Pro-2052 receives better than Pro-164?

[RichF]

I am in Western PA, and the topograghy is quite hilly. I currently have the pro-2052 base and a pro-164 handheld scanners. I still have my original pro-49 handheld from years ago, and have recently gotten the bug to scan again. I only scan the railroad frequencies, can't remember if those are called AAR or ARR, but primarily 160Mhz range. I know very little of the technical stuff, but I'm trying to learn. RR is a great resource! I am currently using the RS roof mount antenna (6' mast) that sells for about $30 bucks with 50' of RS RG-8.

Do base model scanners gernerally receive better than handhelds, even with a roof mount antenna? The 2052 picks up nicely, but when I swap out to the 164 I get very little and very faint reception. I may have answered my question, but am wondering if I didn't set up the 164 properly.

I purchased the ARC300 software and USB cable, and typed in the AAR frequencies into the software, then uploaded them into the 164. I got 2 free downloads with the trial software, but apparently didn't save properly and lost them. The intructions made it pretty clear RR is not responsible if the files are lost, and seeing that currently I'm only interested in railroads, no sense in subcribing. I manually entered all the AAR frequencies into the 2052. I noticed there are numerous columns in the software, which are populated when looking at the various frequencies listed in RR. I just typed in the frequency info from a list off a railroad scanner site, and didn't have all the other data for the various columns, is that a problem?

As soon as the weather breaks I want to assemble my new Diamond D130j discone along with an additional 10' mast and the 50' of copper shielded higher quality coax I purchased with it. Hoping that will make a difference.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[gmclam]

Do base model scanners gernerally receive better than handhelds, even with a roof mount antenna?

No. Quite often they are exactly the same radio circuitry, just in a different housing.

The 2052 picks up nicely, but when I swap out to the 164 I get very little and very faint reception. I may have answered my question, but am wondering if I didn't set up the 164 properly.

One common issue is that you might have the ATTenuator or GLOBAL ATTenuator on.

Another; do you happen to be near a cell tower or other transmitter?

I just typed in the frequency info from a list off a railroad scanner site, and didn't have all the other data for the various columns, is that a problem?

No. But one great feature of these newer scanners is the ability to label channels. It's a lot of typing to enter all that directly into the scanner.

If you're programming only a few channels, I can see doing it all by hand. Consider what you'd need to do if that programming were lost (re-enter it?). Software is not just a means to get the information in there, but a means to manage it and back it up too.

 

[RichF]

Thanks, will read up on attenuation features and make sure they are off.

RichF.