darticus
Member
Do the old ones pick up as good? Seems like my old rengency base that works great will not pick up like my newer BC246t Hand held. Anyone add to this. Maybe new is better. Ron
Old scanners Vs New scanners
- Thread starter darticus
- Start date
- Status
n5ims
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2004
- Messages
- 3,993
Yes and no. Old scanners may be more sensitive (pick up weak signals better) but may not be as selective (pick up strong signals that aren't on that frequency, but close to it). That worked well when there weren't as many signals, but may not work as well with signals on nearly all available band positions. Old scanners also may not pick up trunked systems and nearly no old scanners will pick up digital transmissions. One other thing that old scanners may have is a reduced capability due to aging components that may cause it to pick up worse than when it was new.
darticus
Member
It seems like the old one can't pick up slightly distant signals that the hand held can. Ron
old vs new
Your question is too broad. There are aspects of the older scanners that are better, and aspects of newer scanners that are better; but it depends on what you listen to and the specific scanners you are comparing.
I still run a couple of crystal-controlled older scanners. They consume more power to operate, are not as sensitive (but I have them connected to an outside antenna so that's not an issue), and can't scan as fast. The crystals drift off frequency over time and the scanner does not have CT/DC decoding (I strongly considered adding it).
The newer scanners can handle narrow-banding, are programmable, are rock solid on frequency, can trunk track, decode digital and lots more. But if you're just monitoring some old conventional VHF frequency, most of that does not matter.
Your question is too broad. There are aspects of the older scanners that are better, and aspects of newer scanners that are better; but it depends on what you listen to and the specific scanners you are comparing.
I still run a couple of crystal-controlled older scanners. They consume more power to operate, are not as sensitive (but I have them connected to an outside antenna so that's not an issue), and can't scan as fast. The crystals drift off frequency over time and the scanner does not have CT/DC decoding (I strongly considered adding it).
The newer scanners can handle narrow-banding, are programmable, are rock solid on frequency, can trunk track, decode digital and lots more. But if you're just monitoring some old conventional VHF frequency, most of that does not matter.
PHOENIX_SCANNER
Member
Sometimes I wax nostalgic about the "old days" of scanning. I think in particular of the early 90's when the police action in Phoenix was getting crazy, and most traffic was in the clear, all analog, and on VHF high. With a rooftop antenna mounted about 50' above the ground I could hear most things within about 10 miles. When the Pro-2006 and Pro-43 came out it was like a dream come true. Finally, there was enough intermod rejection to make a rooftop antenna comfortable to use, and there was enough sensitivity to pull in distant / weak signals. You could hear all of the "sensitive" stuff (great for scanner guys, not so good for cops), and hear all the cool car to car traffic. The Japanese electronics were and are superior to Chinese electronics when it comes to pulling in weaker signals, especially in VHF. You will be hard pressed to find a new scanner that can match the 2006 or 43 for milair, for example.
But then I have to be honest, and admit that though the new scanners don't have the amazing sensitivity of the Japanese scanners of old, they pack so many new and cool features that it probably makes up for it. Even though the Pro-2006 was a milestone in scanners, rejecting intermod like never before, without tone decoding, it still had intermod, and occasionally it was really annoying and loud. With today's scanners, whether in digital mode, or using a PL or DPL on conventional frequencies, those days are pretty much over. How nice it would have been to stamp out intermod back then. Scan speeds have also increased greatly, and this combined with tone decoding makes conventional scanning a much better experience overall. Though most things are 800mhz repeater systems now, this also means I hear both sides of the traffic that is non-encrypted, which I didn't always hear back then. This still includes most of the interesting stuff, though I sometimes do miss the more "sensitive" things I could hear back then. Alpha-tagging is also not often given the credit it deserves. With tons of frequencies / channels, it is awesome to have. If I had to do the program in my 106 by hand, I would probably go insane, and waste months. Computer programming is a Godsend, and this has to be considered. Attenuation PER CHANNEL, audio boost PER CHANNEL, as well as lighting and LED options add to the advantage new scanners hold.
On balance, we lost superior radio quality, but gained a world of technology and features that more than make up for it.
So what is one to do?
I just picked up a mint condition Pro-43 for milair (unbeatable), and enjoy my 106 and 197 for most other things. I can dial the squelch down for the 43 and hear things the new Chinese scanners are deaf to, but overall the new scanners just make a mockery of the 43 in terms of overall technology, when it comes to all but civilian and military air.
