PRO 94

[blakem445]

Okay I think I may go get the pro 94 does anyone think i am making a big mistake i don't really care about the frequecy Id thing don't have it on any of my other scanners so its no big deal let me know

blakem

 

[crayon]

I would not get the pro94 if you are really going to be serious about scanning. I use to own one myself and it really gets to be a pain in the butt using those tiny, tiny, tiny buttons to key in frequecies.

The 95 does most everything that you would want it do, and it has a computer interface that make frequecny changes a snap.

Of course, money always factors into any decision. And if all you can afford is the 94 .. go for it! Better to have a radio than none at all.

 

[blakem445]

besides the small numbers is it a good radio???

 

[KR4BD]

I have had a Pro-94 for a few years and of the four analog trunking scanners I own, It is, by far, the most sensitive on 800 mHz of any of them. It also has a very fast scan rate, which means fewer missed calls. It works great on analog Motorola and EDACS systems. From a technical standpoint, it is a GOOD radio. Yes, it lacks the ID tagging and cloning features, etc., but I am not concerned with these features. I also have a Pro-92 which has all these "bells and whistles" but from a technical standpoint, it has very poor sensitivity at 800 mHz and a very slow scan rate. One hint: If you are going to be scanning 800 mHz systems, you can greatly improve the performance of ANY scanner by using the Radio Shack 800 mHz rubber duckie antenna (cost $15). It truly enhances performance of 800 systems but will somewhat reduce the performance of VHF systems.

I know many on this site have "trashed" the Pro-94 because it does not have the "bells and whistles", but from a technical standpoint, very few handheld scanners can touch the performance of this radio. Just compare the advertised specs on sensititity and scanning speeds...

 

[pro92b]

The PRO-94 is essentially a stripped BC245. It is sensitive but the cost is that it overloads easily - many complaints about that over the years. Unlike the BC245 it doesn't have an attenuator so overload can't be reduced when it occurs.

The real fatal flaw is the lack of a computer interface. Programming one of these by hand is no fun at all. There is no way to back up the programming once it is done.

There can be a fair amount of variability in sensitivity among samples of the same model. My PRO-92 is fairly sensitive at 800 MHz although there are lots of complaints about it so the quality control isn't the best.

All things considered, for me the PRO-94 is the least desirable of the Trunktracker II equivalent handhelds. A comparison of features can be found at http://home.hvc.rr.com/bpetrow/Handheld_Trunktrackers.txt.

 

[loumaag]

Okay I think I may go get the pro 94 does anyone think i am making a big mistake i don't really care about the frequecy Id thing don't have it on any of my other scanners so its no big deal let me know

blakem

Well you certainly can get the Pro-94; however, in almost every forum that you asked for opinions you were told the major differences between the radios. Remembering that you were considering the Pro-94 and the Pro-95 only, your decision to go with the Pro-94 appears to be economic only. You say, "i don't really care about the frequecy Id thing", well okay, but since you have not had a trunk tracking scanner (according to your posts) what about being able to Alpha Tag the talk groups? You have been told that the greatest problem with the Pro-94 is its lack of ability to be programed except by hand. You should take that into serious consideration, if this was not a desireable feature, why do you think that all currently produced trunking scanners except the Pro-94 can be programed by computer? These two things alone are enough reason not to buy a Pro-94, even if you were not comparing it to a far superior model which costs only $50 more. If you are that strapped for money, hang on, I think you can wait for RS to put the Pro-95 on sale again, then you can buy it for the same $150 price tag. :shock:

That being said, I will not further bother you with my opinion. 8)

 

[KR4BD]

You know, not everyone programs their scanners from computers. I don't. As for programming them manually, I'll manually program trunked systems on Pro-94's ANYDAY over Pro-92's. The 94, to me, is so simple to program. Everytime I have to program the Pro-92, I have to get the book out! Yes, I do like the cloning features on the 92 as I have cloned many of those models for folks who are frustrated with them. And yes, the alpha tagging is nice on the Pro-92. I primarily listen to one EDACS system and find the Pro-94 works much better with that system and misses very few calls. I can't say that for the Pro092. BOTH the 92 and 94 are subject to front-end overload in strong signal areas, but this is not a problem where I live.

