Pro 92 & 94

[JGarcia]

I've had my Pro 92 for several years and it has never had too good of reception. I've upgraded my attenna also. Anyways, I noticed the Pro 94 is on sale at Radio Shack. Is this an upgrade?

 

[fmon]

No the 92 is made by GRE and the 94 by Uniden. To me this is a downgrade. A few more bucks will get you the great Pro-95, also by GRE and programmable with free software like the 92.

 

[eyes00only]

I don't think it would be a downgrade. The 94 has some great features. The reception is nothing to brag about however. If you don't need APCO Digital, I would get a 94 for the good price.

Jerry :roll:

 

[KR4BD]

I have both the 92 and 94. The 94 has much better sensitivity at 800 mHz and a MUCH faster scanning speed. You can even see this in the specifications printed in the manuals. Yes, the 92 has lots of bells and whistles, alpha-tagging, etc., but when you compare JUST the reception specs and overall performance of the two scanners, the Pro-94 is unquestionably a better receiver at 800 mHz. When operating side-by-side, the 94 gets it all while my 92 often misses all or parts of transmissions from my local, and somewhat weak, EDACS system at my home. I have the Radio Shack 800 mHz antenna on both radios, so my observations have been fair when comparing the two radios. By the way, both radios performed dramatically better with the Radio Shack 800 mHz antennas.

I know others worship the Pro-92, but I have not had good luck with mine either. I also programmed several Pro-92's for the local newspaper a couple of years ago and found all their units were as lousy as mine as far as sensitivity is concerned.

 

[fmon]

Unless one goes through an estensive modification process (one is available), programming the 94 is for the birds. This scanner is useless to take on a trip. Reprogram out bound and reprogram on return... Manually? Not me.

 

[KR4BD]

fmom..

I know you dislike the Pro-94, but it IS a good radio. And programming it manually is a breeze compared to manually programming the Pro-92. I take my 94 with me everywhere and never have problems programming it in "strange" cities. I think the original poster was mainly concerned with sensitivity issues and the Pro-94 is, without question, more sensitive at 800 mHz than the Pro-92. The manuals clearly shows this. Another positive feature of the Pro-94 is its faster scanning speed which means fewer missed calls. I will admit, I do like the alpha tagging features of the Pro-92, but as a radio, it just does not cut it. Would it not be nice if someone could give us a radio with the best of everything. . .

 

[JGarcia]

Right now, whether I'm inside or outside, the Pro 92 isn't picking up alot of the activity. I also like to listen while I'm in my car and I can't pick up too much.

I live in a city with a population of 70,000 and the city isn't too big.

So the Pro 94, doesn't have the alpa tagging? Any other scanners you would recommend? I don't want to spend too much money. I was thinking I could probably get between $50-70 for my PRO 92 or I might just keep it.

 

[eyes00only]

I gotta agree with KR4BD. So, your opinion on the Pro 96 / BC296D? debate.

Jerry

 

[INDY72]

NOTICE: The NEW PRO-94 has an PC?IF port and thus ends the hard to program bit..

Now as a person who has owned both the 92B, and the 94 A, and B.... The 94 performs much better on 800,... but the 92 outperforms in the other bands... especially VHF and pulling in distant signals as compared to the 94 on the same bands! s for the differences,.. the 92 does LTR.. a magor plus... the 92 has CTCSS/CDCSS decode,... another magor plus,... the 92 has aplha tagging,.. again a plus... the 94 has autobacklight,.. a BIG plus,... the 94 is simple to program manually,... a plus,... the 94's scan rate is much faster than the 92, a plus,....

Here are the minuses for both:
NO military air,.. unless Don Starr writes something for the new 94 that opens it up..... on the 92 you MUST use a specail charging pack to charge batts...... on the 94 all you have to do is flick a switch in the battery compartment....but the 94 from my experience seems to use the batts faster than the 92....the 94 has NO attenuation feature, thus making it too easy to overkill in a large radio usage area....(I have seen this happen too much) the 92 has a good attenuation system that can be set for EACH chan. the 92 only has 500 chans,.. and the 94 while having 1000, has them split into two banks of 500 each... and you cant scan all 1000 at once.... thats all I can think of at the current time.

Over all I like both scanners for what they do.

 

[INDY72]

Come on the 96/296 debate is in another thread...

