Pro-106/197 vs Pro 96/2096 - my tests

[Ayrow]

BEFORE I START THIS REVIEW, I want to make it clear that I am simply posting this because, at the the time I was looking to buy/upgrade to the Pro-197 from the 2096, I could not find the specific onformation I wanted, anywhere, on how these scanners directly compared as far as performance.

This post is in the hopes that I can help others who will surely have the same questions I did about these two scanners. These are only my personal observations when testing these two scanners, side by side, in very similar conditions with the exact same antennas and location.

If you disagree or have experienced different results, please do not flame me. I did the best I could to keep everything consitent, fair, and scientific (to a point).

THE PROBLEM:
In Indianapolis, IN, our communications system went fully digital earlier this year (Motorola Project 25 APCO-25).

Anybody who lives in the area will tell you it has been somewhat diffcult to receive clear transmissions from this system, especially if you live on the Northwest side of the city where the television/radio towers reside.

I have been using a Pro-96 and a 2096 that I have run through every setting/programming imaginable and still much of the traffic comes across garbled. For the most part it is usually understandable, but it gets pretty bad sometimes.
There have been many solutions suggested such as using directional attennas, unsing ATT, etc...

Nothing has been a pefect solution.

I was excited when the PRO-197/106 were announced since they were supposed to be the end of garbled transmissions. I bought one of each to put through tests and downloaded WIN500 to program them accordingly.

THE TESTS
- The tests were based on side-by-side comparisons on the ability to receive and understand the Indianapolis MECA digital system. CONV. FREQUENCIES WERE NOT TESTED.

- I imported the settings from the pro-96/2096 into the PRO-197/106 and had them run side-by-side to see what would happen and how they compared.

- Just to be safe, I also started from scratch on the PRO-197/106 and programmed everything in by hand

- As suggested on other threads, I changed settings such as Supertrack, ATT, and MultiSite mode to improve reception throughout the tests and recorded the results.

All of the above was done for several hours over the course of several days.
I also performed the tests with my FD issued 5w radio on hand so I could hear everything I was missing in case both scanners failed.

RESULTS
In all of my tests, the PRO-96 and 2096 out-performed the Pro-197 and 106 in receiving digital transmissions from the Indianapolis system, hands down.

Lets be clear that when considering the features, the PRO-197/106 wins, hands-down. The multi-colored LED, the alert sounds, and the overall memory and depth of the PRO-197/106 make it a dream to use compared to the PRO 96/2096.
However, on the occasions where the PRO-96/2096 would receive garbled, yet usually understandable radio traffic, the PRO-197/106 would sometimes simply not receive anything, or play a small section of the transmission and then cut it off completely. All-in-all, the PRO-197/106 would only play about 50% of the traffic that the PRO-96/2096 was capturing.

The most surprising thing to me was that during one particular incident, most of the OPS Channel traffic was completely missed by the PRO-197/106. On the PRO-96/2096, it was garbled, but at least being received.

I repeated the tests with different antennas, different general locations in my area, and every different GLOBAL setting you can imagine, not to mention individual settings within the programming channels such as SmartTrack ON/OFF, ATT ON/OFF, MultiSite Mode OFF/ROAM/STAT. Although some settings were better than others, none resulted in better performance than the PRO-96/2096.

AGAIN, as I mentioned early on, these are my personal results based on a relatively quick set of tests.

I am sure there will be comments to the contrary, but hopefully this information will help someone out.

-Tod
PhotoTac.com

 

[jeffkraussws]

The Pro-106/197 have the reputation for sensitivity to front end overload and intermod interference from nearby FM radio stations. Could those have affected your results?

 

[Ayrow]

The Pro-106/197 have the reputation for sensitivity to front end overload and intermod interference from nearby FM radio stations. Could those have affected your results?

I'm sure that's a posibility. That's why I was clear about my location in my review. There are a lot of folks like me in this area that are dealing with the reception issue, whatever the cause might be.

 

[jeffkraussws]

I'm sure that's a posibility. That's why I was clear about my location in my review. There are a lot of folks like me in this area that are dealing with the reception issue, whatever the cause might be.