I do miss the "old days", but embrace the new technology at the same time.
But then I have to be honest, and admit that though the new scanners don't have the amazing sensitivity of the Japanese scanners of old, they pack so many new and cool features that it probably makes up for it. Even though the Pro-2006 was a milestone in scanners, rejecting intermod like never before, without tone decoding, it still had intermod, and occasionally it was really annoying and loud. With today's scanners, whether in digital mode, or using a PL or DPL on conventional frequencies, those days are pretty much over. How nice it would have been to stamp out intermod back then. Scan speeds have also increased greatly, and this combined with tone decoding makes conventional scanning a much better experience overall. Though most things are 800mhz repeater systems now, this also means I hear both sides of the traffic that is non-encrypted, which I didn't always hear back then. This still includes most of the interesting stuff, though I sometimes do miss the more "sensitive" things I could hear back then. Alpha-tagging is also not often given the credit it deserves. With tons of frequencies / channels, it is awesome to have. If I had to do the program in my 106 by hand, I would probably go insane, and waste months. Computer programming is a Godsend, and this has to be considered. Attenuation PER CHANNEL, audio boost PER CHANNEL, as well as lighting and LED options add to the advantage new scanners hold.
On balance, we lost superior radio quality, but gained a world of technology and features that more than make up for it.
So what is one to do?
I just picked up a mint condition Pro-43 for milair (unbeatable), and enjoy my 106 and 197 for most other things. I can dial the squelch down for the 43 and hear things the new Chinese scanners are deaf to, but overall the new scanners just make a mockery of the 43 in terms of overall technology, when it comes to all but civilian and military air.
I do miss the "old days", but embrace the new technology at the same time.
What is old
I'd totally disagree with that statement. No feature can make up for performance because if you don't have the performance, the feature is useless.
The OP didn't really specify what he meant by "old scanners". To some the PSR-400 is old because it is not specifically narrowband and the 410 replaces it. To others the PRO-43 is old as it is no longer sold new. To me those are somewhat new scanners because they are programmable. Old means crystal controlled or tunable.
darticus
Member
Lets say old is the 20 year old variety. Ron
abear27
Member
I remember my Pro-2006 ... What a great piece of equipment that was. 
smason
Member
Well my 2006 greatly outperforms my PSR600, but one "feature" of the 600 is P25.
Not useless at all
PHOENIX_SCANNER
Member
And that was sort of what I was thinking. Don't get me wrong, as I remember the original scanners with crystals, and I owned them. But they could surpass a Pro-2006 in NO way, so I chose to define old as the 2006, the first scanner that really did everything the old scanners did just as well, while adding a wide range of new features. I'm not sure any scanner since fits that bill.
I realize everything is relative.
Allan_Love_Jr
Member
The Radio Shack Pro-135 picks up weak signals way better than the newer junk Scanners of today. It is my #1 favorite Scanner.
scannercollector
Member
Old Regency Scanner
When I was growing up there was a Regency scanner at my grandparents house, so for no other reason (at the time), I picked it up for nostalgia to keep it from being thrown away. Turns out they were made here in Indy. Other than finding the crystals being a pain in the a__, it does amazingly well. We've been going out to my parents place at the lake every weekend, and it seems a tornado has passed within 5 miles of us each time we went, so I decided to clean up that old Regency since I knew it had a weatherband crystal in it, and leave it at the lake for when we're there. One thing I had to do was pop the cover off and adjust a variable resistor that "tuned" the antenna (I have no idea if it actually did this, but it went from average/static-y to amazing reception in 2 turns - and it's connected to the antenna via the board). It picks up the few frequencies I can get on it far better than any of my newer programmable and digital scanners;. So I guess if you listen to the same few frequencies all the time, you couldnt go wrong, this thing has been doing it daily since 1974, and I doubt any uniden or radio shack modern scanner could come close to that. I've heard the crystals can go out of tune, I don't know the age of the crystals inside.
