BCD436HP/BCD536HP: The Unexplained Experience

[troymail]

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

See post # 7 above

FW - OpenUniden

and a snippet of the notes with the post:

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.

 

[XTS3000]

Could one create a seperate folder on the SD card with all firmware builds, and load them from any computer that has a SD slot? Or would an extra folder on the SD card confuse the 436HP.

 

[troymail]

Could one create a seperate folder on the SD card with all firmware builds, and load them from any computer that has a SD slot? Or would an extra folder on the SD card confuse the 436HP.

I just created a folder inside the firmware folder called VERSIONS and another folder at the top level on the card called FW-VERSIONS and put 4-5 versions and a text file in each of those two folders. Powered the radio up - no issues, no attempt to upgrade. Currently running 1.00.00

 

[sibbley]

I just created a folder inside the firmware folder called VERSIONS and another folder at the top level on the card called FW-VERSIONS and put 4-5 versions and a text file in each of those two folders. Powered the radio up - no issues, no attempt to upgrade. Currently running 1.00.00

Any negative issues with version 1.00.00? Would like to see Paul jump in and explain some of this. Clearly this radio can be better than it is at 1.03.00.

 

[troymail]

Any negative issues with version 1.00.00? Would like to see Paul jump in and explain some of this. Clearly this radio can be better than it is at 1.03.00.

So far the only noticeable issue is occasional squelch tail on analog 800 trunking. I have some other things I've seen with departments/sites being enabled but I think that might be left over from my other tests with regard to my post about the site/department bugs (see Uniden bug forum)

I am also watching/testing the backlight settings. On the two latest versions, it doesn't seem to work right. Sometimes I've seen the backlight come on an stay on for unknown reasons and other times it doesn't come on as expected. Right now, I have all settings (squelch, button press) set to 10 seconds to see what happens. It seems to be behaving with this version.

Also, although I'm sure it's a problem given the number of people stating it, I haven't really noticed the volume issues others have reported either but I haven't figured out a good way to really test/confirm that.

 

[signal500]

BCD436HP The Unexplained Experience

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.

I agree. I rolled back to 1.02.03 and what a difference! Louder audio, better sensitivity on all bands and modes including P25. I didn't think I would notice much of a change, but wow.

 

[troymail]

Correction on my earlier post - I was running 1.01.00 vs. 1.00.00 -- looks like that version has a problem honoring some settings from Sentinel - numerous departments enabled that I didn't have enabled in my programming.

Based on Doug's note above, I just moved to 1.02.03 to see what happens.

 

[sibbley]

Correction on my earlier post - I was running 1.01.00 vs. 1.00.00 -- looks like that version has a problem honoring some settings from Sentinel - numerous departments enabled that I didn't have enabled in my programming.

Based on Doug's note above, I just moved to 1.02.03 to see what happens.

Oh. I went back to 1.00.00 based on your earlier post to see what happens. Liking this alot. Louder volume, better reception, and digital audio seems really good. I've been on this version for an hour or so, haven't noticed any departments enabled that I didn't enable myself.

I live in a brick ranch, and 436 reception on weak signals in the house is poor at best. But, on this version with the RH77 or austin condor, I'm hearing UHF and VHF High that I've never heard in the house. I'm even getting 3-4 bars on a P-25 conventional channel I could never pick up with the 436. It's loud and clear.

Haven't noticed any squelch tail yet either. I'm also scanning an 800 analog EDACS system.

I think I'll stay here for a few days and see how things go.

 

[troymail]

It would be nice to have a list of what was "fixed" in each of these versions.

 

[desert-cheetah]

I never updated to the newer firmware. I had read about it affecting sensitivity before buying mine so I've just left it with the factory firmware.

