What is the difference between a PRO-106 and a PRO-651?

Status
Not open for further replies.

kc2kth

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
430
Location
Toms River NJ
Only difference is the 106 was made by GRE, the 651 is renamed as its now made by Whistler. Otherwise it is the same radio. Whistler has come out and said as much. Love my 106, like my Uniden 436 just as much, plus the 436 is more capable being a few years newer. Just saying, the 106/651 is a bit long in the tooth - more comparable to Uniden's 396xt I would say.
 

N8IAA

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
7,076
Location
Fortunately, GA
So, they both have all the same features?
Just to reaffirm, yes. The main difference is that Whistler is making it now, and there will be firmware updates for the 1040/1065 scanners.
Even Win500 has been updated to work with the Whistlers.
Larry
 

cherubim

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
379
Location
Sydney, Australia
Has anyone actually compared the two (Pro-106 & Pro-651) side by side for any differences in sensitivity, P25 decoding etc ? I suspect that any differences might be attributed to firmware revisions and method of programming.
 

minasha

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
472
Location
NYC
Can firmware updates to the ws1040 bring in Apco-p25 phase 2 ?
or can it be updated to select mute on encrypted digital transmissions ?
If not, whatever updates they may issue won't amount to a hill of beans.
Certainly not justifying the charge of $250 more than a Pro-651
 

Spitfire8520

I might be completely clueless! =)
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,900
Location
Colorado
Can firmware updates to the ws1040 bring in Apco-p25 phase 2 ?
No, it lacks the hardware to do so.

or can it be updated to select mute on encrypted digital transmissions ?
I (being not at all qualified) think it might be possible, but I don't think it will happen.

If not, whatever updates they may issue won't amount to a hill of beans.
Certainly not justifying the charge of $250 more than a Pro-651
MSRP says $600, but Amazon and Google say differently. Some 3rd party sellers are willing to let it go for $370, which is $20 more than the current price for the Pro-651. Scanner Master has it for $400. You get a programming cable and AC power supply adapter for the difference in price. Both of these would require a separate purchase when buying the Pro-651.
 

robo21

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
38
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Has anyone actually compared the two (Pro-106 & Pro-651) side by side for any differences in sensitivity, P25 decoding etc ? I suspect that any differences might be attributed to firmware revisions and method of programming.
I have both radios. The only difference is that my CPU version on the Pro-651 is 2.8 and the CPU version on the Pro-106 reads 2.1. The GRE PSR-500 updates the CPU to ver. 2.3 so I am looking for the update for the Pro-106.

Side by side, I can hear no difference in the two radios. I love them both. I sold my GRE PSR-500 and bought the 651 new and got a good used 106. They sound every bit as good as the 500 and they should all 3 are basically identical.
 

iMONITOR

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
8,834
The PRO-651, using the newer Radio Shack programming cable, is full duplex. So when you upload/download programming data, it's twice as fast!

My personal experience, the P25 CQPSK simulcast decode on the PRO-651 (and PRO-652), are substantially better, and clearer than what they were on the PRO-106 (and PRO-197) scanners.

For those of you monitoring Macomb County, Michigan, this has been a serious issue. The newer Whistler manufactured, Radio Shack branded scanners perform extremely well on this system!
 

robo21

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
38
Location
Los Angeles, CA
The PRO-651, using the newer Radio Shack programming cable, is full duplex. So when you upload/download programming data, it's twice as fast!

My personal experience, the P25 CQPSK simulcast decode on the PRO-651 (and PRO-652), are substantially better, and clearer than what they were on the PRO-106 (and PRO-197) scanners.

For those of you monitoring Macomb County, Michigan, this has been a serious issue. The newer Whistler manufactured, Radio Shack branded scanners perform extremely well on this system!
Testing my 106 vs my 651 using Arc 500 software with a large file containing 579 conventional objects, 266 Talkgroups and 87 Trunk Systems they both loaded the file nearly at the same rate - it was too close to measure: Approximately 30 seconds to upload and 8 seconds each to download. I detected no significant difference. My Arc 500 is loaded on an Alienware Aurora Windows 7 system.

As far as audio quality, sensitivity, etc, I can't detect any differences here with my programming. I suppose it could differ with different frequencies. But for what its worth this is my experience.

I just noticed, the difference in upload/download speeds must be in the programming cable. I am using my old GRE PSR-500 cable that came with that scanner in 2008. You did qualify your upload/download comparisons with that cable. That is interesting that the cable would make that much difference. I don't think I will be upgrading my cable though, for the small difference in time I can't see spending $33 or so for a newer cable.
 

iMONITOR

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
8,834
Testing my 106 vs my 651 using Arc 500 software with a large file containing 579 conventional objects, 266 Talkgroups and 87 Trunk Systems they both loaded the file nearly at the same rate - it was too close to measure: Approximately 30 seconds to upload and 8 seconds each to download. I detected no significant difference. My Arc 500 is loaded on an Alienware Aurora Windows 7 system.

As far as audio quality, sensitivity, etc, I can't detect any differences here with my programming. I suppose it could differ with different frequencies. But for what its worth this is my experience.