My point in this discussion is this:

From a purely radio standpoint, the Pro-94 is a better performing radio (sensitivity and scanning rate in particular). I'll admit it does not have all the features of other scanners, but to me, that's not important. I just want a sensitive radio and I don't mind manually programming them.

 

[K5MAR]

As has been pointed out, the 94 (which is a Uniden-made radio) is essentially a stripped-down BC245. The 245 is an excellent radio (I have one myself), and has almost all the features the 94 lacks, except for the alpha tags. For the money, I'd suggest getting a BC245 rather than the Pro-94. The only drawback to the 245 is the proprietary battery pack, and as mentioned, the lack of alpha tags. Communications Electronics, Inc. still sells them: http://www.usascan.com/files/scanners.html and I've seen them for sale by other dealers. Check around for the best price.

I'd buy in this order of preference: Pro-95, BC-245, a good used Pro-92A or B, Pro-94.

Mark S.

 

[loumaag]

...Pro-94's ANYDAY over Pro-92's....

My point in this discussion is this:

From a purely radio standpoint, the Pro-94 is a better performing radio (sensitivity and scanning rate in particular). I'll admit it does not have all the features of other scanners, but to me, that's not important. I just want a sensitive radio and I don't mind manually programming them.

Tom,
You have missed the point of this thread from the beginning. The Pro-92 is not the subject of debate here by anyone but you. Your opinion of the Pro-92 has been expressed and I respect it. I don't agree with it, but it has nothing to do with this thread. blakem445, from the beginning of his (or her) quest (in this and other threads) has been concerned with comparing the Pro-94 and the Pro-95. You were the first to introduce the Pro-92 into the mix, a radio you cannot go down to RS and buy anymore.

Your defense of the Pro-94 by comparing it to an out of production (and generally unavailable) model seems to indicate that you don't want to compare it to current models. In your first response (in another thread) you admitted you didn't have a Pro-95 and then started ranting on the Pro-92, well okay, you have had your say. blakem445 has gotten responses from others who have a Pro-94, some who have a Pro-95 and at least one who has both (who expressed his preference for the 95). Since blakem445 had said (in another thread) that this would be his first trunking scanner, I felt it was important to point out that Alpha Tag functions may become important down the road. Also, you may find the Pro-92 hard to program by hand (I don't find it any more difficult than any other radio I have) but that doesn't mean the Pro-94 is easy. It programs just like the Pro-90 (another Uniden clone) and although (since it has less bells & whistles) it is somewhat easier than the Pro-92, it is not dramatically easier. The bottom line is, that you may not use computer programing for your radios, but I (and lots of other people) do and find it much easier to keep up with than keeping lists of bank assignments (something I would imagine you do) to keep up with 20 banks of 50 channels each with no alpha tag.

 

[pro92b]

I'd buy in this order of preference: Pro-95, BC-245, a good used Pro-92A or B, Pro-94.

I agree - just to add to the list, the PRO-93 is like the PRO-95 but has 300 channels. It should be available used for a good price if funds are tight.

The PRO-94 came in two versions and the older one will only track one system at a time. The PRO-94A will multitrack and is much preferred over the older version.

 

[loumaag]

The PRO-94 came in two versions and the older one will only track one system at a time. The PRO-94A will multitrack and is much preferred over the older version.

Bill, that is a bit of information I didn't have, thanks!

 

[KR4BD]

No, Lou (and others)....

You guys are missing the point here. For months (years?) you (and others) have totally trashed the Pro-94 because it did not have bells and whistles. The original question asked about how good a radio the Pro-94 is. It is a good radio as far as radio specs go. The only other HANDHELDS I have owned are the Pro-90 and 92. When compared to these, and others I have seen, the Pro-94 is a BETTER RADIO. I am not talking about computer features, alpha tagging, etc. So, based on my experiences, the Pro-94 is a GOOD radio. That is what the original question was about. Others can compare it to other models. I understand the Pro-95 is a GOOD radio, too. Someone else can compare a Pro-95 to a 94, etc., etc. I have not been disappointed with my early version Pro-94.

