BCD436HP/BCD536HP: The Unexplained Experience

[Chris45]

Since the time that the BCD436HP first shipped out, I have had the opportunity to work with two of these scanners together. One has been upgraded with the firmware updates and the other has not.

Uniden told us the factory firmware that came with the scanner is not supported. But when you think about any quality control and testing of the scanners prior to sale, this firmware was used. Some owners indicated their findings that the service quality of the scanner degraded in some aspects with the firmware updates. This has been dismissed as not accurate. So I cannot explain why the scanner with the upgraded firmware is performing far worse that the scanner with no firmware upgrades. My monitoring location and systems monitored have remained constant. So here it is. Something that is inaccurate and cannot be, but is, and cannot be explained. I am very pleased with the scanner performance without firmware upgrades.

 

[AA6IO]

My experience exactly with my BCD436HP, especially sensitivity. Still like the scanner, but now find myself going back to the 396XT for some weaker conventional and trunk sites. Hope everthing improves with further updates.
Steve AA6IO

 

[LIScanner101]

Did Uniden test the latest firmware update on several scanners to make sure that it had no effect on sensitivity? That seems like a fairly basic test.

 

[whsbuss]

Did Uniden test the latest firmware update on several scanners to make sure that it had no effect on sensitivity? That seems like a fairly basic test.

Most likely they only tested the proposed fixes. I doubt they even considered an overall test.

 

[LIScanner101]

Most likely they only tested the proposed fixes. I doubt they even considered an overall test.

I find it hard to believe that overall radio functionality would not be tested after a firmware upgrade. It just seems like such a basic performance characteristic. How else to verify if there are no deleterious effects?

 

[hopeful7]

can I go back to the earlier firmware? should I?

Since the time that the BCD436HP first shipped out, I have had the opportunity to work with two of these scanners together. One has been upgraded with the firmware updates and the other has not.

Uniden told us the factory firmware that came with the scanner is not supported. But when you think about any quality control and testing of the scanners prior to sale, this firmware was used. Some owners indicated their findings that the service quality of the scanner degraded in some aspects with the firmware updates. This has been dismissed as not accurate. So I cannot explain why the scanner with the upgraded firmware is performing far worse that the scanner with no firmware upgrades. My monitoring location and systems monitored have remained constant. So here it is. Something that is inaccurate and cannot be, but is, and cannot be explained. I am very pleased with the scanner performance without firmware upgrades.

"I noticed that the battery life used to be longer with the firmware that came with the scanner. I cant make side by side comparisions because I dont have a non upgraded scanner. Is it possible to put the earlier firmware back into the scanner... also what kind of changes are being noticed for sensitivity...digital,,,analogue...etc... I have a signal generator HP8920A that I can use to test things... I upgraded the firmware at a fellow ham's recommondation. Have you made any more comparisions between scanners with the new firmware and are you still noticing this phenomenon. Thinking of buying a whole new scanner to get the original performance. Marc, .... email is memarcecker@gmail.com"

 

[sibbley]

Go to FW - OpenUniden to find the firmware for the 436 and 536. Download the firmware you want to try. Go to "mass storage" mode on the scanner. Open the file on the SD card and open the file marked "firmware". Copy the downloaded firmware version into this folder. Then use the scanner button to turn on the scanner. The firmware will load and reboot the scanner. Now you have the older firmware version.

Good luck!

I've just reverted back to 1.02.03. I wanted to see if made a difference. So far it seems to have made reception better. I've only been back on this version for a few hours.

 

[sibbley]

Anybody else try reverting to a previous firmware? I've had good results going back to 1.02.03. I'm using the 436HP.

 

[DSC45]

Reverting to older firmware update

How do you revert back to previous firmware once you have loaded current firmware?

 

[sibbley]

How do you revert back to previous firmware once you have loaded current firmware?

See post number 7...

 

[DSC45]

Thank You! I don't know how I missed it!

 

[sibbley]

Maybe if we get enough folks to try this and report their results, Uniden will listen.

 

[SCPD]

I'm afraid I have to agree. I was reluctant to try and roll back but I did back to 1.02.03 and find sensitivity and audio quality is improved. I have not noticed any ill effects. I will report back if I do.

 

[sibbley]

I think the volume is louder too. I'm actually liking the 436HP much more since I rolled back.

 

[K2KOH]

The jury is still out with P25, but I will say the volume is louder, and it is tracking the Westchester County TRS a lot better since I reverted back to the old firmware. Taking a trip around NYS this week, so I'll have the chance to see how it does.

 

[sibbley]

I went back to 1.01.00 last night. The volume gets even louder, and the conventional analog reception gets even better. I have noticed a small amount of squelch tail on some transmissions. It sounds like there is some degradation of the audio quality on P25 with this version.

Upman, what was done between 1.01.00 and 1.02.03 that would have affected the volume. I have my radio now set to 1 with an offset of +3. Since I reverted back to 1.01.00, it sounds like the volume is set to 5. There is a huge difference.

 

[sibbley]

So 1.01.00 gives me major squelch tailing on certain frequencies (UHF T). I went back to 1.02.03 this morning. This version seems to be the best for my area.

 

[K2KOH]

As I sit in my hotel upstate near the Canadian border, I am listening to the Bell FleetNet - Ontario Provincial Government Zone 2 Trunking System, Southeast Zone, Ontario - Scanner Frequencies and the 436 is doing a great job with it!

 

[Ghstwolf62]

Even though I didn't think it would make a difference I decided to try it and 1.02.03 shocked me by being much better on several levels including picking up P25 trunked traffic better and quicker. I don't seem to miss anything anymore and it seems to hit it faster too. On latest version it often seemed to skip traffic. A 9.95 SDR thingy plus DSD+ was doing a better job on STARS than it was.

I have to say maybe Uniden should take a closer look at this. I've been really happy with this scanner but even I was surprised with the difference it made to switch back. I hope to hit Roanoke this weekend and see what it does on the Roanoke system which it had trouble with before.

 

[AA6IO]

Can someone please tell me how to switch back to a previous version. I would love to go back from my 1.03.00. Did not know this was possible.
Thank you.
Steve AA6IO