Sensitivity of current scanners?

[PJH]

I own both a 9000 and a 780. I have also used a 796 at work.

To me at least, it seems like none of the scanners made after the 9000 are as sensitive. Any one have any real hard data or tests to compare with the 9000?

I don't mind paying some $$ for a new scanner since I took the 9000 to work, but I don't want to get hosed in buying a new one and end up with the same performance as my 780.

 

[LarrySC]

Some ant's work better with certain scanners. The 9000 is very forgiving. I had several 9000's. My wife still has hers next to her easy chair. Ant is a 56" wire clipped to top of curtain. Works like a champ. I have 796 mobile on BMAXscan1000 and use Channel Master 5094-A on a pair of 780's. The 2096's work good on a MAXscan1000 and MBS base adp. It's all test and re-test. Thats why people have antenna farms. Good Luck, Larry

 

[PJH]

Lets put it this way...

My 780 at the house here is hooked up to a new Diamond D130J at about 20ft above the house (on a 1250 elevation near the top of the hill). This is the 2nd external antenna that I have used with it.

This does not pick up the NJSP TRS.

My Astro Saber in my hand in the driveway will.

The old school Radio Shack scanner that has to be close to 15 years old with a little plug in antenna sitting near the floor of my garage hears things that the 780 never does on low band.

Either the scanner is way off with some stuff or there is just something inherantly wrong. The 796D was better, but not as strong as the 9000.

 

[Voyager]

I own both a 9000 and a 780. I have also used a 796 at work.

To me at least, it seems like none of the scanners made after the 9000 are as sensitive. Any one have any real hard data or tests to compare with the 9000?

I don't mind paying some $$ for a new scanner since I took the 9000 to work, but I don't want to get hosed in buying a new one and end up with the same performance as my 780.

Wasn't the 900 designed pre-ECPA 94? That's when the mandated filtering for Cellular frequencies came about. 800 MHz performance has never been the same since. They all went immediately downhill. Many people observed that when it changed. You can't have 30 dB of rejection (or whatever the exact spec is) on one band without adversely affecting the sensitivity of adjacent bands - especially in a low cost receiver (and like it or not, almost all scanners are relatively low cost - even the BCD396T).

As for Motorola HTs, they are designed to receive one band only. You can do one band much better than all bands when it comes to RF circuits, antennas, or the like. They are also much more expensive and can afford (literally) to put better, more selective filters in them.

Joe M.

 

[PJH]

9000 was a post unit...does not rx the cell stuff. I think it was released right after it if I remember, but not 100% sure. All my Motorola stuff is great, and all my older scanners are awesome, but as you said, the newer stuff just doesn't seem to cut it.

 

[Thayne]

I think a lot of the problems with 800 scanners is 2 things: The broad front ends and desensing from so much nexthell and cellular.

Your Lowband point is well taken, IMHO

 

[JGP]

I have a BC780XLT and a BCD396T. Using both on a Scantenna antenna almost 30 feet on a tower, I have to say the 780 has better ears to hear the far out TRS's and UHF conventional frequencies.

I like my BCD396T, but I will miss my BC780XLT after rebanding. I don't know if it is fair to compare a handheld to a mobile base unit. Maybe the new Uniden mobile/base scanner will be better.

Joel

 

[DPD1]

I've never had a problem with the 780... I think every radio is going to have it's good areas and bad areas... Kind of like cars. I wouldn't be surprised if some older ones hear better in some instances though, because they probably used higher quality components back then. And anything like a narrow band Motorola or other commercial type radio, is *always* going to hear better than scanners. I've always wondered how the really big time pro scan radios, like that multi thousand dollar Icom and a few others, do compared to the average scanner. It's really hard making a radio that is both sensitive, extremely wideband, with good rejection. I'm not even sure it's possible. With all the RF that's flying around now days, they might actually be afraid to make something too sensitive. People will return radios that they have interference problems on.

Dave
-DPD Productions - Custom Scanner, MURS, & Ham Antennas-
http://eje.railfan.net/dpdp/