Actually, you weren't very clear about your testing location(s).....or maybe I missed it.
What was the test location distance from the MECA transmitter site?
And what about FM radio station transmitters? Were any within 10 miles?
Did you insert attenuation ATT in the scanner?

 

[djl998]

So all of these tests were performed in different locations around the NW side ? Out of curiosity, have you used the 197/106 in other parts of the city and gotten different results?

 

[iMONITOR]

My results in S.E. Michigan, Macomb County, were completely opposite. The PRO-106/197 outperformed the PRO-96/2096 without question. Macomb County is a simulcast P25 system which can be difficult at times, but results with the newer Radio Shack scanners were very impressive!

 

[olliebird]

P-106

Hey Ayrow, I live in Columbus and I had to L/O Dist. 52 which is the State Police Post from somewhere up around Indy, too much going on up there. I am having pretty good luck with my 106 down here.

 

[rdale]

olliebird - I'm not sure you can hear MECA from Columbus?

"- As suggested on other threads, I changed settings such as Supertrack, ATT, and MultiSite mode to improve reception throughout the tests and recorded the results."

You left multisite to OFF and only use one control channel, correct? Anything else would skew the results AGAINST the 106/197.

 

[olliebird]

olliebird - I'm not sure you can hear MECA from Columbus?

"- As suggested on other threads, I changed settings such as Supertrack, ATT, and MultiSite mode to improve reception throughout the tests and recorded the results."

You left multisite to OFF and only use one control channel, correct? Anything else would skew the results AGAINST the 106/197.

I just went in and unlocked the District 52 freq. and did receive a transmission from them, it was a car to base and the base replied. I have no idea what MECA is , not that well versed in this kind of "stuff" although I have had a scanner of some type for over 20 yrs...

 

[Ayrow]

Actually, you weren't very clear about your testing location(s).....or maybe I missed it.
What was the test location distance from the MECA transmitter site?
And what about FM radio station transmitters? Were any within 10 miles?
Did you insert attenuation ATT in the scanner?

Again, these specifics are not important as I was simply reporting on the general performance of these two scanners under the exact same circumstances/location.
Yes, ATT was used on and off. Please read what I wrote.

So all of these tests were performed in different locations around the NW side ? Out of curiosity, have you used the 197/106 in other parts of the city and gotten different results?

No, I didn't leave the NW side. I am sure the results would certainly be different in different parts of the city.
It is also worth noting that my PRO-96 and 2096 have no trouble receiving Indy's MECA system in other parts of the city, with some possible minor exceptions.

My results in S.E. Michigan, Macomb County, were completely opposite. The PRO-106/197 outperformed the PRO-96/2096 without question. Macomb County is a simulcast P25 system which can be difficult at times, but results with the newer Radio Shack scanners were very impressive!

Please understand that in my opening comments I am in no way saying the the Pro-197/106 is an inferior scanner. I am simply stating the results I had under my particular conditions. I know that there are others struggling with conditions like mine and I felt it was important to share my results when these scanner have to be pushed to a difficult limit.

 

[djl998]

Please understand that in my opening comments I am in no way saying the the Pro-197/106 is an inferior scanner. I am simply stating the results I had under my particular conditions. I know that there are others struggling with conditions like mine and I felt it was important to share my results when these scanner have to be pushed to a difficult limit.

Understood. I'm sure many people will appreciate you taking the time to do this and share your results.

 

[tjoselyn]

I live in minnesota about 20 miles north of the twin cities. I bought the pro 106 on christmas eve and i tried 3 different antennas with bad results with the pro 106. barely could pick anything up with the pro 106.. I traded it in today for the pro 2096 and i tell you there is a big difference.. with the pro 2096 i picked up EVERTHING now with little garble.. I am going to buy a yaqeu tomorrow . i was using a maxrad outdoor 80 mhz antenna.. My advice...stay away from the pro 106 and get the pro 2096

 

[brentoli]

Tod, did you, or would you be interested in, doing a test with SAFE-T as well?

 

[PHOENIX_SCANNER]

I don't doubt you. Its amazing how different scanners work differently for different people, in different situations. It never fails to amaze me.

