voice frequency spectrum to accommodate CTCSS tones. Digital does not. As such, analog FM is always going to sound colder than digital. You could raise the digital low-frequency cutoff to 300Hz to match analog FM, but then you're cutting off part of the voice spectrum for no reason other than continuing an audio compromise beyond the need to do it.

 

[Ubbe]

The EQ in my HP1 says treble gain and bass gain. There is a second row of treble/bass with empty values that I guess is the digital audio in HP2. The treble cut off freq are set in another screen and deafult says 5KHz and bass 250Hz. Inceasing treble level or decrease bass seems like a reasonable thing to do to digital audio in x36HP.

There is also an ALC, audio level control, that can be adjusted for different levels and attack/release times together with a limiter attach/release times and noise gate, 4ch mixer for analog/digital audio adjustments. A full blown audio proccessor in the HP1.

/Ubbe

 

[SOFA_KING]

The EQ in my HP1 says treble gain and bass gain. There is a second row of treble/bass with empty values that I guess is the digital audio in HP2. The treble cut off freq are set in another screen and deafult says 5KHz and bass 250Hz. Inceasing treble level or decrease bass seems like a reasonable thing to do to digital audio in x36HP.

There is also an ALC, audio level control, that can be adjusted for different levels and attack/release times together with a limiter attach/release times and noise gate, 4ch mixer for analog/digital audio adjustments. A full blown audio proccessor in the HP1.

/Ubbe

Now THAT is some useful information! I didn't hear about that service menu. Can you actually change the values? Indeed, if you can change separate settings for analog and digital, you could probably solve the issue. That would make me a whole lot happier.

As far as a high pass filter cutoff point to filter out PL, that's a non-issue for most scanner listeners. And depending on the slope of the cutoff it may or may not be as effective as one might desire. A sharp cutoff at 250 Hz would be good, but a soft roll off not as good. Digital? Adjust to taste.

So, we need to find the service menu on the 536. Anyone have any clues on that? If they did one on the HP, I would have to believe the also did one on the x36 models. There still might be other fixed hardware tone limitation factors, but at least we would have some flexibility.

Phil

 

[alphaacres]

Hidden Menu Test Screens in the BCD436HP & BCD536HP

WARNING: Some of these cause the scanner to lock up, just remove a battery and reinstall it and turn it back on. Make sure your scanner is backed up before you do any of this.
Turn the 536 off then on to reset may say nothing to scan just Write data to scanner. (As always test at your own risk)

Press and hold 2, 0 and on--Birdie Search 5K steps
Press and hold 3, 0 and on--Key Touch Test/Headphone
Press and hold 1, 0, Yes and on CAUTION THIS IS ALL MEMORY CLEAR
Press and hold 9, Chan and on--Clock Test
Press and hold 4, Chan, and on--Tone Out Stand By Tone out 1 163.400 CH:1 NFM A:300Hz B:3000 Hz
Press and hold 3, Chan and on--Boots up no LCD screen
Press and hold 2, Chan and on--LCD Contrast ADJ test
Press and hold 1, Chan and on Checker Board screen Press a key and switch to key touch/headphone
Press and hold 1, Dept and on--USB Serial Test
Press and hold 3, Dept and on --LCD Contrast Adjust Test
Press and hold 1, Syst and on--Close Call Test
Press and hold 2, Sys and on--USB Serial Test
Press and hold 3, Syst and on--Checker Board LCD
Press and hold 4, Syst and on--Search Test 5K steps hit syst or dept to change step sizes
Press and hold 6, syst and on--TOne Out Standby
Press and hold 7, Syst and on--Trunking Test 1 Moto, 2 EDACS Wide, 3 EDACS Narrow, 4 LTR
1 Motorola--Displays 851.0125 CTRL press DEPT changes to VOICE SYS changes back to CTRL Avoid changes to LSD Press Menu to go back to Trunking Test Menu
2. EDACS Wide Displays 851.0125 CT, Dept changes to VC, System changes back to CT
3. EDCAS Narrow, displays 894.0125 same changes as above
4. LTR displays 851.0125------
Press and hold 8, Syst and on NWR-SAME TEST 162.400 Press Dept to change to WX Alert Test---Turn off and turn on holding on and it boots up to Monitor Weather-Turn dial to change stations
Press 0 and Syst and on--Load Test Data
Press and hold 3, 9 and on Scan Rate Test
Press and hold 5, 9 and on Software Version Test

Thank You Les
W8MSP Amateur Radio
WQNJ567 GMRS

To make a Debug log file:
1) Power up while holding AVOID.(adds Set Debug Log Mode to settings)
2) MENU --> SETTINGS --> Set Debug Log Mode --> SD Card File
3) Monitor for a bit (a minute or two is plenty).
4) MENU --> SETTINGS --> Set Debug Log Mode --> Off
5) File is in the debug directory on the SD card.