End of my comments.

 

[blakem445]

I went to radio shack tonight and got the pro 95 I was able to get it instead got a extra bonus at work and put it with the money I already had and got the 95 thanks guys for all your posts now just to figure out the new scanner

blakem

 

[loumaag]

You guys are missing the point here. For months (years?) you (and others) have totally trashed the Pro-94 because it did not have bells and whistles. The original question asked about how good a radio the Pro-94 is. It is a good radio as far as radio specs go. The only other HANDHELDS I have owned are the Pro-90 and 92. When compared to these, and others I have seen, the Pro-94 is a BETTER RADIO. I am not talking about computer features, alpha tagging, etc. So, based on my experiences, the Pro-94 is a GOOD radio. That is what the original question was about. Others can compare it to other models. I understand the Pro-95 is a GOOD radio, too. Someone else can compare a Pro-95 to a 94, etc., etc. I have not been disappointed with my early version Pro-94.

Hmmm, we are missing the point?

Posts by blakem445 in this matter prior to this thread:
New Thread-Posted 6/30/2004, 06:37; Subject-PRO 95 VS PRO 94. No mention of Pro-92 in this thread.
New Thread-Posted 6/28/2004, 09:19; Subject-PRO 95. No mention of the Pro-92 in this thread.
New Thread-Posted 6/25/2004, 18:37; Subject-PRO 94 AND 95; Question posed by Blake:

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??

Your response:

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 ...

Umm, why is the Pro-92 brought into this thread?

We finally get to this thread, where Blake asks for anyone thinking he is making a mistake by buying the 94 to comment. I expressed my opinion that down the road he would miss the (what you call) "bells and whistles". To which you comment:

You know, not everyone programs their scanners from computers. I don't. As for programming them manually, I'll manually program trunked systems on Pro-94's ANYDAY over Pro-92's. The 94, to me, is so simple to program. Everytime I have to program the Pro-92, I have to get the book out! Yes, I do like the cloning features on the 92 as I have cloned many of those models for folks who are frustrated with them. And yes, the alpha tagging is nice on the Pro-92. I primarily listen to one EDACS system and find the Pro-94 works much better with that system and misses very few calls. I can't say that for the Pro092. BOTH the 92 and 94 are subject to front-end overload in strong signal areas, but this is not a problem where I live.

My point in this discussion is this:

From a purely radio standpoint, the Pro-94 is a better performing radio (sensitivity and scanning rate in particular). I'll admit it does not have all the features of other scanners, but to me, that's not important. I just want a sensitive radio and I don't mind manually programming them.

You once again jump in comparing the 94 to an out of production radio that has never been the topic of except when rasised by you. You say it is a better performing radio, I know you are not saying it is better than the 95 because you already said you can't speak to that. So what is it better than, the 92 that no one but you is interested in talking about?

You say not everyone programs their radios with a computer, well that is true, but a lot of people do, me included. That doesn't go for just scanners either, I use the computer to program my VHF and UHF ham radios.

Not everyone owns a Ford, I used to (several), but won't ever again. What has that got to do with this topic? Nothing, the same as the Pro-92.

To Blake:
I hope that you find the Pro-95 to your liking. Don't forget to visit Don Starr's website (http://www.starrsoft.com) to download the Win95 program. Even if you don't have the programing cable yet, it will help you understand the way the radio is programed. 8)

 

[Eng74]

Let me start by saying the 94 was the first trunking scanner I got. It took me forever to learn how to program it. The worst part was nowhere in the manual did it say that you need to have the control ch. to program the talk groups, with the GRE radios (92/93/95/96) I can program them by had if I want at home nad put in everything I need and it will work. The 94 all I can put in is the freqs. and then I have to wait. I do not live in an area the trunks but travel to OC, CA and SF,CA all of the time. I like all of the GRE radios that I have and one thig with the 95 you have 1000 channels not two 500 channel scanners.