 

[AA6IO]

Troymail, Sibbley, and other thread members
Thank you very much. Rolled back my firmware per your instructions to 1.02.03 and as Doug says, Wow! The sensitivity difference between the 396XT (was better) vs 436HP (ver. 1.03.00) now seems to have diminished, if not disappeared. Now the sensitivity on 436HP is what I remember before the update to 1.03.00. Don't know what the engineers did with FW 1.03.00 in terms of sensitivity, but I will take a bit of squelch tail for time being to get back the sensitivity. Hope Uniden addresses this in a future FW update. Thanks everyone.
Steve AA6IO

 

[Boatanchor]

Troymail, Sibbley, and other thread members
Thank you very much. Rolled back my firmware per your instructions to 1.02.03 and as Doug says, Wow! The sensitivity difference between the 396XT (was better) vs 436HP (ver. 1.03.00) now seems to have diminished, if not disappeared. Now the sensitivity on 436HP is what I remember before the update to 1.03.00. Don't know what the engineers did with FW 1.03.00 in terms of sensitivity, but I will take a bit of squelch tail for time being to get back the sensitivity. Hope Uniden addresses this in a future FW update. Thanks everyone.
Steve AA6IO

That's just weird..

I could maybe understand a firmware update affecting digital decode performance but not analogue sensitivity too. Something 'funky' appears to be going on in the RF/IF stages

Is 1.03.00 selecting the wrong front end bandpass filters?

 

[AA6IO]

Boatanchor
I don't understand it at all. But what others report on this thread, I experience the same thing. Better analog sensitivity. Weak weather stations I was referring to in previous posts, and weaker high VHF analog stations, just coming in better. I am not talking about 10 or 20 dB. Perhaps just 2 to 4 Db, But enough that its a big improvement. Was a CW DXer for years as a teenager (50 years ago), and as you know, every little bit helps. The weak Wx and VHF analog that were in noise, were just enough above that I could hear them, and more importantly, from a scanner perspective, that with low squelch of 1 or 2, they would break through.
I also noticed the faster scanning speed and louder audio overall. All I know is that this version 1.02.03 is what I first started with, thought the 436HP was worth the money, then went to 1.03.00, and was disappointed. Now I feel like I have the 436HP that I started with again. What I would like to see Uniden do is get some new firmware and get everything optimized. But who knows. For now, if the 436HP hears as well, or nearly as well as the 396XT, then I feel it is worth the money with the extra features, especially the record ability, which is important to me. Means I can take it on my cruise next week with wife, park it in the room, play blackjack, and come back and listen. That's a big advantage of the new x36HPs, in my opinion.
Steve AA6IO

 

[JamesO]

Agree that likely something with bandpass filtering instructions must have changed if this is the case and/or something with the AGC settings which nobody understands a) How the AGC works, b) If the AGC works, c) What the AGC settings do, d) How to set up the AGC as a baseline starting point. I am really surprised nobody has called Uniden out on the AGC since at least the x96 platform. There is nothing I have found documented how the AGC functions and what each setting is attempting to change or influence.

We also really need to understand that since this is "firmware" that I can guarantee you that NOBODY at Uniden or probably any other companies ever bothers to check the RF performance after firmware updates as in their mind the firmware could not change the RF performance. But this is totally untrue, all it takes is a simple miscue in the baseline instructions and/or someone thinks something is backwards, makes a change, then after a lot of investigation realize there was confusion between the hardware design and switching logic.

If someone would put the RF section though the tests on a service monitor both before and after firmware changes, it should be dead obvious if something has changed.

This is the problem these days, everyone assumes to the group knows what they are doing and nobody cross checks each other. Just sloppy, sloppy business these days.

Also there is usually only 1 guy doing firmware and he likely has no understanding of RF. An nobody dares challenge him as if you piss him off and he walks out the door you are screwed. Too many companies coddle the firmware folks as nobody really understands this part of the products.

I have worked with and managed some outstanding firmware guys and gals, I have also sent many that thought they were untouchable and did not listen to the curb. Few good firmware folks in the world and most of them have hardware backgrounds.

 

[troymail]

Also there is usually only 1 guy doing firmware and he likely has no understanding of RF. An nobody dares challenge him as if you piss him off and he walks out the door you are screwed. Too many companies coddle the firmware folks as nobody really understands this part of the products..

I've been wondering if this is playing a roll in the bad changes in the last releases....and the reason we haven't seen any new ones.....

