Scanner comparisons.

[spacenerd]

First a little information about myself. I live in Auglaize County, Ohio. and am currently using a Whistler 1040 for most of my portable monitoring. I find this unit does a decent job of picking up conventional and Ohio MARCS systems in my area. I am thinking of updating to a Uniden SDS100. (FYI i also have a Uniden BCD536HP at my desktop). Will the SDS100 be worth the investment over my current scanners?

 

[ScannerSK]

Ohio MARCS utilizes some simulcast sites (https://www.radioreference.com/db/sid/6643).

The SDS100/200 is "claimed" to work better on simulcast sites over previous models such as the BCD436/536HP scanners. I have conducted my own experiments on our difficult to receive simulcast system using both a BCD436HP and SDS100 scanner simultaneously while driving around. I found both scanners received about the same while driving all around for an hour or two. At times the BCD436HP received better than the SDS100 while at other times it was the other way around however most of the time they received identical on our difficult simulcast system. Both would experience difficulties decoding at the same time or both would receive well at the same time for the majority of the drive.

The only appreciable difference that really stood out was I noticed was the SDS100 was able to recover much more quickly from high RF overload locations which caused the scanners (both of them) to go deaf temporarily (unable to receive the site/control channel). I had to manually remove the antenna from the BCD436HP and put it back on the scanner in such high RF areas (such as near cellphone towers or other radio towers) to get the BCD436HP to begin to receive the site/control channel again while the SDS100 appeared to do this automatically and just shake off the RF overload and begin receiving again.

So, the SDS series of scanners recovers from deafness due to RF overload much more easily than the BCD436/536 scanners. Other than this, I personally did not notice any difference in reception on a difficult simulcast system in Weld, Colorado while driving around with both scanners running at once in all types of terrain (flat ground, hills, valleys, through trees, near strong radio interference, etc.)

This is my personal experience, I believe there is a lot of hype around the SDS100/200 working better on simulcast systems however that is for each person to experiment with on their own.

 

[hiegtx]

First a little information about myself. I live in Auglaize County, Ohio. and am currently using a Whistler 1040 for most of my portable monitoring. I find this unit does a decent job of picking up conventional and Ohio MARCS systems in my area. I am thinking of updating to a Uniden SDS100. (FYI i also have a Uniden BCD536HP at my desktop). Will the SDS100 be worth the investment over my current scanners?

Unless you are dealing with a simulcast site, either in your area, or an area where you often visit, you would not gain a lot with the SDS100. Sure, on the SDS scanners, you can display a lot more information, customized to what interests you, but that does not make it handle reception better than one of the x36HP series scanners. Yes, you could upgrade to an SDS so that you could use the waterfall display, which would give you a bit more information on frequency usage in your area, but that does not give it better reception.

Your 536HP would scan trunked systems faster than one of the SDS series scanners. The SDS scanners take a brief time, in the 0.5 to 1.0 second range, to acquire the site & start looking for active talkgroups; the x36HP scanners don't have that 'delay' slowing down scanning.

If you want the customizable display, and/or the waterfall feature, then pull the trigger on an SDS scanner. But if those are not important to you (and you are not fighting simulcast distortion), then I would not upgrade to the SDS100 or SDS200. Just about all the cities & smaller towns in my area (Dallas/Fort Worth metro) are on various trunked systems, with a majority of them having one or more simulcast sites on their systems, so the upgrade was an advantage for me. Looking at your county in the database, you are not dealing with a simulcast site on MARCS in your home area. But if you travel, either for business or pleasure, and your trip takes you to or through a large metro area, then the SDS100 might be a good move. But if simulcast is not an issue, if I were in your place, I'd likely sit tight, not making the additional purchase, and biding my time to see if simulcast raises it's ugly head in the area, or something with additional, desirable features is introduced by Uniden or another scanner manufacturer that pops up. (I doubt we'll see anything new, with additional features, show up with a Whistler nameplate. My impression is that they'll just ride the current models as long as they can, if enough are sold to keep the assembly line busy.)

The only appreciable difference that really stood out was I noticed was the SDS100 was able to recover much more quickly from high RF overload locations which caused the scanner to go deaf temporarily (unable to receive the site/control channel). I had to manually remove the antenna from the BCD436HP and put it back on the scanner in such high RF areas (such as near cellphone towers or other radio towers) to get the BCD436HP to begin to receive the site/control channel again while the SDS100 appeared to do this automatically and just shake off the RF overload and begin receiving again.

Tweaking the filters in the SDS scanners does help deal with inference, but if you are not having any trouble with spurious signals, then you haven't gained much. (Again, that is with the assumption that travel to or through areas with signal or simulcast is not an issue.

 

[tvengr]

At my location, the only scanners that will reliably receive my local simulcast system are the SDS100 and SDS200. I have the BCD436HP and BCD536HP and neither one can handle my local or surrounding simulcast systems. The SDS scanners perform flawlessly on the same systems.

 

[RandyKuff]

Are the Uniden SDS series scanners worth the investment for you...
The Marcs-IP statewide system in your county just like in my county only uses one Site/Tower...
So you have no simulcast issues to deal with...

So that would be more of a personal decision for you... What you have now will recieve it just fine...
The SDS series are awsome radios though...

You can see your Marcs-IP site here... Scroll down...

Ohio MARCS-IP: Multi-Agency Radio Communications Site: Wapakoneta

Ohio MARCS-IP: Multi-Agency Radio Communications Site: Wapakoneta Details

www.radioreference.com

 

[RandyKuff]

There is a system in my area that is simulcast though called the 5-City System...
Only my SDS's will pick that up...