I just noticed, the difference in upload/download speeds must be in the programming cable. I am using my old GRE PSR-500 cable that came with that scanner in 2008. You did qualify your upload/download comparisons with that cable. That is interesting that the cable would make that much difference. I don't think I will be upgrading my cable though, for the small difference in time I can't see spending $33 or so for a newer cable.
I'm surprised the newer programming cable was just as fast with the earlier GRE generation scanners. It doesn't make sense that GRE would manufacture/sell a programming cable that didn't take full advantage of the full duplex capability of the radio's interface, if it exist.

Regarding the performance comparison, it may be unique to P25 simulcast systems, using CQPSK modulation. On Macomb County's system in Michigan, the difference is irrefutable.
 

robo21

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
38
Location
Los Angeles, CA
I'm surprised the newer programming cable was just as fast with the earlier GRE generation scanners. It doesn't make sense that GRE would manufacture/sell a programming cable that didn't take full advantage of the full duplex capability of the radio's interface, if it exist.

Regarding the performance comparison, it may be unique to P25 simulcast systems, using CQPSK modulation. On Macomb County's system in Michigan, the difference is irrefutable.
Sorry if I was unclear, I am using an "ancient" GRE programming cable from 2008 when I purchased my first digital scanner, the PSR-500. This was the cable with teal colored, transparent circuit board case attached. Very cool looking but apparently not as fast as the newer Radio Shack release. I say cool looking because of the colorful teal case and the flashing red and green LED's which can be seen inside while transferring data. It may be a little slower (30 seconds for a big file) but it sure is pretty! LOL

That's awesome, I am glad to hear their are advantages with the newer 651! I hope it didn't sound like I was arguing with you. I was only stating that with the systems I am listening too, in L.A. which is mostly APCO Project 25, I can't hear the difference. I don't know which modulation they use around here. I would love to learn though.

So I might know what to listen for in the future, could you please share in detail how the 651 sounds better in Macomb County with their simulcast system? Also, how would I determine the type of modulation being used on a local system?
 

robo21

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
38
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Can firmware updates to the ws1040 bring in Apco-p25 phase 2 ?
or can it be updated to select mute on encrypted digital transmissions ?
If not, whatever updates they may issue won't amount to a hill of beans.
Certainly not justifying the charge of $250 more than a Pro-651
Minasha brought up an interesting question: Can the 106 or 651 (or others) be set up to mute encrypted digital transmissions? That would be a big bonus for me as the noise drives me nuts - that's a short trip anyway but I would love to mute that racket.
 

jaspence

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
2,370
Location
Michigan
Pro 106.

I ave had one since the first year they were offered. It is about the same generation as the BCD396XT. It limited to Phase I, but that is all you need a sold choice with good audio.
 

iMONITOR

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2006
Messages
8,834
That's awesome, I am glad to hear their are advantages with the newer 651! I hope it didn't sound like I was arguing with you. I was only stating that with the systems I am listening too, in L.A. which is mostly APCO Project 25, I can't hear the difference. I don't know which modulation they use around here. I would love to learn though.

So I might know what to listen for in the future, could you please share in detail how the 651 sounds better in Macomb County with their simulcast system? Also, how would I determine the type of modulation being used on a local system?
No problem, I didn't think you were arguing with me.

Simulcast is when the P25 system is using several antenna sites on the same frequency. Macomb County, Michigan currently has 9 different sites. This creates what is called a multi-path problem. Professional radios can usually tolerate this without distortion. Scanners will often sound like someone is talking under water, or as some say, it sounds like "Donald Duck".
 

N8IAA

Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
7,076
Location
Fortunately, GA
Minasha brought up an interesting question: Can the 106 or 651 (or others) be set up to mute encrypted digital transmissions? That would be a big bonus for me as the noise drives me nuts - that's a short trip anyway but I would love to mute that racket.
Absolutely not. Those scanners never had that option like the 800/1080/1088.
Larry
 

robo21

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2008
Messages
38
Location
Los Angeles, CA
The PRO-651, using the newer Radio Shack programming cable, is full duplex. So when you upload/download programming data, it's twice as fast!
My neighbor lent me his Radio Shack programming cable, Cat. #20-546, there is a sticker on this unit that has 09A11 printed on it. I tried uploading and downloading with this cable. Not only was it not faster than my old GRE cable but it was 5 seconds slower on the upload to scanner (35 seconds) and 2 seconds slower on the download from scanner (10 seconds). Again, this is with a rather large scan list (579 conventional objects, 266 Talkgroups and 87).

Apparently, this must be the older Radio Shack programming cable.

iMONITOR, What is the Cat. # of the cable you are using?


No problem, I didn't think you were arguing with me.

Simulcast is when the P25 system is using several antenna sites on the same frequency. Macomb County, Michigan currently has 9 different sites. This creates what is called a multi-path problem. Professional radios can usually tolerate this without distortion. Scanners will often sound like someone is talking under water, or as some say, it sounds like "Donald Duck".
Thanks for the info, now I will know what the problem is should that ever crop up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top