Pro-95 sensitivity vs. Pro-94 - unexpected results

[CoreyW]

Hi All,

I recently bought a Pro-95 to replace my aging Pro-94. Alpha tags was the main reason for the purchase.

However, I found that after I punched in my '94 freqs into the '95, and running both scanners side-by-side, the '94 picked up WAY more than the '95. Most of my listening is in the aircraft band, and the '94 broke squelch MUCH more often than the '95. I did made sure the squelches were set with a very light trigger on both radios.

On the '95 I'd hear aircraft in-flight easily enough, but never the ground side of the ATC comms. Even with no squelch on the '95 I would never hear the ground side of the comms - just static. No so on the '94 - it would pick up the ground comms.

So I thought I'd switch the antennas between the two scanners (I've got a newer 800mhz duck on the '94) and no difference. And I did play with the '95 ANNUNCIATOR and Recieve Mode (AM/FM) and no difference.

Can anyone enlighten me with the reason for what I'm seeing? Is the '95 just plain less sensitive than my older '94? Or is the '95 not as good in the aircraft band? Is it better at all?

Thanks in Advance!
Corey.

 

[KR4BD]

I've been saying this all along....but have been constantly attacked by the computer geeks who like all the computer features of other scanners. The Pro-94 has among the best sensitivity specs at 800 mHz of all the handheld scanners. Yes...it lacks alpha tagging and other "techie" features, but as far as the radio itself is concerned, the sensitivity on 800 mHz systems is excellent compared to most other handheld radios. If one likes computer features like downloading, alpha tagging, etc., one should not even consider buying the Pro-94. The 94 is easy to program and it's search features in open mode are easy to use when looking for and identifying new talkgroups. It also has a very fast scan rate (are there any faster in a handheld?) not to mention its 1000 channel capacity. I haven't seen a reason yet to upgrade from my Pro-94. When digital hits my area in a big way, I will then have to reconsider...

 

[CoreyW]

Ummmmmm...

So I take that as a, "yup, the '94 is definately more sensitive, all around, than a '95"?



Corey

 

[KR4BD]

As far as 800 mHz is concerned, it IS more sensitive than most scanners. In my situation, I am primarily interested in 800 mHz monitoring, but it seems to work well on the other frequency ranges, too.

 

[CoreyW]

Thanks Tom.

I'm going to dump the '95 - nice features, but not worth it when you can't hear squat.

C.

 

[mlevin]

Hmm, I've always had the opposite experience. That the 94 was less sensitive on 800 then the 95. However on the aircraft bands I've always found that the Uniden made HTs (Pro94,250,245 etc.) do much better then the RS models.

 

[qoatzecotl]

My PRO-94 is significantly less sensitive all around than my PRO-95...

 

[Pro-95]

Guys, guys, guys......

You are forgetting one very important variable in the building/making of a scanner.....

It's made by humans. Prone to slight variances and deviations. Don't forget the Friday afternoon and Monday morning syndrome.

I run 94's and 95's side by side all day long. In the grand scheme of things there really is little difference however if I had to say one was better than the other, I'd lean more to the 95. But that isn't saying the 95 is more sensitive just that the different ones I've had on display and tracking the same freqs, the 95 seems to stop more and more frequently than the 94. And yes this is a casual observation not a sceintific fact or study.

I've had 5-6 94's in this display and 30 95's. Basically the only thing this *seems* to prove is that the 95 is more consistant than the 94.

However if your scanner goes back to the repair facility for any reason, the settings will be adjusted to be near perfect and you will have the optimum possible for your scanner.

**No, I'm not suggesting you send in your scanner for repair.
***Variances in production is a given, regardless of what is being constructed.

 

[Cobra_Commander]

Is the pro-96 as sentivsitve as the pro-94 in aspects of the 800 mhz band and the aircraft band? :?:

 

[SAR923]

The Pro-96 is much more sensitive at 800 than any scanner I've owned, particularly with an external antenna. I'm easily picking up systems that my Pro-92 could barely hear with the same antenna.

The VHF air band is about the same as most scanners I've owned, which is to say adequate. In general, VHF frequencies are prone to overloading with an external antenna but they are fine with a rubber duck. I'm quite suprised how well it does on UHF air though after opening it up with Don Starr's Win96 software.