 

[Whiskey3JMC]

My 436HP will reliably pick up simulcast systems only if I'm on the outer fringes of system coverage or not relatively close to a 2nd cell on the cluster as is the case on NJICS at Cape May Point NJ

 

[RandyKuff]

My 436HP will reliably pick up simulcast systems only if I'm on the outer fringes of system coverage or not relatively close to a 2nd cell on the cluster as is the case on NJICS at Cape May Point NJ
View attachment 163844

I took my HP-2 and 436 to within about a 1000 feet of one of the 5-City systems sites and they recieved just fine...
But unfortunatly at my home I'm to far from each of the sites, so it's a no go for me... Only my SDS's will work...

 

[marksmith]

First a little information about myself. I live in Auglaize County, Ohio. and am currently using a Whistler 1040 for most of my portable monitoring. I find this unit does a decent job of picking up conventional and Ohio MARCS systems in my area. I am thinking of updating to a Uniden SDS100. (FYI i also have a Uniden BCD536HP at my desktop). Will the SDS100 be worth the investment over my current scanners?

The SDS100 and SDS200 are unlike any other scanners. If the majority of your scanning is conventional or mainly in VHF, these are not the scanners for you.

But if the majority of your scanning is on simulcast P25 or other trunked systems, there is a huge difference from other trunking scanners.

 

[ScannerSK]

It should be noted that simulcast towers are being used on the statewide system in the original poster's area:

https://www.radioreference.com/db/sid/6643

it's a no go for me... Only my SDS's will work...

I wonder why on my local difficult to decode simulcast system the SDS100 does not decode any better than the BCD436HP? Are there different types of simulcast emissions across the United States which the SDS100 can decode better than others?

Possibly, the real determining factor on whether an SDS series scanner will decode better on any given system boils down to the amount of RF overload in a specific area.

I'm thinking the real reason SDS scanners work better in only certain areas is due to their enhanced ability to deal with RF overload and not their ability to decode simulcast systems any better (than the BCD436/536 scanners). I have tested the simulcast decoding capability of the SDS100 alongside the BCD436HP on my local difficult to decode simulcast system and they both decode identical in a non-RF rich environment. However, in areas with strong RF signals causing front-end overload, the SDS100 definitely worked better as it could recover much more quickly from this RF overload than could the BCD436HP which would remain deaf to the site/control channel much longer.

So, I'm thinking the only real difference is the SDS scanners work better in RF overload prone areas (typically near large cities) while in non-RF overload prone areas (typically more rural settings away from radio towers) the SDS scanners decode difficult simulcast systems equally as well as the BCD436/536 scanners.

 

[RandyKuff]

I wonder why on my local difficult to receive simulcast system the SDS100 does not decode any better than the BCD436HP? Are there different types of simulcast emissions across the United States which the SDS100 can decode better than others?

You might have to play around with "Filters" to improve your reception...

Compliments of @fxdscon

 

[Nasby]

The WS1040 is a great scanner and perfect for The Ohio MARCS system if you don’t have any simulcast sites. I’d stick with the Whistler. It has MUCH better audio than any of the Uniden models as it has a true AGC that Unidens lack. The difference is quite noticeable!

 

[saioke]

The WS1040 is a great scanner and perfect for The Ohio MARCS system if you don’t have any simulcast sites. I’d stick with the Whistler. It has MUCH better audio than any of the Uniden models as it has a true AGC that Unidens lack. The difference is quite noticeable!

Yeah I'd say it's not worth the upgrade right now as long as MARCS stays on phase 1. I think we'll likely be on phase 1 for many years to come. Upgrading to the SDS would be nice to futureproof but we don't know how the future will go. p25 could be considered phased out before Ohio ever switches to phase 2, you never know!
Personally I'd love to get an SDS because the engineer, schools, and police in my area seem to all use DMR. (Well, I'm suspected the police are using dmr, but they're on MARCs, I just never heard their TG speak.) But, I myself couldn't justify spending $700 to pick them up when the majority of traffic is on MARCs.

 

[Colin9690]

Yeah I'd say it's not worth the upgrade right now as long as MARCS stays on phase 1. I think we'll likely be on phase 1 for many years to come. Upgrading to the SDS would be nice to futureproof but we don't know how the future will go. p25 could be considered phased out before Ohio ever switches to phase 2, you never know!
Personally I'd love to get an SDS because the engineer, schools, and police in my area seem to all use DMR. (Well, I'm suspected the police are using dmr, but they're on MARCs, I just never heard their TG speak.) But, I myself couldn't justify spending $700 to pick them up when the majority of traffic is on MARCs.

P25 isn't going anywhere, considering each "phase" is quite literally APCO Project 25 (P25) evolving.

And the key phrase in Post #12 is "if you don't have any simulcast sites". This is where the SDS really shines. Some MARCS sites are simulcast, some aren't. Here in Columbus, I'm surrounded by simulcast. MARCS as well as City of Columbus. If you don't have to deal with simulcast, sure the Whistler would work just fine.

 

[saioke]

P25 isn't going anywhere, considering each "phase" is quite literally APCO Project 25 (P25) evolving.

And the key phrase in Post #12 is "if you don't have any simulcast sites". This is where the SDS really shines. Some MARCS sites are simulcast, some aren't. Here in Columbus, I'm surrounded by simulcast. MARCS as well as City of Columbus. If you don't have to deal with simulcast, sure the Whistler would work just fine.

Yeah sorry, I meant phase 2 would probably be phased out before Ohio switches to it, and phase 3 will be a thing. i shouldn't be posting anything at 1-2am but I do lol.
But that's true, I keep thinking simulcast is a rare thing here in Ohio for some reason but it makes sense for the larger cities to be using simulcast. Afaik the SDS is the only scanner on the market that can handle simulcast like a champ. Otherwise it's tricky, trying to attenuate your signal or use a yagi that can point at one tower could help other scanners but the SDS would be best in such a situation.