Processing differences between BCD536HP and SDS200

[SenSolari]

I'm currently borrowing an SDS200 and trying to figure out whether I should buy one of those or a BCD536HP for myself. It looks like there is a fairly significant price difference on the used market between these two units. My local system isn't simulcast, so that's not a concern for me. I'm also aware of the differences in screens and the fact that the 200 connects via ethernet vs wi-fi dongle for the 536.

My question is concerning scanning speeds and reception. It looks like most, but not all, people think the 200 is faster and receives more, but one set of search results I've seen indicate something like 85 channels/second for the 536 vs 80 channels/second for the 200 for conventional. I don't know if those are accurate or apples-to-apples. I also don't know if that is impacted by some other factor I'm not aware of. Is this kind of info published in a format that can be compared? TIA

 

[Enforcer52]

You will see both scanners listed as scanning 80-85 channels per second.

But it is my understanding that is based on analog/digital non-trunked channels. Digital trunked systems will take 1-2 seconds for each channel programmed in to determine what type of digital signal and if there is an active talking channel at the time.

I only program in the Main Control Channel that any given trunk system is using at the time, because I don't need it to scan control channels that are not in use as a control channel. And certainly don't program in regular talk channel to slow a system down.

In a non-simulcast situation, I would expect both to perform equally.

If never plan on taking the scanner to a simulcast area, or are confident your area will not go simulcast in the future then the 536 would be a good choice. If not then the 200.

 

[Ubbe]

There's a huge difference in RF performance. The 536 never really overloads or have any strange intermodulation products. What you hear are what are transmitted in the air. For the 200, and the SDS100 as it use the same receiver design, can never really be trusted to actually be monitoring the frequency you see on the display due to all the internal signals in the receiver chip that works as oscillators additional to the real oscillator.

If any received signal are stronger than -80dBm it will have a high risk of being received on another frequency than the one transmitted. It's pretty much impossible to do frequency range searches using SDS100/200 as you will discover a lot of false signal that isn't actually in the air.

The 536 is a solid non-simulcast receiver with great sensitivity and it's just its display that doesn't carry as much information as the SDS200 do.

The scanspeed of my SDS200 normally show 11ms between channels in the same frequency range, 91ch/s, and going between VHF-Hi and UHF normally takes 100ms, 10ch/s, to make the jump. User manual says nominal 70ch/s.

The 536 user manual says scanspeed nominal 85ch/s. There's no detailed log file in the 536 that also logs channel shifts so it's more difficult to know actual scanspeed. But if I remember correctly I tested scanning to be 80ch/s and it was only when jumping to and from VHF-Lo that it had a 100ms delay and not between other bands.

/Ubbe

 

[buddrousa]

Ubbe I have 7 SDS Scanners they have no overload issues the SDS Scanners also receive distant signals better than the 536's I have. Plus I get more detailed information on my SDS screens.

 

[SenSolari]

Thank you guys for the input. I've appreciated many posts by all of you as I've been researching on here. Thank you for pointing me to the manual specs @Ubbe. I should have been able to find those myself.

As a follow-up, if anyone has input on it, I'm open to other suggestions for my application. I've jumped into the Uniden pool primarily as the tech person for my mom's scanning habit. She owns an SDS100 and HP-1. This SDS200 is my uncle's, and I'm using it until he returns to town. My mom is primarily interested in public safety scanning, and to that end I think I've got her scanners set up pretty well in Sentinel. Although I would use a scanner for some public safety scanning, I'm more interested in using a scanner to support my new Ham license. It seems like the replay feature would be very useful for that, and just last night I set up a Discovery session on this 200 to see if it can identify commonly-used frequencies in my area.

Would either of these units be better or worse for that use case, or is there a better solution I'm unaware of because I've only looked at the Uniden ecosystem?

 

[dmfalk]

The SDS200 is fine for ham-band monitoring, with a few caveats:
1: It doesn't support D-Star/C4FM/Fusion, but as many hams have been switching to DMR and P25 across the country, all that's needed is purchase of a DMR key. Analogue, of course, isn't a problem. (P25 is already ready to use.)

I don't know your area, but many areas have common local ham frequencies already entered into the master database, so they're easy to just copy in Sentinel to a Favourites List and listen to your heart's content.

 

[SenSolari]

There are some ham frequencies in the database for my area, and I've figured out how to create a custom list by hand to augment that.

I tried to use the Discovery function last night on the SDS200, and didn't get much for usable recordings. I'm guessing that was a combo of lack of real traffic and maybe some false signals as was explained earlier in this post. I'll give that a try during the day to see if it works better. Perhaps the 536 would be have a cleaner Discovery. Neither one can fix the lack of traffic though!

 

[Ubbe]

Ubbe I have 7 SDS Scanners they have no overload issues the SDS Scanners also receive distant signals better than the 536's I have. Plus I get more detailed information on my SDS screens.

The SDS100 and SDS200 share the exact same receiver design and receiver chip. You have probably seen my scientific measurements using a professional communication analyzer that shows how these scanners behave. The demonstration are using one single frequency without any other signals interfering. It will be way worse when the scanner are exposed to multiple signals at the same time.

SDS100.mp4

drive.google.com

/Ubbe

 

[SurgePGH]

Ubbe I have 7 SDS Scanners they have no overload issues the SDS Scanners also receive distant signals better than the 536's I have. Plus I get more detailed information on my SDS screens.

I second this! I am 1/4 mile from one tower and then 15 or more to the next tower. None