I currently have the BC125AT and love it but I'm looking for an upgrade. I'm unable to listen to state patrol and channels that are in a hex or decimal format. From my research both of the scanners should be able to pick up those kind of channels. I'm having a hard time deciding which one to buy. The HomePatrol-2 looks older but it has a record feature that would be useful. The BCD536HP seems to have similiar features and looks more modern. Does anyone here have any advice?
Uniden HomePatrol-2 vs. BCD536HP
- Thread starter peeeeeta
- Start date
- Status
I can’t comment on the HP-2 as I have never owned one. I do have a 536 and the portable 436. Both are very capable scanners and with software are easy to customize for your listening habits. They can also be programmed using zip code and the X36’s can work from GPS. You don’t say where you are from so hard to make a clearer suggestion. If the systems you wish to monitor have simulcast broadcasts you may want to look at an SDS model. They are designed to work in that environment.
In my view at it, SDS200 > BCD536HP > HP2. I have a 536 and a 200 and both are good units. The 536 does suffer from simulcast distortion for the P25 system that covers my home county, but does fine with P25 systems in neighboring counties. The 200 addresses the simulcast issue for me.
Without knowing your location, it's hard to make a more specific suggestion.
Like jtwalker, I have both the HP-2 and a 536HP, plus an SDS200. If you are in a simulcast area, the SDS200 is your best choice. The 536HP would be the second choice, with the HP-2 the last. While the large, touch screen display is easy to read as well as use, the HP-2 does the worst on Simulcast. The 536HP is better, but does not match the SDS200.
Even if you are not in a simulcast area, I'd still recommend the 536HP over the HP-2. It's a newer design, and has several things the HP-2 does not. The 536HP can get a paid upgrade to allow reception of DMR and NXDN systems (if you have any of interest in your area). You can also use Quick keys to toggle systems or departments on and off easily. You can only do that on the HP-2 by stopping the scanner on (or manually scrolling to) the system or department you want to include or exclude from scanning. While the HP-2 is not deaf, the 536HP a better job receiving weaker signals.
Both the HP-2, as well as the 536HP, can be programmed with Sentinel (there is a different version for each). But the 536HP can also be programmed manually through the keypad. You cannot do that on the HP-2 unless you purchase the Extreme Upgrade ($50).
All three of these scanners have recording availability, both replay as well as recording all transmissions received.
palmerjrusa
Member
I own 536/436 scanners and a HP-2 (just back from Uniden for repair under warranty).
I like both scanners, it all depends on your location and individual preferences.
The 436/536 scanners have a steeper learning curve to exploit their full potential.
Have you considered the 436, I think that's essentially a 536 in a portable package?
The HomePatrol is not upgradeable to decode NXDN or DMR. It is also Uniden's poorest performer (among models I've tested) for receiving simulcast.
The x36 models have a somewhat less intuitive user interface, but have more programming flexibility and better receivers. They are noticeably better with simulcast than the HomePatrol, but still far from perfect there.
The SDS models program pretty much identically to the x36 models, but they have much better displays--color, more detailed, better contrast, much easier to read. They are more susceptible in some circumstances to adjacent channel interference than the x36 models, but they also have filter settings that eliminate such interference in most cases. They also have the best simulcast performance--they don't struggle with it at all the way other scanners do. They are also the most expensive.
Knowing which is "best" requires more info about location and which systems are to be monitored.
The x36 models have a somewhat less intuitive user interface, but have more programming flexibility and better receivers. They are noticeably better with simulcast than the HomePatrol, but still far from perfect there.
The SDS models program pretty much identically to the x36 models, but they have much better displays--color, more detailed, better contrast, much easier to read. They are more susceptible in some circumstances to adjacent channel interference than the x36 models, but they also have filter settings that eliminate such interference in most cases. They also have the best simulcast performance--they don't struggle with it at all the way other scanners do. They are also the most expensive.
Knowing which is "best" requires more info about location and which systems are to be monitored.
palmerjrusa
Member
I also own the SDS100/200 scanners, optimum performance with those units is highly dependent on getting the filter settings right (whatever they're actually doing) and can make the difference between no reception and 100% readability.
