JoeyC
Senior Member
Anyone else in the county have one of these scanners yet?
I have only spent a few hours with the 536HP and I have no experience with HP-type scanners so I have to say it has been a learning experience for me.
Currently my digital fleet consists of the new 536HP, a PSR500, PSR800 a BCD996XT, a BC785D and a BC796D. The 785 and 796 are stationary at home on an attic antenna The 996 lives in the car, but on occasion I bring it in to run side by side to the 785/796 on that same antenna. I get 5 bars of signal on the RCS South & North Zones as well as the San Diego 800mhz system with this arrangement.
CLEARLY, the oldest scanners of all, the 785D and 796D are the winners where it comes to P25 digital decoding clarity! I have almost crystal clear reception of digital audio on these two dated scanners. The 996 (as long as it is stationary indoors on the attic antenna) and the GRE portables run a close 2nd for digital decode ability, but this new 536HP is just horrible in comparison. Its audio is markedly muffled compared to the 785/796 and it struggles to decode what the 785/796 play flawlessly even with 5 bars of signal. If this is the result of digital distortion from simulcast sites, why do the 785 and 796 handle it so much more effectively on this system? Yes, I have run the thing in manual P25 threshold mode and find very very little improvement beyond the default of 8. (Currently I am settling on a setting of 9 for the most part on the RCS, but that is also variable as sometimes 8 or 10 works better.)
The 536HP also has a slight (maybe less than 1/4 second) delay in processing the digital audio also compared to the 785/796. Perhaps in an attempt to handle simulcast distortion better? Not sure, since these scanners do not suffer from any distortion with the antenna arrangment I have.
Don't get me wrong, the flexibility, capacity and the display alone make the 536HP scanner a winner and it performs very nicely on analog from my limited testing, but WTH did they do right with the Trunktracker 3&4 that lacks in the newer generation scanner where digital is concerned?
I know my observations are not necessarily in concert with some users in some areas of the country. I have read the mixed reviews in the current threads. I just wanted to give a quick report on this radio as it works with the RCS from my vantage point. There is much more learning for me in the next few days as I try to get a grasp on the newer FL/SL/DL organizational structure and how to apply it to the methods that I am accustomed to in my older radios.
I have only spent a few hours with the 536HP and I have no experience with HP-type scanners so I have to say it has been a learning experience for me.
Currently my digital fleet consists of the new 536HP, a PSR500, PSR800 a BCD996XT, a BC785D and a BC796D. The 785 and 796 are stationary at home on an attic antenna The 996 lives in the car, but on occasion I bring it in to run side by side to the 785/796 on that same antenna. I get 5 bars of signal on the RCS South & North Zones as well as the San Diego 800mhz system with this arrangement.
CLEARLY, the oldest scanners of all, the 785D and 796D are the winners where it comes to P25 digital decoding clarity! I have almost crystal clear reception of digital audio on these two dated scanners. The 996 (as long as it is stationary indoors on the attic antenna) and the GRE portables run a close 2nd for digital decode ability, but this new 536HP is just horrible in comparison. Its audio is markedly muffled compared to the 785/796 and it struggles to decode what the 785/796 play flawlessly even with 5 bars of signal. If this is the result of digital distortion from simulcast sites, why do the 785 and 796 handle it so much more effectively on this system? Yes, I have run the thing in manual P25 threshold mode and find very very little improvement beyond the default of 8. (Currently I am settling on a setting of 9 for the most part on the RCS, but that is also variable as sometimes 8 or 10 works better.)
The 536HP also has a slight (maybe less than 1/4 second) delay in processing the digital audio also compared to the 785/796. Perhaps in an attempt to handle simulcast distortion better? Not sure, since these scanners do not suffer from any distortion with the antenna arrangment I have.
Don't get me wrong, the flexibility, capacity and the display alone make the 536HP scanner a winner and it performs very nicely on analog from my limited testing, but WTH did they do right with the Trunktracker 3&4 that lacks in the newer generation scanner where digital is concerned?
I know my observations are not necessarily in concert with some users in some areas of the country. I have read the mixed reviews in the current threads. I just wanted to give a quick report on this radio as it works with the RCS from my vantage point. There is much more learning for me in the next few days as I try to get a grasp on the newer FL/SL/DL organizational structure and how to apply it to the methods that I am accustomed to in my older radios.