PRO 94 AND 95

[blakem445]

on another board there was a post saying the pro 94 was better than the pro 95 for listening to edacs systems is this true or is someone pulling everyones chain??

blake

 

[KR4BD]

I never had a Pro-95, so can't say if it is better than a Pro-94 on EDACS systems. I CAN SAY that, my experience is that the Pro-94 is better than a Pro-92 by a long shot on such systems. It is more sensitive, has a faster scan rate and is much easier to manually program. Yes, the Pro-92 has Alpha tagging and some other nice bells and whistles which are missing on the Pro-94, but when it comes down to comparing "real radio, performance specs", the 94 is better, by far. I own both these models, so I can talk from experience.

By the way, both the 92 and 94 (and probably all trunkers) will perform much better when the Radio Shack 800 mHz rubber duck antenna ($15) is used for 800 mHz trunking instead of the "one-size-fits-all" antenna that comes with the radios.

 

[scanfan03]

I know that the 95 does a pretty good job at scanning EDACs except when the priority is on. If the priority is on, it will like open squelch so you will hear the control channel but yet still scan. Then when a talkgroup talks again it won't do it unless the priority cuts it off. It does this for my weather alert priority. I don't know if it is just my scanner or if it is just a flaw in the design.

 

[loumaag]

...I CAN SAY that, my experience is that the Pro-94 is better than a Pro-92 by a long shot on such systems. It is more sensitive, has a faster scan rate and is much easier to manually program.

It needs to be since there is no computer programing for it. That IMHO is the main reason for never having one.

Yes, the Pro-92 has Alpha tagging and some other nice bells and whistles which are missing on the Pro-94, but when it comes down to comparing "real radio, performance specs", the 94 is better, by far. I own both these models, so I can talk from experience.

I will certainly bow to your experience for the sensitivity, audio and general performance benefits of a 94 over a 92 (and by extension the 2057) but some of those "bells and whistles" you dismiss are pretty important, especially if you monitor more than one system.

By the way, both the 92 and 94 (and probably all trunkers) will perform much better when the Radio Shack 800 mHz rubber duck antenna ($15) is used for 800 mHz trunking instead of the "one-size-fits-all" antenna that comes with the radios.

In this, I am in absolute agreement. I own 5 different trunk tracking radios and own 4 of the RS 800 MHz antennas. Hmmm, next time I go to RS, I guess I will have to get another one.

The problem here is that you are comparing two radios, one of which is unavailable in the normal retail chain (the 92). BTW I own 2 92's, and yes they have some problems, especially in the sensitivity area; however, when comparing the 92 with the 95, the 95 is "worlds apart" better on that point. As to whether the 94 is better than the 95 on EDACS systems, I cannot speak from experience as I have only compared the 95 against other GRE built radios on an EDACS system. But the 95 seemed to decode no better or worse than other GRE built scanners on the New Orleans Public Safety System (before they went ProVoice )

TO: blakem445
I hope that this helps some; although, it does not answer your question exactly.

 

[scanfan03]

By the way I love the RS 800 Duckie too. You must have had the Pro-92 A (V3.25) or B (V3.28). If you have the original 92 (V1.00) it is just as sensitive as the 95. But if you moniter a Motorola trunked system you are trying to moniter it doesn't track worth crap (The original V1.00), It tracks EDACs and LTR fine though.

 

[holly]

reply

hi there

Just from watching this one,i,m glad i have niether one.And intend not getting them.

 

[Landman]

I own both these scanners. I never take the pro-94 on the road anymore. It suffers HORRIBLY from cell site interference. The interference starts as far away as 3/4 of a mile of an 800 MHz cell or NEXTEL site. The 94 goes completely silent and just sits there searching for the control channel. The 95 is also affected by cell site interference, but not anywhere near as badly as the 94. I live about a mile away from an 800 MHz cell site, and I sometimes have trouble at home with the 94.

 

[KR4BD]

I have only noticed cell site interference when within about 1/10 of a mile of a cell tower. Where I live, the Pro-94 works fine as there are no towers within a mile of here.

 

[loumaag]

I have only noticed cell site interference when within about 1/10 of a mile of a cell tower. Where I live, the Pro-94 works fine as there are no towers within a mile of here.

This is probably due to location. Landman lives in the land of Laissez le bons temps rouler (Let the good times roll), which can certainly lead to a deficit in equipment maintenance. You live in a somewhat more ...umm... dedicated work ethic area of the United States. However, I fear that if you go south for a couple of states, you too will bump into this problem.

 

[LarryN]

I have had my 95 for almost a year now. I only use the 94 as a buck-up or when there is too much going on. I can't really tell the difference in the radios except for sound quality. I think the 95 is better. The manual controls on the 94 are better as well.