In my extensive testing, the 96 and 2096 we easily outperformed by the 396, the 966, the 500, the 600, and the pro-106 and pro-197, no contest. The 96 / 2096 were completely confused by the PRWN simulcast system, and mostly just played garbled noise.

But once again, this shows why a serious scanner guy buys them all, and keeps what works best, selling the losers on ebay or whatever, at a slight loss. Its the price you pay for having the best tools for your particular situation. Sadly, not everyone can afford to do this, and these poor souls are probably totally confused by the conflicting reports.

Oh, and one last thing. If you want to get good reception in a simulcast system, the worst digital radio with a yagi beats the best radio with a omni antenna, something to bear in mind if you are in this situation.

 

[Ayrow]

Tod, did you, or would you be interested in, doing a test with SAFE-T as well?

I have to be honest (and a little embarassed to admit), I don't have the SAFE-T system programmed at all. The departments that I work for are all on the Indiana MECA system, so I have no need to have SAFE-T programmed in my scanners. (Truth be told, the only reason I use scanners at all is so that I don't have to have my department-issued radio on all of the time. The battery life on these things is horrible, as many of you know).
My other concern is that it might be hard for me to conduct a test to begin with since the surrounding communities that are on the SAFE-T system are not normally busy enough that I would have consitent radio traffic for a comparison.

:-(

 

[brentoli]

No problem at all. I am just getting closer and closer to buying a digital (don't tell my wife) and i figure I might be able to find some cheaper 96's with the 106 being out now...

 

[ind224]

P25 decoders are very sensitive animals. My 96 worked very well base as well as mobile with rarely a drop out all across the city.
My 106 works very well but I do toggle the "all CC's' if reception changes something not required nor available on the 96
Today I went to the new airport terminal and had great airport reception on the 2045 with a 77 in the cab of my pick up but the 106 went silent on both MECA and SAFE T on top of the garage viewing 23R. I should have taken a picture of the lighting attractors on the light poles...they look like a discone with a finger in the light socket!!
Telescopic and my low profile externally mounted Antennex both got nothing. Was there about 1/2 an hour and never heard anything from MECA; decode showed as low as 51% and as high as 68% checking all 4 CC.
Should see a new discone this week and it is going on the truck. I want to feed all radios via my Electroline amp/splitter and will go back to the same spot.

 

[RoninJoliet]

Here in ILL on the new Starcom 700/800 Digital State PD system the RS197 works flawless at my location on the south side suburb of Chicago on the 700 and 800 towers...Im using a Channel Master 5094A triband (disc-by CM) with 9913 coax up 35'...I have the same antenna on my 2096 only using RG8U on that ...The 2096 does very well on the 800 but has a few machinegunning sounds where i do not hear any machinegunning on the RS197....I also have the GRE500 H/H and connected to the first CM antenna mentioned actually had more dropouts than the RS197....There suppose to be the same radio but comparing them with a few other scanner friends we agree that the RS197 actually is somewhat "better" than the same made GRE....Excellent review's on here from other posters, i never rip others, i appreciate there input.....Thank You

 

[jerk]

No problem at all. I am just getting closer and closer to buying a digital (don't tell my wife) and i figure I might be able to find some cheaper 96's with the 106 being out now...

Get the pro-106, it will be worth it.
Not sure this study has much validity, especially going in, he said he expected problems on the "location" chosen or he "heard" there has been some.
Second, they were not programmed identically or operated identically.
IMHO

 

[Ayrow]

Get the pro-106, it will be worth it.
Not sure this study has much validity, especially going in, he said he expected problems on the "location" chosen or he "heard" there has been some.
Second, they were not programmed identically or operated identically.
IMHO

Actually, they were indeed programed the same. In fact, I performed several extra rounds of tests with changed/altered the programming on the Pro-106/197 to help with it's poor performance compared to the Pro-96/2096. I tried everything, even different antennas. Not once did the 106/197 perform better on this particular system/location.

And no, I had not "heard" or "expected problems on the location" - I knew about them first-hand, as do many others.

To not consider it a valid comparison would be an unfair statement and an insult to my knowledge and ability. I know how to program a scanner, thank you.

But, as I mentioned, it is just a one example - using my particular set of circumstances.

Take it for what it's worth to you. If it's not worth anything to you, then you've lost nothing.