SDS100 or BCD436HP

[jtderby]

So I'm looking to get a scanner that can handle digital modes like P25 and DMR (I know I'll have to buy the additional license for DMR). I'm looking for advice on deciding between the Uniden BCD436HP and the SDS100. From what I gather, the advantage of the SDS100, other than being newer and likely supported further out with firmaware updates, is that it handles simulcasting better. The BCD436HP is attractive to me, not only for the reduced cost, but also because it takes AA batteries which when I travel would be easier to source if I need to quickly get past a dead battery. The form factor also seems better without the battery bump. Curious what your thoughts would be, especially if you have both and if you feel the upgrade to the SDS100 is worth the added expense and the proprietary battery.

 

[TailGator911]

Your radio needs are dictated by your area and the systems you want to monitor. As you already know, if the system you want to monitor is a simulcast system the only scanner able to decode it is the SDS100 & SDS200. You mentioned that you travel occasionally, so I would suggest the SDS100 over the 436 simply because it is inevitable in your travels that you will be trying to listen to a simulcast system. Why not be ready with the tool that does the job? Just what I would do - buy the best and have it if you need it. I don't think you will be disappointed with the SDS100.

JD
kf4anc

PS - If you come to the decision that simulcast is not an issue, then the 436 is a fine scanner for everything else.

 

[Whiskey3JMC]

IF it is within your budget, go with the SDS100. Aside from better handling of simulcast systems, it has more customizable features: audio filters, color-customizable display, shows more info about decoded signals & is still supported by Uniden for future firmware updates. I picked one up at auction gently used for a fair price & am sure glad I did

 

[N9JIG]

I concur with the prior two posts. The main differences between the 436 and SDS100 is the color display and simulcast performance. If they have simulcast anywhere you want to use the scanner (or might get it in the future) get the SDS100.

If there is no simulcast and you do not anticipate there will be in the foreseeable future the 436 is just fine even with the B-W display. I actually prefer it over the SDS100 as it fits my needs just fine unless I am using it for digital simulcast systems and I prefer the case style and battery of the 436.

 

[jonwienke]

If you come to the decision that simulcast is not an issue, then the 436 is a fine scanner for everything else.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. The 436 is a great scanner for everything but simulcast. Its screen is functional, but not as clear or detailed as the SDS100's display.

I own both, and don't plan on selling either. I just don't try to use the 436 for simulcast stuff, as reception varies wildly based on location. I would personally get the SDS100, unless there is no simulcast in your area, and you have no plans to travel with your scanner--you may go somewhere with simulcast systems. But if there is no simulcast in your area, and travel convenience is not worth the extra $$$, the 436 is a great scanner within its limitations.

 

[tvengr]

The SDS100 and SDS200 are the only scanners that will reliably receive the simulcast systems in my area. The BCD325P2, BCD996P2, BCD436HP, and BCD536HP just don't work at my location.

 

[RogerH11]

I hate battery packs but there is no way that NiMH AA would hold up for long. I would buy a 2nd battery with the stand alone charger as charge time is long.

 

[N4DJC]

I have a 436 and it works very well at home for our local simulcast system. Get out on the interstate and in range of multiple systems...it’s not so hot.

 

[ofd8001]

Some people have very good luck with 436's on simulcast. Unfortunately the results are very unpredictable whether your simulcast decoding is clear, garbled or absent. The "sweet spot" is very close to a transmitter or one the opposite site of the coverage area. The "sour spot" is between two (or more) sites. These systems are designed to overlap just to ensure coverage for radios.

I have both models and I would not consider getting another 436 simply because I monitor simulcast systems.

 

[rs16]

Has there been any consensus on the SDS 100 on analog as compared to the 436? Is there any noticeable difference between it and either the 436 or P2 models?

 

[jonwienke]

I've done side by side comparisons with several SDS100s and the 436 and 536. Their performance is pretty similar, except on simulcast systems. You might have a subpar individual unit here and there, but their average performance is very similar overall.

 

[rs16]

Thanks Jon. That makes sense. I would think for $650 it should be at least as good on analog (and conventional digital) as the 436 or any other model.

 

[jonwienke]

You can't have good digital performance unless you have equally good analog performance prior to the ADC.

 

[rs16]

You can't have good digital performance unless you have equally good analog performance prior to the ADC.

What's ADC again?

 

[jonwienke]

Analog-to-Digital Converter.

 

[doctordialtone]

Analog to Digital Conversion

 

[rs16]

Sorry if this is an elementary question, but if a signal was digital, why would it have to be converted from analog first? (Or would it?)

For example, my local police are P25 digital and everything else here is analog.

 

[jonwienke]

Because digital signals are encoded in analog RF, which has to be extracted from analog background noise on the receiving end.

Just like recording good quality digital audio requires a good quality analog front end to feed the audio ADC. The quality of the digital audio cannot be better than the quality of the analog audio being digitized.

 

[rs16]

Thanks for the clarification, Jon. Glad you're back to help!