Scanning efficiency

[ofd8001]

Has anyone done any research in scanning efficiency on whether it's better to have one big Favorites List with numerous systems, or spread those numerous systems around a couple of different Favorites Lists?

Yes I do avoid scanning a given trunked site in more than 1 Favorites List.

What gets me wondering about the efficiency side is the order of scanning as noted in the manual. As I understand it, the scanner will look at System 0 in FL 1, then System 0 in FL 2, then System 1 in FL 1 and then System 1 in FL 2. Thus is there a slight amount of time lost jumping back and forth between Favorites Lists? Or, rather, are all the channels (etc.) loaded on startup and the scanning order is merely the order in which the channels are loaded in the memory and then the memory is scanned?

 

[ka3aaa]

common sense tells you that the more you load in the scanner the slower it will scan.

 

[Volfirefighter]

When scanning a trunked system, it matters not how many talkgroups you scan. Scanning one TG or 100 will not affect speed. Speed of scanning conventional frequencies is affected by the number of frequencies.

 

[dougjgray]

My experience when i load 2 favorites list is it scans the 1st favorites list sequentially then moves to the 2nd. All turned on favorites list appear to be in memory so should not add much time to scanning versus doing all in one favorite list

 

[ofd8001]

Thanks to all who have replied.

One of the things I'm trying to discern is whether it is most efficient to have conventional systems only in a Favorites List and trunked systems only in a different Favorites List.

If everything should go into one Favorites List, should I arrange it so that it scans the conventional systems, then the trunked systems or something like conventional system 1, trunked system 2, conventional system 3, trunked system 4 and so on.

Back in the old days, there was some conjecture that if you ordered your channels by frequency that made things as efficient as possible.