 

[JamesO]

I've been wondering if this is playing a roll in the bad changes in the last releases....and the reason we haven't seen any new ones.....

Also with a single person doing the firmware, it is now late June/early July, this person probably wanted/scheduled vacation, so you do not want a big firmware release when this person is just planning or is on vacation. What happens when there are issues.

I would hope someone takes the initiative and starts to put these radios through RF testing with each firmware release to be able to give a Go/No Go approval.

This next big firmware release with the Siren App will need all hands on deck both in the firmware/software side of the house, but also Customer Circus will need to be fully staffed.

This is going to be a big step for Uniden and they better be prepared for the onslaught of calls and issues and be prepared to address them otherwise they will be going down in flames.

The funny part is does anyone at Uniden understand what is about to happen or are they sitting there clueless as to what level of complexity is about to land in their laps??

I hope for everyone's sake that Uniden is prepared and ready to make this a clean roll out. Otherwise we here in the Uniden Forum will be doing most of the first line support for the networking issues that the new firmware will bring upon everyone.

I think I may revise my Siren App/new firmware launch to Sept from July???

We will see it I am close in my estimate.

 

[XTS3000]

Both x36HP's have been out for almost 7 months and no real headway or updates on any features promised.

I for one, am completely dissatisfied with Uniden approach to these BIG issues/missing feature/poor performance with their "flagship" scanners.

Not to add fuel to the flame, but there are numerous small bugs that need addressing, but at this point in time, it's moot to even bring up the small bugs.

Now every time I carefully remove the batteries to swap them, I always get a corrupt card message. Removing and reseating the card fixes the problem. Things only seem to be going downhill and fast.

Glad I kept my 396XT.

 

[sibbley]

I have question, I'm not sure how these things work. If I would take the 436 to a radio shop, can they measure the sensitivity before and after a firmware change? I really think something needs to be done to prove our point.

 

[JamesO]

I have question, I'm not sure how these things work. If I would take the 436 to a radio shop, can they measure the sensitivity before and after a firmware change? I really think something needs to be done to prove our point.

Yes.

The best way is to use the Uniden spec frequencies/range. If true measurements can be made, this is best, if not test to full quieting and make a matrix of before and after measurements to include the dB differential between the firmwares at each test point.

Then my approach has always been to provide comments and details to the manufacturer. They design and build the item. I tell them I found something out of line and I expect them to either confirm or disprove my findings. This way "they", the manufacturer needs to basically run the same tests that I did and likely the same anomaly will be exposed.

Then I tell the manufacturer corrective actions need to be taken.

I was in the Satcom industry for MANY years. I had to take on antenna, feed, radio and modem vendors on a daily basis. Our company was the #2-#3 purchaser of many vendors products. I identified and had corrected MANY, MANY issues with antennas, feeds, radios and modems. I even uncovered problems that stopped worldwide shipment of some products for months while corrections were made. I even was able to institute improvements in products that benefited both our company and other end users. Everything from packaging, instructions, to performance improvements.

Its not that companies want to do a bad job, its just many times details fall into the cracks and there is nobody taking a "global" view on how something like a firmware change could possibly impact the RF performance of a device, when the idea is the RF performance is dictated by the design and hardware and not the firmware. But a lot of things can be impacted by the firmware to include filter switching, synthesizer stepping and so on.

It's a bit harder in this situation when you are dealing with a consumer electronics group and you are just some small person on the outside, but the crowdsourcing power of the Internet and Forums can get peoples attention these days. Yes there are plenty or whiners and complainers, however, if someone has access to some sort of test equipment (unfortunately I do not any more, used to have plenty of HP test equipment that went up to 20 GHz that I played with all the time!) and can run even a rudimentary test that can do a A-B comparison, even if only subjective without industry measurements, I think this would/should be good enough to get someones attention.

 

[troymail]

Noticed some things now with 1.02.03 related to plug/unplug of external power. Last night when I plugged the radio in, it "hung" on a system as if I hit the system HOLD key (I didn't and it didn't display HOLD). Today, when I unplugged the radio the backlight stayed on for no reason.

Don't know if these are specific to this version of the firmware.