If anyone on here knows how I could find some specific (skywarn repeater) frequency crystals in 10.7, please let me know! Every place that carries them skips straight from the 40.xx mhz to 150.xx mhz, and the crystals I need are mainly in the 140 range (145.xx & 146.xx I think)
Eric
When I was growing up there was a Regency scanner at my grandparents house, so for no other reason (at the time), I picked it up for nostalgia to keep it from being thrown away. Turns out they were made here in Indy. Other than finding the crystals being a pain in the a__, it does amazingly well. We've been going out to my parents place at the lake every weekend, and it seems a tornado has passed within 5 miles of us each time we went, so I decided to clean up that old Regency since I knew it had a weatherband crystal in it, and leave it at the lake for when we're there. One thing I had to do was pop the cover off and adjust a variable resistor that "tuned" the antenna (I have no idea if it actually did this, but it went from average/static-y to amazing reception in 2 turns - and it's connected to the antenna via the board). It picks up the few frequencies I can get on it far better than any of my newer programmable and digital scanners;. So I guess if you listen to the same few frequencies all the time, you couldnt go wrong, this thing has been doing it daily since 1974, and I doubt any uniden or radio shack modern scanner could come close to that. I've heard the crystals can go out of tune, I don't know the age of the crystals inside.
If anyone on here knows how I could find some specific (skywarn repeater) frequency crystals in 10.7, please let me know! Every place that carries them skips straight from the 40.xx mhz to 150.xx mhz, and the crystals I need are mainly in the 140 range (145.xx & 146.xx I think)
Eric
cbucca
Newbie
years ago i ordered some crystals from a company called Jan Crystals. They seem to still be around, as i saw a website. Blank page Give 'em a try, all you have to lose is a phone call or email.
Colin
Colin
AC2OY
Member
I have a Pro-2004 and my Grandmother fo this day still turns her Pro-2022? On to this day. I imagine if I knew what I was doing and programmed all the covential frequencies in the rightway I cohlx hear everything.
One reason older crystal scanners can sound so much better is what's called 'phase noise' in the synthesizer. It superimposes it's own noise on all signals received by the scanner, so even a hugely strong signal never fully quiets. Crystal oscillators can be extremely quiet, so far as phase noise goes, so the impression is that they appear more sensitive.
Crystals age. Generally, at some point the aging process nearly stops and the crystals become quite stable. In a high quality crystal, the manufacturer will have compensated for this when the crystal is made, so when it's fully aged, it's very close to the desired frequency.
Call International Crystal Manufacturing in Oklahoma. They make the highest quality crystal that's readily available. You tell them the receive frequency you want, and the make and model of the radio you want it for, and they figure out the rest.
PHOENIX_SCANNER
Member
I just did a bit for head to head testing of the 18 year old Pro-43 vs. GRE's current top of the line scanner (Pro-106 in this case), and found the overall sensitivity to be similar, with an edge to the Pro-43 in VHF and UHF, and the Pro-43 catching more of the beginning of the transmissions (breaking squelch quicker), and I was running both with no tone decoding. With open squelch the sound coming from the Pro-43 is milder and much more tolerable also.
It would appear the Japanese got it right 18 years ago, and the Chinese haven't quite matched receiver quality quite yet, based on my informal little test.
It would appear the Japanese got it right 18 years ago, and the Chinese haven't quite matched receiver quality quite yet, based on my informal little test.
One of the reasons I kept the old scanners is because they were in my grandparent's house when I was growing up, the other is because the Regency and the Bearcat were made 15 minutes north of me in Indianapolis. It seems once you get older than a certain date, nearly all of the scanners I've seen were made in Indy.
PHOENIX_SCANNER
Member
Eric, I grew up outside of Indy and also grew up around the old Bearcat crystal scanners made nearby. I agree about the nostalgia factor. I actually would like to find one and restore it just to add to the collection.
After doing some comparison testing in the past few days I can say my BC780 XLT, while not really "old", is a better radio than any of the new digital scanners (other than lacking the bells and whistles of course). And some of those bells and whistles are pretty darn handy. For instance, on a new GRE or Uniden scanner, tone decoding happens NOW. Even on the previous generations like the 780 that had tone decoding, it was SLOW. I could not live without my state of the art scanners, but also have a place in my shack for the classics, and a few more empty slots for a Pro-2006 and maybe a Bearcat 3.
After doing some comparison testing in the past few days I can say my BC780 XLT, while not really "old", is a better radio than any of the new digital scanners (other than lacking the bells and whistles of course). And some of those bells and whistles are pretty darn handy. For instance, on a new GRE or Uniden scanner, tone decoding happens NOW. Even on the previous generations like the 780 that had tone decoding, it was SLOW. I could not live without my state of the art scanners, but also have a place in my shack for the classics, and a few more empty slots for a Pro-2006 and maybe a Bearcat 3.
- Status
Similar threads
