PSR-500 sensitivity and selectivity compared to 396?
- Thread starter CqDx
- Start date
- Status
I would certainly say that selectivity has improved, based on how well the radio functions in the presence of a PC, my vehicular computer, and other radios.
I perceive better sensitivity, but that may be due to better selectivity or better signal processing.
I cited in another thread an APCO-25 system in Petersburg, VA, that the PRO-96 can barely decode (even CC data) while right in town. The PSR-500 hears it crystal-clear over 10 miles distant. The side-by-side test was startling.
Again, I may be perceiving DSP and receiver selectivity as an indication of better sensitivity. Some aircraft monitoring might clarify that issue.
73/Allen (N4JRI)
I perceive better sensitivity, but that may be due to better selectivity or better signal processing.
I cited in another thread an APCO-25 system in Petersburg, VA, that the PRO-96 can barely decode (even CC data) while right in town. The PSR-500 hears it crystal-clear over 10 miles distant. The side-by-side test was startling.
Again, I may be perceiving DSP and receiver selectivity as an indication of better sensitivity. Some aircraft monitoring might clarify that issue.
73/Allen (N4JRI)
Bucko
Member
I was going to ask this similar question myself on selectivity. I live with in a mile of a power house pager on 152.48, needless to say my GRE built 2096 x2, 96 and 2055 have a terrible time on high band. My older GRE built scanners and Uniden's reject the the hash and trash caused by this pager very well compared. Being the problems I have with the GRE built Shack scanners I have been reluctant to go for the new release.
- Status