 

[eyes00only]

EXCUUUUUSE ME :wink:

Jerry

 

[INDY72]

LOL ,... now if you want to really see folks go nuts.. do a comparison of the 96 versus 92, 94, or 95,.... or a comparison of the 250D-296D to the 245XLT etc...... On that note,... the RS PRO-95 is a 94B with some of the 92's features added.... like alpha tagging and ctcss/cdcss decode. But they still left out LTR and again in the 96 which in my opinion is still a mistake...... I would love to see them get LTR Passport figured out completely and then them add that in the next trunker..... the perfect scanner from GRE/Uniden that would be possible under the RS flag line would be this....

Mobile: Digital capable, LTR trunking both Regular and Passport, Alpha Tagging with 18 to 20 character space, the rapid CTCSS/CDCSS Decode, maybe even add ACSB for those few sideband systems out there......

Portable: Same as Mobile but you can leave the 14 to 16 char alpha display to maintain size.

On both the following is a MUST HAVE,.. USB interface and nifty software!

Notice I left out EDACS PV capable as we all know thats so far off its not practicle right now!

 

[fmon]

fmom..

I know you dislike the Pro-94, but it IS a good radio.

And you obviously dislike the 95, but it is a better radio then the 94 IMHO.

I think the original poster was mainly concerned with sensitivity issues and the Pro-94 is, without question, more sensitive at 800 mHz than the Pro-92.

As is the 95 more sensitive than the 92.

Another positive feature of the Pro-94 is its faster scanning speed which means fewer missed calls.

This appears to be the only drum you can beat on as an advantage, but how can we really prove this as a real advantage. I have heard my GRE's beat the Unidens in this regard also, ie Uniden built Pro-2050, 2052 and BC785D. And speaking of the 2050 and 2052, they often get almost unbearable scratchy noises when a trunking system is experiencing problems. Isn't the 94 a handheld 2052 less the 9 pin port?

I will admit, I do like the alpha tagging features of the Pro-92, but as a radio, it just does not cut it.

Ah, but he wants to replace the 92 and the 95 has this great feature. And the absence of Alpha Tags in the 94 is why it's easier to program then the two GRE's in this discussion.

Would it not be nice if someone could give us a radio with the best of everything. . .

I concur, and my answer to the original poster was to upgrade to the 95 which is clearly more sensitive then the 92 and computer programmable with free software at starsoft.com. This programming feature with similar sensitivity should be a no-brainer. The 95 which is equally sensitive to the 94 and has alpha tags like the 92. So scanning a little faster may be better than PC programming for some, but not this old sea dog. Of course both the 94 and 95 give up PL.

 

[fmon]

I gotta agree with KR4BD. So, your opinion on the Pro 96 / BC296D? debate.

Jerry

That debate is in Voyager's "Sticky" in the Scanning Forum

 

[INDY72]

As to free software: Win92 is available from starrsoft.com for programming the 92

 

[KR4BD]

fmon...

We will just have to agree to disagree. Please read the original post here. He was asking for someone to compare the 92 and 94. I did not see anything about the 95 originally mentioned. Maybe I missed something between the lines... I do NOT own a 95. It might be a great radio. Since I do not own one, I can't comment on it. I do own a 92 and 94 (and 2052). I have not had the problems you cite with my 94 or 2052, which is very similar to a 94, as you say.

Everytime this 92/94 subject comes up, you (and others) go into overdrive to slam it. This is a hobby. We all can enjoy it! And keep in mind, some of us still program our scanners manually!

 

[fmon]

LOL ,... now if you want to really see folks go nuts.. do a comparison of the 96 versus 92, 94, or 95,.... or a comparison of the 250D-296D to the 245XLT etc...... On that note,... the RS PRO-95 is a 94B with some of the 92's features added.... like alpha tagging and ctcss/cdcss decode.

Could this be a typo? The 93 and 95 do not have pl nor are they similar to the 94, other then all are handheld. And the 93/95 are GRE's like the 92 while the 94 is Uniden a sister to the base Pro-2052 without the PC port.

 

[eyes00only]

One last thing before I sign off. It would be great if Rad Shack could make a "best of all products" scanner. I have been going around & around for about 6 weeks deciding what to buy next.

Good night

 

[INDY72]

Fmon the new PRO-94 available as of NOW at RS does have an PC/IF port.

 

[INDY72]

Fmon the new PRO-94 available as of NOW at RS does have an PC/IF port.

Not to mention the the 95... correct me if I am wrong.. is 1000 chans.. like the 94,.. only does Motorola and Edacs analog like the 94,.. and originally was just a souped up 94 with a PC/IF port...... just made by GRE not uniden ... Nothing really changed till the PRO-96 and PRO-99 came out...