If money was an issue, there were no simulcast problems, and I had to choose only one scanner I'd go for the BCD436HP since it can used as a base and mobile unit.
If money was an issue, there were no simulcast problems, and I had to choose only one scanner I'd go for the BCD436HP since it can used as a base and mobile unit.
Last edited:
Ubbe
Member
The receiver chip are designed for satellite reception that has 7Mhz or wider signals and not really doing well at more narrow signals that are received with scanners. The filter has in its Off setting a wide window like 5Mhz below and abow the frequency you are monitoring and the receiver will be affected negativly by any strong signal within that +/-5Mhz window.
What filter settings do are that it's shifting that window to either side of the frequency in different amounts to try and block out a frequency that are interfering with your reception. The Normal setting are a high pass filter setting that moves the filter uppwards in frequency and let all frequencies 10MHz above your monitored frequency to pass thru and hopefully there will be no strong signals there. It will then also block all frequencies that are lower in frequency and hopefully the interfering signal are below your monitored frequency.
If the interfering signal are above your monitored frequency you would insted choose the Invert filter setting.
If you have several interfering signals that might be both above and below your frequency then a Wide setting might help as those only shift the filter half ways, like 7,5Mhz in one direction and 2,5Mhz in the other direction.
There are different mixing products, that are unwanted, within the receiver chip and choosing IFX to a frequency will change the frequency of those mixing products and move a received signal that actually are transmitted at another frequency to some other place in the spectrum that hopefully will not be heard or interfere with reception. It's sometimes needed to use both IFX and filter settings to to try and reduce any negative effects from nearby strong transmitters and sometimes that doesn't help and you have to use the attenuator setting.
There's also an automatic gain controller that reduces the gain in the receiver to keep it from overloading from too strong signals. That AGC works independent of the filters and directly at the front end of the receiver and are more than +/-7MHz wide, that suits broadbanded satellite signals but not so much 25KHz narrow 2-way radio signals, that makes a SDS scanner loose sensitivity if it sees a strong signal withing that frequency range.
/Ubbe
hi, is your setting changes only for 800/900 is does it help in uhf?
palmerjrusa
Member
You mean VHF?
palmerjrusa
Member
When I first got my SDS100 I was surprised it appeared to be deaf with some systems whose signal was weak that my 436 easily handled.
Playing around with the filter settings I discovered the "wide-Invert" setting appeared to help the most = the difference between no reception and 100% readability.
I use my SDS100 with the Remtronix antenna designed for the SDS100.
Playing around with the filter settings I discovered the "wide-Invert" setting appeared to help the most = the difference between no reception and 100% readability.
I use my SDS100 with the Remtronix antenna designed for the SDS100.
palmerjrusa
Member
I don't really monitor much below 300 MHz on my SDS100. Not sure if the filter settings make any difference in the VHF part of the spectrum (30 - 300 MHz). They might, just don't know.
Ubbe
Member
Filter settings, as well as IFX and attenuation, are effective in all frequency bands. It only depends of where the interfering frequencies are.
/Ubbe
/Ubbe
When you say State Patrol are you talking about New Jersey SP? I would go for a 536, though it may not do very well on the newer trunked system in Jersey. It will do fine on the analog.
palmerjrusa
Member
Mostly the Massachusetts State Patrol and New York State Patrol.
Spend the money on a SDS 200. Had a 436, which is a great scanner, but the 200 does allot better job. A new 536 is only a little more the 100 bucks new. Used ones, you take a chance.
Wow, I guess I'm lucky that I've never had to use / change filters at all on the SDS100 I used to own, or the current SDS200s. It's weird because the 700/800 spectrum in the metro area that I live is literally saturated with systems, and I would have expected to have adjacent channel issues, but I don't. They also do well on the Virginia statewide system on VHF that literally booms outside its borders, lol.
My 436 did not do so well on our local SmartZone hybrid analog/digital simulcast system, but the 536 does much better. It even works well on our statewide P25P2 system - but that might have to do with a bit of building attenuation. My office is about .5 miles from the nearest subsite of a simulcast cell, and the system has tower spacing to support portable on-street performance, and limited in-building performance. It we had more / more closely spaced towers, the 536 probably could not handle the multiple signals.
- Status