 

[Ubbe]

5+chan WiFi test AP
6+chan WiFi test client

But the audio parameters seems to be missing. The BCT15 had a two step access to ALC parameters,
that you hold on to one button when powering on and then another button when start display where showing.

/Ubbe

 

[SOFA_KING]

Cool info. Thanks.

Unfortunately no audio adjustments.

Phil

 

[SCPD]

Yep

What a total load of crap. Just utterly nonsense.

Actually, I am an audio engineer, and have worked professionally in both the studio recording environment and live sound design. I have also designed and built theater line array systems complete with large subs, automated mixing consoles and custom built 40 mic wireless with diversity RF antenna distribution systems. Acoustic tile placement to reduce standing waves, and pink noised rooms to eq them flat. And I have also redesigned two-way radio audio stages to custom tailor receiver audio post discriminator (post PL and DPL...where that all takes place on FLAT audio), and know just how easy it is to change a few capacitors here and there to get a suitable audio passband. Not at all hard if you REALLY know what you are talking about...which you demonstrate you don't. All the audio amplifier tone shaping is post signalling and digital decoding. No "eq" and no microphones. Besides, you can't eq frequencies back in that were already filtered out. These two things (studio/live sound and radio audio amplifier tone shaping) are not even related! Just amazing how much you demonstrate how little you know about simple basic receiver design, and how it actually works..

Instead of trying to discredit other people on this forum, spend some time truly learning radio and audio circuit theory. Then apply it on real radios. You might actually understand why your post was nonsense.

I agree with SOFAKING,jonwienke needs to dial it back a notch,stop being so argumentive and try helping people instead.Saying the guy is an idiot doesnt help things he just bought a scanner he doesnt like,its like throwing salt in his wounds.
My advice is get an external speaker and try it,it wont be that much of a difference though.The Whistler 1098 maybe a better pick for you or a Uniden 996P2,or 436HP.I think the 436hp sounds better.

 

[jonwienke]

And nothing he said could possibly construed as insulting or demeaning or whatever...

 

[TailGator911]

Quite a bit of useful info on this thread, especially those test shortcut keys - great stuff! I used to own one of those Grove SP-200 Audio Enhancers and loved it! If I saw one on eBay or here for sale I would snatch it up in a heartbeat, loved that speaker. Years ago, down in Kissimmee, FL, I put alot of stuff in storage when I went on the road (worked as a touring professional bassist for years b4 trucking) and my storage unit (as well as 15-20 others) was burglarized in 2002. Lost most of my ham stuff and guitars, sound systems, etc. That was a hard one. But, when I got around to replacing things and rebuilding my ham shack the Grove SP-200 was discontinued and man I sure missed that little box. Had a 1/8" stereo/mono patch bay ran into it where I could toggle my radios in and out. Big sound in the shack!! Even the HH BC200xlt sounded awesome when I ran the audio thru that SP-200 - someone should manufacture a clone of the Grove SP-200. Bet they would sell like hotcakes in a greasy diner

73s
JD

 

[kevOps2016]

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.

What is a good range 15 miles or 30 miles etc... ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Nozzleman71]

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.

I'm not familiar with the DMR system but my area uses p25 phase 2 systems now. What would you recommend setting the hold at for that style system? It seems sometimes I'm missing some of the transmissions. Thanks

 

[K1IWN]

What is a good range 15 miles or 30 miles etc... ?

It all depends on your antenna set up (indoor/outdoor) and what you want to hear.

I have mine maxed at 50, but I am using my own favorite lists, rather than the database.

I found that the full database brought in more than what I wanted, with distant broken signals tripping me up from listening to what I wanted to hear.

I had to play around, created several lists and fine tuned them in order to hear what I wanted.

With my 436 which I use in my car, I set that up by department off the database and use that. Since I am using GPS, it changes constantly as I travel. I am impressed with it. I set the range to 10, which gives me real local traffic I am looking for as I drive down the road. It works like a charm.

 

[kevOps2016]

It all depends on your antenna set up (indoor/outdoor) and what you want to hear.



I have mine maxed at 50, but I am using my own favorite lists, rather than the database.



I found that the full database brought in more than what I wanted, with distant broken signals tripping me up from listening to what I wanted to hear.



I had to play around, created several lists and fine tuned them in order to hear what I wanted.



With my 436 which I use in my car, I set that up by department off the database and use that. Since I am using GPS, it changes constantly as I travel. I am impressed with it. I set the range to 10, which gives me real local traffic I am looking for as I drive down the road. It works like a charm.

Thanks for that info I am going to play around with the range. I have left it at the default setting since unboxing the scanner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro