BCD436HP/BCD536HP: The Unexplained Experience

[Boatanchor]

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.

Why does the term 'Silk purse out of a sows ear' keep coming to mind when I read posts like these?

It's just becoming farcical if you ask me. Six months post the release date and Uniden seem to be going around in circles chasing their tails on these scanners.

 

[Ghstwolf62]

Well hit Roanoke this weekend.

Decode of the Roanoke P25 was greatly improved even on standard settings. Almost perfect. EDACS system seemed not as good but mixed mode a county away was better and handled quite well. Also did mixed mode rangers really well going back and forth between modes easily and without problem.

Overall pleased with it so far at the earlier FW setting. Anymore word on best ones to go for? I know a couple were comparing 1.02.03 with 1.0.1 and 1.0.0

Still shocked at noticeable difference which I really didn't expect.

 

[sibbley]

Overall pleased with it so far at the earlier FW setting. Anymore word on best ones to go for? I know a couple were comparing 1.02.03 with 1.0.1 and 1.0.0

Still shocked at noticeable difference which I really didn't expect.

1.00.00 seems to be the best VHF - UHF reception I've found, but digital decode suffers some. It's also the loudest firmware I've tried. It also has some issues with conventional P25 searching. It will hang longer on the department with the P25 conventional search channels I'm using to search for NAC.

I've been sticking with 1.02.03, seems to be the best compromise for my area.

 

[davidjacobs2012]

Agreed on 1.02.03... Uniden needs to figure out how to fix problems without causing more problems (commonly seen)

 

[sibbley]

Let's go back to firmware version 1.03.00 for a few minutes. How does the 436HP with this firmware perform while using a mobile or outside fixed antenna?

While out and about (outside the Lehigh Vallery), the radio seems to perform very well (all bands). But, I'm using a mobile antenna. I have yet to actually get out of my vehicle to see what things are like with the duck. Even inside the valley (home area), it seems to do pretty well on VHF/UHF while hooked up to a mobile antenna. I don't have a fixed outside antenna to experiment with.

My main concern is the fact that I bought a handheld unit. I wanted to be able to have the radio with me using a duck. If I wanted a mobile or desktop, I would have bought the 536HP.

On to another concern. I spent almost $200 in duck antenna purchases to find a perfect match to the radio to improve reception. Not all this money was spent on just the 436, it includes antennas purchased for my 346XT, 396XT, PSR-800, and 125AT. All of which I was able to find almost a perfect match antenna for each radio.

The 436, not 1 duck antenna helps improve reception. Yes, if I use an RH77 things are better, but not near what that antenna does for all the other scanners listed. It just seems to me, the larger the antenna, the better the ground plain, the better the 436 receives. I understand that this is not a revelation, it's how things are supposed to work.

I can't understand why a handheld scanner would require a mobile antenna or a 16" antenna to be able to receive frequencies I can grab with a 6" duck on my other radios. Honestly, this situation is making me nuts!

I'm starting to wonder if this issue can be addressed with a firmware upgrade. Yes, changing the firmware to an earlier version helps. But it's still not my 396XT!

Why did I spend $500 on this radio?

Sorry for rambling. I think I'm spending too much time on this!

 

[K2KOH]

You are correct. I monitor NYSEG's P25 system. Reception in the house with the duck is marginal whereas my 396T works no problem. I reverted back to 1.02.03 and it does better on NYSEG. It seems more sensitive with the earlier firmware.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bee]

mine is 2.02 04 is this one considered ok-- I have had no probems at this time

 

[Ghstwolf62]

1.00.00 seems to be the best VHF - UHF reception I've found, but digital decode suffers some. It's also the loudest firmware I've tried. It also has some issues with conventional P25 searching. It will hang longer on the department with the P25 conventional search channels I'm using to search for NAC.

I've been sticking with 1.02.03, seems to be the best compromise for my area.

Thanks for the reply. Everything out near my home is VHF or UHF including two P25 trunking systems.

That would make it interesting. It'll pick it up better but might have decode issues.

Have to check it out

Thanks again.

 

[Ghstwolf62]

mine is 2.02 04 is this one considered ok-- I have had no probems at this time

How did you get that? Its way past what has been released as far as I know.

 

[policefreak]

I honestly haven't noticed any improvement with the 1.02.03 firmware. I came from 1.02.07. I listen to my local 700/800 MHz P25 Phase 2 system. Multiple towers approximately 5 miles away.Reception is fair on both firmwares but some cutting out on the weaker frequencies where I only get 1-2 bars. That has maybe gotten a bit worse on 1.02.03. The other system is a T-Band Mot Type 2 digital system with CAI audio. Its the next county over with 1 site approx 13 miles away. Both firnwares using a mobile antenna I get 95% decode with very occasional cut outs. The other site is about 8 miles away but reception is very inconsistent and on the mobile antenna gets about 80% decode with cutouts on both firmwares. However on the portable antenna i get some motorboating in addition to the cutouts on the 1.02.03. I did not get that using 1.02.07 but with that version it was harder to receive control channel. Please note all of these observations were made trying multiple digital decode threshold levels. Overall I believe the 1.02.03 firmware is slightly more sensitive in the T Band and 800 MHz but it seems to scan even slower than the 1.02.07 and cannot track conventional P25 at all due to delay. This is NOT the scanner I feel I started out with which was spot on at receiving P25. Next I will be trying 1.00.00.

 

[SCPD]

yes but

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!

What firmware?

 

[K2KOH]

I reverted to 1.02.03. The 436 has done a great job since.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SCPD]

Yes

1.00.00 seems to be the best VHF - UHF reception I've found, but digital decode suffers some. It's also the loudest firmware I've tried. It also has some issues with conventional P25 searching. It will hang longer on the department with the P25 conventional search channels I'm using to search for NAC.

I've been sticking with 1.02.03, seems to be the best compromise for my area.

Tried going to 1.02.03 worse on my systems here in NJ,I like 1.01.00
how weird I never thought I'd be going backwards

 

[K2KOH]

I haven't tried it down on a phase 2 system yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[policefreak]

K2cool, what area are you from and what do you monitor with the 436?

 

[sibbley]

I honestly haven't noticed any improvement with the 1.02.03 firmware. I came from 1.02.07. I listen to my local 700/800 MHz P25 Phase 2 system. Multiple towers approximately 5 miles away.Reception is fair on both firmwares but some cutting out on the weaker frequencies where I only get 1-2 bars. That has maybe gotten a bit worse on 1.02.03. The other system is a T-Band Mot Type 2 digital system with CAI audio. Its the next county over with 1 site approx 13 miles away. Both firnwares using a mobile antenna I get 95% decode with very occasional cut outs. The other site is about 8 miles away but reception is very inconsistent and on the mobile antenna gets about 80% decode with cutouts on both firmwares. However on the portable antenna i get some motorboating in addition to the cutouts on the 1.02.03. I did not get that using 1.02.07 but with that version it was harder to receive control channel. Please note all of these observations were made trying multiple digital decode threshold levels. Overall I believe the 1.02.03 firmware is slightly more sensitive in the T Band and 800 MHz but it seems to scan even slower than the 1.02.07 and cannot track conventional P25 at all due to delay. This is NOT the scanner I feel I started out with which was spot on at receiving P25. Next I will be trying 1.00.00.

I think 1.03.00 on the 436 was just ducky for P25. I never really had issues with the Bethlehem system or New Jersey's 700mhz system. Bucks was a bit of a challenge for me with a duck antenna, but when I attached the mobile it was fine. I really do believe that the 436 is much better as a digital scanner, my problems with it are solely conventional analog systems (VHF and UHF).

It seems like we all need a different firmware depending on area. Some have great luck with 1.02.03, some with 1.02.07, and some have no complaints with the latest firmware. I have found that 1.03.00 works good when I test with a mobile antenna (actually 3 mobiles). But this is a handheld unit not a mobile. If I can get better VHF/UHF reception from my 396xt with a 6" duck, I feel I should get the same results or better with the 436.

Just a note. I have been playing around with different firmware versions for a while now. I just had my SD card become corrupt on Saturday. I turned the radio off in the afternoon, and when I went to turn it back on later in the evening, bam, SD card corrupt message. I don't know if the firmware changes caused this to happen after a while of writing and re-writing them. All I can say is I never had the SD card trouble before Saturday. Version of firmware at the time of corruption was 1.03.00, I had been testing with mobile antennas on Saturday.

Never did get my SD card to work again.

 

[jonwienke]

Have you tried putting it in a computer and reformatting it?

 

[sibbley]

Have you tried putting it in a computer and reformatting it?

Tried the computer sd card slot, bought a card reader, tried several formatting softwares, and even gave the card to our IT guy at work. It's toast!

Moved on and bought a new card.

 

[lynzoid]

Some pretty good info in this thread.
When i got my 436 just a week ago, i compared it to my old trusty PSR500, and PSR outperformed 436 on p25 trunk system. That baffled me.
Now i reverted to 1.02.07 and testing.

 

[jonwienke]

Sibbley, if you can't reformat the card in Windows and normal utilities like CHKDSK don't work, it's a bad card, not a scanner problem.

It is possible to write invalid data to the card and corrupt or alter the FAT such that you have to reformat the card to use it, but that doesn't physically damage the card. I had one incident where I was overwriting all of the favorites from Sentinel to a card in my laptop card reader, an error occurred, and I had to run CHKDSK to correct the error, and then re-write the data from Sentinel to the card.